lex @sllafxella - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

10 months ago

Google’s Search Change: A Dark Path to Knowledge Obscurity and the Case for Free AI or Data Limits As of mid September a chilling shift has emerged in the tech landscape: Google’s recent removal of the “&num=100” parameter from its search URLs, effective since mid-September, caps results at 10 per query, a move that’s quietly dimming our access to the internet’s full breadth of knowledge. This isn’t just a technical tweak—it’s a dark path where knowledge becomes obscured, favoring corporate giants and leaving humanity in the shadows. This change reignites a critical debate: Should AI, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, be free for all as Elon Musk originally intended, or should we limit the human-generated data ChatGPT monetizes? I argue one of these must prevail to prevent a future where information is a privilege, not a right. Let’s explore this looming threat and the solutions. The Hook: Google’s Move Darkens Knowledge Access Google’s decision to eliminate the “&num=100” parameter, which once allowed up to 100 results per page, has created a data bottleneck. This forces AI competitors, researchers, and tools to scrape 10 times more pages or pay for limited APIs, while Google’s own Gemini enjoys unfettered access. The “long tail” of the web—niche forums, older insights, diverse perspectives—is now harder to reach, plunging us into darkness about the full scope of human thought. SEO platforms report 77-88% drops in impressions as scrapes dwindle, [2] and AI models like ChatGPT risk shallower training data. This isn’t progress—it’s a corporate moat that obscures knowledge, leaving us dependent on what Google chooses to illuminate. Option 1: AI Free for Humanity—Musk’s Vision as a Light Elon Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015 to advance AI for the public good, free from greed, a mission that led him to xAI’s Grok with its free tier. His exit in 2018 over commercialization fears aligns with this threat—Google’s move validates his warning about centralized control. A fully free ChatGPT could shine a light, offering equal access to all, especially underserved communities, for education and innovation, countering the shadow cast by paywalled data. Funded by grants or public support, as xAI explores, it preserves knowledge as a shared resource. Option 2: Limiting Human-Generated Data to Break the Darkness If free AI isn’t feasible, we must limit the data ChatGPT harvests from us—posts, searches, articles—that OpenAI monetizes for $4.3 billion in H1 2025. I see this as exploitative: Our “free thinking” fuels their profits, yet we face capped free tiers or premium costs ($20/monthPlus, $200/month Pro). Caps—say, consent-based quotas or scraped content limits—could force OpenAI to seek other sources, reducing reliance on our unpaid contributions. Precedents like Reddit’s $60M+ deals and Cloudflare’s PayPerCrawl show this is practical. Why One Must Be Chosen Google’s change deepens the darkness, creating a knowledge divide where only those who pay see the full picture. A free AI model lifts this veil, while data limits prevent our insights from being commodified in the shadows. The status quo—partial access with monetization—exploits us, aligning with corporate control Musk foresaw. Countering Objections Skeptics say free AI lacks funds—OpenAI’s $13.5 billion losses in 2025 suggest costs are high. But public models thrive with grants, and data limits could pair with fair compensation, balancing innovation with equity. The choice is urgent to avoid a darker digital age. In conclusion, Google’s search change is a warning signal, leading us down a dark path where knowledge is obscured by corporate interests. I believe OpenAI must either go fully free, fulfilling Musk’s intent, or face strict data usage caps to stop monetizing our human output. Both protect the light of knowledge free access empowers all, while limits reclaim our value. At this critical juncture, which path do you choose to keep us from being lost in the dark? Let’s act now.

Nicolai Svane 🦋

@NicooSvane

10 months ago

Google just made a subtle but massive change Last month, Google quietly removed the num=100 search parameter. This means you can no longer view 100 results at once. The default max is now 10. Why does this matter? - Most LLMs (OpenAI, Perplexity, etc.) rely (directly or indirectly) on Google’s indexed results, alongside their own crawlers. - Overnight, their access to the “long tail” of the internet was cut by 90%. The fallout: - According to Search Engine Land, 88% of sites saw a drop in impressions. - Reddit, which often ranks in positions 11–100, saw its LLM citations plummet. Its stock dropped 15%. For startups, this is brutal. Visibility just got harder. Reddit as part of AEO just changed entirely. It’s no longer enough to build a great product you need to crack distribution first. Because if people can’t discover you, they’ll never get to evaluate you. Most engineers seem to always neglect this reality, but a mediocre product with great distribution will always beat a great product with mediocre distribution. As Peter Thiel says: “Most businesses get zero distribution channels to work: poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. If you try for several but don’t nail one, you’re finished. Superior sales and distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. No matter how strong your product — even if it easily fits into already established habits and anybody who tries it likes it immediately — you must still support it with a strong distribution plan." Distribution > Product (h/t Adarsh Appaiah on LinkedIn)

NicooSvane's tweet photo. Google just made a subtle but massive change

Last month, Google quietly removed the num=100 search parameter.

This means you can no longer view 100 results at once. The default max is now 10.

Why does this matter?

- Most LLMs (OpenAI, Perplexity, etc.) rely (directly or indirectly) on Google’s indexed results, alongside their own crawlers.

- Overnight, their access to the “long tail” of the internet was cut by 90%.

The fallout:

- According to Search Engine Land, 88% of sites saw a drop in impressions.

- Reddit, which often ranks in positions 11–100, saw its LLM citations plummet. Its stock dropped 15%.

For startups, this is brutal. Visibility just got harder. Reddit as part of AEO just changed entirely.

It’s no longer enough to build a great product you need to crack distribution first. Because if people can’t discover you, they’ll never get to evaluate you.

Most engineers seem to always neglect this reality, but a mediocre product with great distribution will always beat a great product with mediocre distribution.

As Peter Thiel says:

“Most businesses get zero distribution channels to work: poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. If you try for several but don’t nail one, you’re finished.

Superior sales and distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. No matter how strong your product — even if it easily fits into already established habits and anybody who tries it likes it immediately — you must still support it with a strong distribution plan."

Distribution > Product

(h/t Adarsh Appaiah on LinkedIn)

433

14K

2K

7K

3M

1

0

2

3K

lex

@sllafxella

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users