Google ordered to put clearer links in AI search and let UK publishers opt out

Google must change AI Overviews after claiming users don't want "lots of sources."

See full article...

 

[CatNamedHugs]

The AI search being legal AT ALL is an absolute travesty, links or not. They literally stole the entire fucking internet. It's insane.

 

[Voix des Airs]

Google must change AI Overviews after claiming users don’t want “lots of sources.”

I'd appreciate it if Google AI provided any sources that actually support what the AI Overview says. My experience with this stuff (on all search engines) is that the overview will tell you something, with great specificity and confidence, but none of the supposedly supporting links say literally anything like what the overview says. And the overview is, as often as not, wrong. Then, below the overview, the actual search results are increasingly useless.

I am finding search to have become ever increasingly difficult to actually get useful results from.

 

[Fatesrider]

It's great to see someone beating back the whole AI search bullshit. We need more of this.

I've mentioned before how I use the &udm=14 add-on for Firefox to avoid it, but it works manually too. The issue is you have to add it to the end of the address in the address bar, so you end up with AI shit at first, then it all goes away when you hit enter again, and you get Google like it was 10 years ago, mostly.

It also helps if you're NOT signed into Google. So if you're using a mobile device, that could be problematic. I don't have my Google accounts in any of my mobile devices because it just automatically keeps you signed in unless you delete the damned thing.

I don't know how much of an impact this will be for the rest of us, since our rulers have a vested interest in violating our right to privacy, and google can be subpoenaed to get all that shit if you're not already very proactive in lowering your online profile. Doing so isn't "convenient", I'll grant. But neither is having one's privacy violated by corporate or governmental overreach.

Maybe this will be something new, but unless the EU gets in on it, I don't see the UK moving the needle much, if at all. That COULD happen, though, so finger's crossed.

 

[NullSignal]

As someone living in the UK, the most surprising thing about this article is that we apparently have a regulator that successfully stood up to Google.

 

[jonbob_newcastle]

As someone living in the UK, the most surprising thing about this article is that we apparently have a regulator that successfully stood up to Google.

I know they’re not involved in this case but it still sometimes amuses me that our financial regulator is the FCA and there's a chance that there's someone called Brunt working there.

 

[LordInternet]

People still using Google search? It sucks. Use a real search engine like Qwant or DuckDuckGo for god sakes!

You’ll be cheering yahoo! once you change.

 

[UnsoundMethodology]

Hopefully this means Google will begin supporting content signals in robot.txt: https://contentsignals.org

Respecting the Content-Signal: ai-input=no directive would meet the UK's opt-out requirements simply and effectively.

 

[cgo_12345]

I've mentioned before how I use the &udm=14 add-on for Firefox to avoid it, but it works manually too. The issue is you have to add it to the end of the address in the address bar, so you end up with AI shit at first, then it all goes away when you hit enter again, and you get Google like it was 10 years ago, mostly.

I just set my browser's home page to https://udm14.com/ at this point, plain Google is just irredeemable.

 

[graylshaped]

Google said it is “already motivated to strike the right balance between attribution and usability.”

Right for whom?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

It's going to be VERY hard to actually obey this order (or extremely easy, but more on that later). Not only does it have no comprehension of what a source is or how to actually link one, and routinely gives "sources" that don't say what it says it said, "jailbreaking" out of it is disturbingly easy, getting it to either give you suicide instructions, bomb construction, or making NCII material.

So sure, Google can adjust some weights and precooked formats for adding MANY more attributes, but that won't help.

 

[AliSard]

We Americans, of course, just get to bend over as usual.

 

[maxoakland]

The AI search being legal AT ALL is an absolute travesty, links or not. They literally stole the entire fucking internet. It's insane.

Seriously. Why aren’t we up in arms about this more?

 

[maxoakland]

We Americans, of course, just get to bend over as usual.

That’s what happens when conservatives have too much power in your society. And I’m not just talking about republicans.

 

[maxoakland]

I just set my browser's home page to https://udm14.com/ at this point, plain Google is just irredeemable.

Why don’t we move away from Google instead of fighting with them? They clearly don’t want our business

 

[Lunakki]

Why don’t we move away from Google instead of fighting with them? They clearly don’t want our business

What business? You don't pay them anything. You aren't their customer. That's why it's not good at meeting your needs: it's not meant to be. So long as search engines are funded by ads, that's what you'll get.

I switched to Kagi a while ago. You do have to pay for it, but they have a free trial where the only info you have to give is an email address. For everybody fed up with Google, I suggest you give it a try. Even if you don't end up getting a subscription, it's still good to remember what a halfway useful search engine is like.

 

[LordInternet]

DDG and basically everyone else rely on Yandex (Russuian) and Bing

Nope. They are slowly building their own index. So are Qwant and Ecosia.

 

[Mawich]

Wow, the CMA actually did something useful for a change! A shame our government ministers keep saying how great AI is and how we need to invest in it and be at the forefront. Fortunately they're not quite entirely gutting environmental rules for data centre construction... not yet, anyway.

The disturbing possibility of a future Reform government means we have to keep being wary of that though. Americans, think MAGA Republicans but slightly more genteel.

 

[Camacan]

Nope. They are slowly building their own index. So are Qwant and Ecosia.

They (DDG) have a range of indices, including their own index, but the major one is still Bing:

Yes — DuckDuckGo uses Bing’s index as its primary source of traditional “10 blue link” web results, and that has not changed as of 2026. DuckDuckGo is not a rebranded Bing, but the overlap with Bing’s index is the biggest single factor in what you see on a DuckDuckGo results page.

Building a full index costs billions.
In terms of AI and search, DDG is in the news for going gangbusters as users get pissed off with being forced-fed AI in search. It's touting an AI-free version: https://noai.duckduckgo.com/

 

[DavPrime]

As an academic that needs to search the literature on a regular basis and teach responsible and effective use of AI I think this is a very positive step.

Regardless of my doubts and ethical issues with AI, AI search can be very useful for finding obscure information quite quickly. In my experience it can find relevant citations much faster than reading through many, many papers found via pubmed or google scholar searches if used correctly. However, in its current form it often returns incorrect summaries or attributes information to the wrong citations. This is easily dealt with by an expert in the area, but students really struggle with dismissing the overconfident statements AI search can return, even after reading the papers it suggests.

More and clearer links will only improve AI search for this specific purpose.

 

[Your Dishes]

The AI search being legal AT ALL is an absolute travesty, links or not. They literally stole the entire fucking internet. It's insane.

Exactly.

For a very long time there was an implied, or even outright explicit, understanding that what search engines did was copyright infringement (mass copying, storing, processing, …, for commercial gain). But it was generally accepted because in return those engines provided traffic to the source of the content.

Mostly it was a good thing for all parties (putting aside the SEO game): sites would get human visitors, search engines could get revenue, and people could find actual content and sources.

With AI search those corporations want the cake and eat it too. We need to revisit the idea that this is allowed.

 

[timaua]

Default search engine

 

[Taunted Happy Fun Ball]

I've mentioned before how I use the &udm=14 add-on for Firefox to avoid it, but it works manually too. The issue is you have to add it to the end of the address in the address bar, so you end up with AI shit at first, then it all goes away when you hit enter again, and you get Google like it was 10 years ago, mostly.

You can also do that without an extension. Go to about:config and enable browser.urlbar.update2.engineAliasRefresh
Then go into Settings/Search, which will now have a button to add a new search provider. Use https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&client=firefox&q=%s

You can do the same thing to create an AI-free DuckDuckGo engine ( https://noai.duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=%s )

This means you can also do the same thing on Firefox and Firefox Focus on your phone, which might not support the extension. (Mobile versions don't need the about:config step; you can just go straight to Settings/Search.)

 

[Erbium168]

Meanwhile Musk is actively supporting the far right in the UK via Twitter and Grok, and now trying to stir up anti-Sikh hatred - and the Sikhs have been loyal supporters of the UK since the start of the Indian Revolution.
Our government seems just yesterday to have woken up and said "Hey this man is bad and he is encouraging actual Nazis to riot".
There are 3 years potentially to the next election.
It's going to be interesting to see who wins this one.
Great Firewall of Britain?

 

[mateo9]

Personally I have much less of an issue of how people create LLMs than what people do with them.

That is, I don't really care if a company uses 100 years of newspaper archives to build an "intelligent" model. But I have a big problem when they use that trained model to take latest news stories from 10 publishers and mash it into their own real-time summary blurb without consent. That is unfair competition and will be a net harm to society.

On the flip side if they want to take their model and generate original content (e.g. fake news articles) ... I don't care. That's not competing with anybody that is producing anything useful.

 

[JoHBE]

Exactly.

For a very long time there was an implied, or even outright explicit, understanding that what search engines did was copyright infringement (mass copying, storing, processing, …, for commercial gain). But it was generally accepted because in return those engines provided traffic to the source of the content.

Mostly it was a good thing for all parties (putting aside the SEO game): sites would get human visitors, search engines could get revenue, and people could find actual content and sources.

With AI search those corporations want the cake and eat it too. We need to revisit the idea that this is allowed.

It will be interesting to see what happens when more and more people get burned by hallucinations. It might actually be a good thing, if those people then start to realize their inability to attribute the (source of the) misinformation, or experience the amount of extra effort one has to go through to actually separate the fact from fiction. That uncomfortable feeling of standing on shaky grounds. The invisible quicksand can be ANYwhere.

 

[tooki]

I'd appreciate it if Google AI provided any sources that actually support what the AI Overview says. My experience with this stuff (on all search engines) is that the overview will tell you something, with great specificity and confidence, but none of the supposedly supporting links say literally anything like what the overview says. And the overview is, as often as not, wrong. Then, below the overview, the actual search results are increasingly useless.

I am finding search to have become ever increasingly difficult to actually get useful results from.

This entire post mirrors my experience perfectly. (Same with Bing, too.)

I think that web search is such a vital service that we need to treat it like a public utility and regulate the shit out of it, including allowing zero ads and other “incentivized” search results.

 

[jonbob_newcastle]

Our government seems just yesterday to have woken up and said "Hey this man is bad and he is encouraging actual Nazis to riot".

If only. Nigel “Pure Cold Rage” is very careful to stay just shy of actual incitement, unlike some of the credulous morons that follow him.

For the moment I’m hoping that one of the bigger firms will take on the case of the misidentified former police officer pro bono and take Twitter to the cleaners.

By the by, the plumber from Makerfield is on QT tonight. Should be a laugh, unlike Gove on HIGNFY tomorrow.

 

[Erbium168]

If only. Nigel “Pure Cold Rage” is very careful to stay just shy of actual incitement, unlike some of the credulous morons that follow him.

For the moment I’m hoping that one of the bigger firms will take on the case of the misidentified former police officer pro bono and take Twitter to the cleaners.

By the by, the plumber from Makerfield is on QT tonight. Should be a laugh, unlike Gove on HIGNFY tomorrow.

I am sure Farage runs his speeches across a KC in advance. He can afford to, and there are some very right wing KCs.
However, the way you do this kind of warfare is economic and blockade. Cut off his funding and cut off his media.

 

[graylshaped]

This entire post mirrors my experience perfectly. (Same with Bing, too.)

I think that web search is such a vital service that we need to treat it like a public utility and regulate the shit out of it, including allowing zero ads and other “incentivized” search results.

As one who thinks the world would be a far better place with robust regulations surrounding placement and disclosure of advertising and accountability for its veracity, I'm fine with ads on search result windows derived solely from the search terms, in clearly labeled boxes, placed "below the fold."

 

[cow.horse.frog]

Ive been saying it for years, and i mean years.

Theres only one solution to stop tech bros...

BAN ADVERTISING.

The harm these companies do far outweighs the "benefits".

 

[TimeToTilt]

Exactly.

For a very long time there was an implied, or even outright explicit, understanding that what search engines did was copyright infringement (mass copying, storing, processing, …, for commercial gain). But it was generally accepted because in return those engines provided traffic to the source of the content.

Mostly it was a good thing for all parties (putting aside the SEO game): sites would get human visitors, search engines could get revenue, and people could find actual content and sources.

With AI search those corporations want the cake and eat it too. We need to revisit the idea that this is allowed.

I've been beating this drum since day one. Ai search overview fundamentally breaks the entire deal that the Internet is based on. That content creators create content of various levels of value at their cost, and search engines send them clicks and often ad revenue in return. The new world Google so clearly wants to build is one where the incentive to actually write new articles is gone.

 

[graylshaped]

I've been beating this drum since day one. Ai search overview fundamentally breaks the entire deal that the Internet is based on. That content creators create content of various levels of value at their cost, and search engines send them clicks and often ad revenue in return. The new world Google so clearly wants to build is one where the incentive to actually write new articles is gone.

This.

Google search as card catalog, where they show you relevant cards along with an ad is a reasonable practice. When they show you cards they have been paid to show people asking for [thing], it gets dodgy. When, in addition to using what they know about the questions you ask to sell even more cards to force on you they actively gather other information about you without you being aware, that becomes nosey busybody territory. When they generate revenue from that snooping, it is now legitimate WTF stop peeping in my windows time. And when they stop showing you the cards in the catalog and just say here’s what those books say while stilling doing all the WTF stuff, I welcome the publishers and regulators telling them to fucking cut it out.