Mastodawn

Alex Schönfeld 12h ago

Welllllll this isn't great.

Google Just Patented The End Of Your Website

"...a system that evaluates your company’s landing page in real time and, if it decides the page won’t perform well enough for a specific user, replaces it with an AI-generated version assembled on the fly. The user never sees what your team built, they see what Google's machine learning model thinks they should see instead."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joetoscano1/2026/03/06/google-just-patented-the-end-of-your-website

#SEO #Google #AI #enshittification

Google Just Patented The End Of Your Website

A newly granted Google patent could let the search giant replace your brand's landing page with an AI-generated version you have no control over and only your buyers see.

Forbes

Steve Rudolfi 1d ago

More. But definitely go read the full article.

f*cking b*tch club 1d ago

@SteveRudolfi I read it and I’m not sure I understand: can they do this to ANY website? like a .gov website as well as Aunt May’s “mycutegrandkids.com” website?

imagine the Mayo Clinic’s site being taken over and re-assembled with whatever google thinks you wanted to find for medical advice…..

Erik van Straten 1d ago

@grammasaurus : if I understand the patent correctly, the content seen by a user in their browser will not for 100% originate from your website given its domain name.

However, Google may let their Chrome browser show your domain name in the address bar and even suggest that a server-authenticated and encrypted valid https connection is being used (proving the authenticity of your website, which is then fully broken).

Google may even force other browser makers (such as Mozilla, sponsored by Google) to do the same.

#Authenticity #Authentic #MitM #AitM #GoogleIsEvil #BigTechIsEvil #TLSisBroken #httpsIsBroken #httpsIsNoLongerE2EE #E2EE

f*cking b*tch club 1d ago

@ErikvanStraten @SteveRudolfi This sounds absolutely awful.

@grammasaurus @ErikvanStraten @SteveRudolfi sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Damage to a company's reputation, and revenue, via misrepresentation and interference.

ShadSterling 20h ago

@dijumx @grammasaurus @ErikvanStraten @SteveRudolfi on its face it sounds like an unauthorized derivative work, which might have been actionable before the courts ruled that using LLMs for copyright laundering is legal. I hope the other actions are still viable

Bauke Kramer 23h ago

@ErikvanStraten @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi
It is to be feared that Google will eventually force companies to pay for this AI junk under threat of invisibility in search results.

McHollander | Celtic Folk Bard 22h ago

@bmk @ErikvanStraten @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

What do you mean: eventually? XD

Shadedlady 27m ago

@bmk @ErikvanStraten @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi im pretty sure that is exactly what they are aming for

Pete Alex Harris🦡🕸️🌲/∞🪐∫19h ago

@ErikvanStraten @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

How does this work with https? To show different content claiming to be the web site you searched for, they need to persuade your browser that the proxy they redirected it to is the real thing, which is a man-in-the-middle attack, presumably exactly the kind of thing https is designed to prevent.

Robin Adams 19h ago

@petealexharris @ErikvanStraten @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi The idea is not that they redirect requests to your URL. They want to show a link in their search results to a page dynamically generated by AI, above (or maybe: instead of) the link to your URL.

Pete Alex Harris🦡🕸️🌲/∞🪐∫19h ago

@robinadams @ErikvanStraten @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

Which coopts whatever fraction of searches are directed only to finding some information, but not interacting with it or using an online service.

Websites that earn revenue by selling ads alongside content will suffer, but Google devoured that business model years ago. Sites for getting the info out about an actual thing you can buy from them, less so, if that info is still in Google's fake page.

It's scummy, but in a petty way.

Erik van Straten 18h ago

@robinadams : I hope that it's limited to that (your browser's address bar reads https:⧸⧸google.com).

But space for search results is limited. So my speculation is that if you click the search result in order to open the actual website, you _still_ get to see AI-manipulated content.

Once Chrome reads https:⧸⧸example.com in its address bar while the page shows altered content of said website, this means that Google FULLY destroyed TLS.

Note: "Google Trust Services" (and others) already partially breaks TLS by handing out DV certificates to Cloudflare proxy servers. You DO NOT have an E2EE connection to the actual website, proven by https://todon.nl/@ErikvanStraten/116263229585961944 (Dutch text, tap translate for English).

Summarizing: your browser has an E2EE connection with a Cloudflare server. Cloudflare can always see and manipulate anything you think you exchange with the actual website. They can read your passwords and hijack any of your accounts even if WebAuthn (FIDO2 hardware key or passkey) is used to log in.

Google already broke https years ago - to prevent ISP's from altering ads or inserting fake clicks on ads. Let's Encrypt was never meant to protect YOU. #DVsucks

@petealexharris @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

#TLSisBroken #httpsIsBroken #Authenticity #GoogleIsEvil #CloudflareIsEvil #BigTechIsEvil

Erik van Straten 17h ago

@robinadams : OTOH, if you click on a search result, Google could also send your browser to a runtime generated webpage, like Google Transate does.

For example, if I enter (I've replaced // by Unicode ⧸⧸ to prevent Mastodon from shortening the URLs and hiding "https://"):

🔗 https:⧸⧸www.security.nl/posting/929685/FCC+verbiedt+verkoop+van+nieuwe+routers+van+buitenlandse+fabrikanten+in+VS

into

🔗 https:⧸⧸translate.google.com/?sl=nl&tl=en&op=websites

the eventual URL turns into:

🔗 https:⧸⧸www-security-nl.translate.goog/posting/929685/FCC+verbiedt+verkoop+van+nieuwe+routers+van+buitenlandse+fabrikanten+in+VS?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=nl&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

In case of AI manipulation, such a link could read, for example,

🔗 https:⧸⧸www-security-nl.ai.goog/posting/929685/FCC+verbiedt+verkoop+van+nieuwe+routers+van+buitenlandse+fabrikanten+in+VS

Nomalizing this will result in even more people to fall for #phishing (replacing dots by dashes). The only thing reasonably trustworthy, the domain name of a website, becomes even more messy.

Apart from the fact that Google may charge websites for this "service" and/or insert their own ads.

@petealexharris @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

#DVsucks #GoogleIsEvil #LetsEncryptIsEvil #TLSisBroken #httpsIsBroken #E2EE #E2EEisBroken #DomainNamesSuck

🇺🇦 haxadecimal 🚫👑12h ago

@petealexharris @ErikvanStraten @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi
Google has control of the browser, for a huge percentage of users. Why did you think they got into browsers? Might not have been with this specifically in mind, but certainly it was to get them more control over what users see, and this is definitely doing it.

Drew Crecente (they)20h ago

@grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

No, a patent holder must still follow the law.

🇺🇦 haxadecimal 🚫👑12h ago

@crecente @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi
Only if they can't buy off the law, which routinely happens in many places, USA among them.

Petra van Cronenburg 19h ago

@grammasaurus At least in the EU much of this could be against the law. (The question is whether anyone would report it.)

tanavit 18h ago

The question is whether anyone will prosecute it.

@grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

Petra van Cronenburg 18h ago

@tanavit The EU is regularly fining Google. Since the DSA with more and more success.

@grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

tanavit 18h ago

Is Google paying its fines ?

@grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

Petra van Cronenburg 18h ago

@tanavit Once all appeal options have been exhausted, they must do so – and they do. We do not live in a legal vacuum here! @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

tanavit 18h ago

Thanks for the info.

@grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi

@NatureMC @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi I *would* report it if Google spoofed either of my church websites, or my music website, or my personal blog. None of which are "business" but that probably doesn't mean they're safe.

Shadedlady 24m ago

@irina @NatureMC @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi my hope is that they want money for this 'service' and leave others alone.

Ryan Aherin 20h ago

@SteveRudolfi I hate that last line "The question isn’t how to stop this from happening, it’s how to make sure your parts are the ones AI wants to work with."

Like nah bro, I'm good. I don't want to just lay down and let this bullshit take over without a fight.

Stuck Here 19h ago

@r_aherin @SteveRudolfi

When something is intrinsically broken there's always someone wanting to sell a product or service to the end user to make them feel they're the ones in the know & are gaming the system.

There's money to be made here! We're disruptors!

@SteveRudolfi, ugh. Also, whoever wrote that doesn't know that “maybe” is not “may be”)…

@SteveRudolfi
Direct link to the patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US12536233B1/en

The Forbes article is too narrow imo. This seems like it's going to be marketed as "making sites easier to navigate" or for "previews" so one "doesn't have to click through."

I will bet that this is going to be used for their "agent mode" or "AI mode" that keeps becoming more prominent in the tabs. Like "this blogger has a bunch of queer content, and we've determined that you don't like that so here's an option to generate one tailored to your worldview that shows you only the parts you want while hiding the rest"
Or "this storefront doesn't have easy to find buttons, would you like your agent to buy this for you?"

I'm too sleepy to write up a whole thing, but I don't think it's going to be simple. Rather it has much more potential for widespread damage to how folks engage with what's left of the internet.

US12536233B1 - AI-generated content page tailored to a specific user - Google Patents

Techniques for generating an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated page for a first organization. The system can include a machine-learned model configured to generate the AI-generated page. The system can receive from a user device associated with a user account, the user query. Additionally, the system can generate a search result page for the user query. The search result page can include a first result associated with a first landing page of the first organization. The system can calculate a landing page score for the first landing page. The system can generate an updated search result page based on the landing page score exceeding a threshold value, the updated search result page having a navigation link to an AI-generated page for the first organization. The system can cause a presentation, on a display of the user device, the updated search result page.

Shadedlady 20m ago

@h3mmy @SteveRudolfi shame that the images are missing on that site. I'd liketo see what they mean by the description

[email protected]1d ago

@SteveRudolfi NB @MilitaryLaw

ms_neurodiversity

@SteveRudolfi what the actual fuck!

Dave Robinson 1d ago

@SteveRudolfi
I wholly disagree with the conclusion at the end of this article. This is something that should be vigorously avoided.

Julian Schwarzenbach 21h ago

@dave @SteveRudolfi If a user of the web site receives an AI generated version of the landing page that contains errors, and then tries to sue to owner of the web site, this could get difficult very quickly. The web site owner cannot see and has no control over the AI version of the landing page, so Google should therefore be liable for errors. Good luck suing Google in such cases!

Susan Vanderplas 17h ago

@jschwa1 @dave @SteveRudolfi good luck proving that's what happened, too. Without saving the webpage or archiving it or something, it's going to be hard to show that the user didn't just read things wrong. Gaslighting at its finest.

Mirishuli 16h ago

@jschwa1 A banner disclaimer would go up on my sites. “If you got here through a Goggle search you may not be reading the website u actually created. Please find me via a different search engine or place my url (do not hyperlink) in a non Google affiliated browser.”

Shadedlady 17m ago

@MiriShuli @jschwa1 that banner will never be shown I'm afraid. It's like state television. The public only knows what an authorian government wants them to know

Jonathan Schofield 23h ago

@SteveRudolfi the direction of travel was obvious months ago https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/115276033662934609

@SteveRudolfi I am choosing to look on the bright side of this: it’s an excellent reason to stop using Google as a search engine.

Petra van Cronenburg 19h ago

@netzhexe That doesn't stop the umpty AI scam websites being out there and making real websites more and more invisible.

Stuck Here 18h ago

@NatureMC @netzhexe @SteveRudolfi

Ahem, I'd claim that something similar to this has been ongoing for years. With the enshitification of search engines my top results would always have as the first few choices the most god awful, ad laden, poorly written sites you could imagine. This slop has been ongoing for some time. Here they just want to cut out those sites and make their own trash on the fly.

Petra van Cronenburg 18h ago

@MyWoolyMastadon This. And even that trash and scam is already out there. You can take whatever search machine you want, you will find more and more websites made purely by LLMs, often forging real ones (currently e.g. a problem with scam media outlets/fake news).

@netzhexe @SteveRudolfi

@netzhexe @SteveRudolfi And I would assume also to stop using Chrome if you're still using it

This is exactly the kind of half-baked thing they'll decide needs to be put directly into Chrome

@Jer @SteveRudolfi yes!

… I am actually going to write a how to article about this. I know far too many people who do not understand the difference between the search bar and the address bar, and therefore between accessing a domain directly and going through whatever their default search engine is.

I will explain what a browser is while I’m at it.

Siiiiigh… (to be clear, the sigh is 100% directed at Google. I have infinite patience for non-techies.)

Kerfuffle 21h ago

@SteveRudolfi Sounds like they want to compete with https://web.archive.org but instead of archiving actual content, they want to rewrite history. Sounds like a bad idea.

Wayback Machine

Nicole Parsons 21h ago

#TranslatedFromTheRepublican

"Google takes #PrinceBonesaw money and converts a search engine into "bait & switch" AI Slopware.

Plans for fossil fuel fascist state surveillance platforms proceed."

The fossil fuel industry is going to keep its captive consumers one way or another, no matter what.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/07/heres-a-look-at-who.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-google-hand-dissident-data-to-saudi-arabia-activists-say-2023-7

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligencer-trump-mbs-meeting-brings-ai-money-2025-11-20/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/27/technology/saudi-arabia-ai-exporter.html

https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/all-news/article-874567

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-13/google-backs-saudi-ai-fund-as-trump-mbs-tout-new-investments

The Saudi Crown Prince hung out this week with Google execs Sergey Brin and Sundar Pichai

The Saudi Crown Prince came to Silicon Valley this week and met with a handful of executives, including co-founder Sergey Brin

CNBC

Cairo Braga 20h ago

@SteveRudolfi "The question isn’t how to stop this from happening, it’s how to make sure your parts are the ones AI wants to work with." and this is where I was reminded I was reading from Forbes, spineless plutocrats' sycophants that they are.

Sandra de Jong ⁂40m ago

@cairobraga @SteveRudolfi I agree, I don’t know what disturbed me more: the fact that Google wants to “own, change and design my webite” or this slavely conclusion from Forbes (English is not my native language, so I hope I picked the right words to express myself).

Caio C. G. Oliveira 20h ago

@SteveRudolfi if we thought that with WordPress all websites looked the same, imagine with this.

Drew Crecente (they)20h ago

FYI, this article misstates how a #patent works :

"This isn’t a feature announcement, it’s a patent, meaning Google has legally protected the ability to do this."

A patent holder may arguably prohibit others from using that patent.

🚫 However, a patent holder must still follow any laws and regulations when using that patent. A patent is not permission to break laws / contracts / etc.

Beldarak 19h ago

What the actual fuck?! How is this even legal?

arceuthobium 18h ago

@Beldarak @SteveRudolfi because any site that doesn’t consent will disappear from Google results.

Beldarak 18h ago

@theothersimo @SteveRudolfi

I'm glad I switched to DDGo but we really need a real alternative engine soon

Shadedlady 14m ago

@Beldarak @theothersimo @SteveRudolfi ecosia (alas also using a.i.)?

Ivo Limmen 19h ago

@SteveRudolfi so... basically a patented version of a scam site???

That is wrong for so many different reasons that you could fill an entire conference with talks on the subject. Even then, there would surely still be more to say.

stonedonkey 🕹️🎮👾19h ago

@SteveRudolfi I'm good with starting over, when the web was just research, people who were passionate about a topic and maybe maybe a few webrings.

No ads, no single search engine, no dark patterns, just people who loved building for others and wanted to make the place better.

Tansy Hoskins 🍉 🍉19h ago

@SteveRudolfi how is anyone supposed to be a journalist if google is going to rewrite articles to make them more 'palatable' for readers?

blob_dizzy_face

Petra van Cronenburg 19h ago

@tansy Good question.
We have laws (copyright, personality rights etc., Digital Service Act in the EU) and they can't use a patent against laws.
But that will lead to a wave of lawsuits, because they’ll carry on doing what they want anyway. And small freelancers will be less able to protect themselves than major publishers.

Some book publishers are testing #noAI labels. But they can also be misused. Times of disruption.