This makes sense from a financial perspective. But Google’s main service became centralized and convenient because it acted as the traffic gateway of the web. The moral question is a different matter.

Suppose an electricity utility builds the power grid, and many businesses build their operations around that grid. Then later, the utility uses its privileged position in the grid to directly replace the businesses that depended on it. Would that be morally acceptable? It may be correct from a business perspective, but that does not automatically make it good for the whole ecosystem.

In a capitalist society, companies are pressured to create new cash cows, enter adjacent markets, and even perform self-disruptive innovation in the interest of shareholders. This may be one such case. But whether that benefits the overall ecosystem is a separate question.

Users want free content. Users want services without ads. Users want fast summaries. Users want answers without reading the original source.

Those desires are natural. But if producers cannot remain sustainable under those desires, then the long-term quality of information may collapse.

Google can preserve revenue through AI Overviews, while creators may lose revenue. The problem is that AI Overviews occupy a large container near the top of the results page and hide or push down the sources users would otherwise visit. In other words, the UX design emphasizes Google’s AI answer while making external sites less visible.

It is true that content creators now have to compete with Google’s AI Overview. But this competition is asymmetric.

From the company’s perspective, and from the shareholder perspective, Google’s decision may be correct. They are far smarter than I am. But it is still unclear whether Google will remain unharmed if the ecosystem that feeds it is gradually destroyed.