For me, the distinction is that journalists like @CaseyNewton or myself are often citing sources to back up a story on which we're commenting as part of a broader piece (and should link for credit). Tech and AI are answering questions wholesale without commentary or any additional input. There's nothing original about it. Sometimes there's credit (now, after a year of use going "WTF?! to ChatGPT"), but no opp. for me to drive people to the site where I can make a pitch to get free or paid subscribers (or for them to see ads or sponsorships, but @TheShortcut doesn't have banner ads). That's been stripped away. It's a lot like a TikTok / IG Reel / YouTube Shorts that comments on someone else's video (fair use) with a snippet of the original video, vs the new trend of just green screening yourself in the corner and nodding your head in an effort to bank off of the original work. When I was the first to launch a Rabbit R1 review last week, I asked its LLM (backed by Perplexity AI) "What do you think of the Rabbit R1?" It read back to me chunks of my [negative] review text with unmistakable phrases I came up with and published. No credit and no cut of the $199 for the creator (me). Perplexity Pro costs $20 a month (same price as ChatGPT). Charging consumers a fee for siphoning off journalists' content is WORSE than Napster in the late 90s / early 2000s (at least Napster was letting you steal music without profiting from the theft via direct payments). You're right. The system is broken. But know that if my work (and the work of my small team at @TheShortcut) is redistributed like this (without any ads or pitch to upsell a subscription), we won't be able to produce content – and the "answers" for AI and "Search summaries" will get worse and worse.