u/DenysPrivacyLab

I run a small independent site with guides and free diagnostic tools.
After the recent Google AI Search changes, I’m trying to think through what this means for small publishers, SEO people, indie tool builders and anyone who creates useful web content.

Google is no longer just showing links with some AI on top. Search is becoming an AI interface: AI Mode, query fan-out, agents, generated layouts, personalized answers, and eventually more interactive experiences inside Search.
That changes the deal.
For years the rough exchange was:
Creators publish useful content.
Google indexes it.
Users find it.
Some users click through.
Creators get traffic, leads, users, subscriptions, donations or sales.
That model was never perfect, but at least there was a visible exchange.
Now the direction feels different:
Creators publish useful content.
Google extracts the answer.
The user gets enough information inside Google.
The click becomes optional.
The creator becomes background infrastructure.
And this is not only about articles.
Even if you build a genuinely useful tool, distribution becomes much harder.
Previously, you could build a tool and create multiple SEO entry points around it:

- problem pages
- error pages
- comparison pages
- how-to guides
- troubleshooting pages
- use-case landing pages
Those pages helped users discover the tool at the exact moment they had the problem.
Now if AI Search answers most of those problem queries directly, the entry points shrink.
So even if the tool is useful, how does a new user find it without:

- an existing brand
- a large audience
- paid ads
- a strong newsletter
- social reach
- partnerships
- platform distribution

That is a very different game.
People say “just build tools”, and I agree tools are stronger than generic content. But tools still need discovery. A useful tool without entry points is just sitting there. This is not just a problem for low-quality SEO sites. It affects:

- independent publishers
- small SaaS projects
- diagnostic tools
- affiliate sites
- niche experts
- documentation sites
- review/comparison sites
- indie builders
- small media

And yes, a lot of low-quality SEO content deserves to disappear. No argument there. But the bigger issue is that useful content and useful tools both depend on a discovery layer. If that discovery layer turns into a closed AI answer engine, the economics of creating for the open web change completely.
The question is no longer simply:

“Is SEO dead?”

The real question is:
How do new useful tools get discovered when the old entry points disappear?
My current guess is that small builders will need to shift toward:

- direct traffic
- email lists
- community
- open datasets
- benchmarks
- public methodology pages
- GitHub distribution
- browser extensions
- API/tool integrations
- branded searches
- partnerships
- content that creates action, not just answers

But that is a much harder game than classic SEO.
Maybe this is better for users in some cases. Maybe AI Search will reduce spam and low-value content. But I don’t think we should ignore the cost: the open web may lose a lot of independent creators and tool builders if the reward loop disappears.

Curious how others are adapting.
Are you still investing in SEO content, or are you moving toward tools, email, community, data products and direct traffic?

I think the VPN industry is about to enter a very uncomfortable phase in Europe and the UK.

The discussion around age checks is usually framed as “protect minors online”, and to be clear, that goal itself is reasonable. The SmartAdvisor team supports age restrictions where they are meant to protect children. But we still do not fully know how strongly this will affect the VPN industry, and more importantly, how it will affect no-logs policies.That is the part I think people are not talking about enough.
Right now, the pressure is mostly aimed at platforms, adult sites, social media companies, app stores, and online services that host or distribute age-restricted content. But once governments start asking platforms to prove that users are old enough, the next question becomes obvious: what happens when users connect through VPNs, privacy browsers, encrypted DNS, relays, or other privacy tools?
This does not automatically mean “VPN bans”. I think that phrase is too dramatic for now. But it can still create pressure in a few ways.

VPN providers may face more questions about abuse handling, payment flows, app distribution, account verification, transparency reports, and cooperation with platforms or regulators. App stores may also become a pressure point. Payment processors can become another one. Even if the law is not written directly against VPNs, the surrounding infrastructure can still make life harder for VPN companies.
The biggest concern is the no-logs model. A strong VPN is supposed to know as little as possible about the user. That is the point. If regulators, platforms, or enforcement systems start expecting more proof, more traceability, or more identity-linked checks, there is a clear tension with privacy-first design.
Maybe the final result will be mild. Maybe VPNs will mostly stay outside the direct legal scope. Maybe age checks will happen only at the platform level, without touching VPN providers much.

But I do not think the industry should assume that nothing changes.

For guide sites, review sites, and diagnostic tools like ours, this also matters. We probably need to be much more careful with wording. VPNs should be described as privacy, security, and troubleshooting tools, not as tools for breaking platform rules or getting around age systems. That is not just a legal safety issue. It is also better and more honest content.
My current view is simple:
VPNs are not the main target of these rules today, but they are very likely to be pulled into the conversation around age checks, online safety, app stores, payments, and platform enforcement.

The real question is not “will VPNs be banned?”
The better question is:
Can the VPN industry keep strong privacy promises while governments and platforms push for stronger age verification?

That is where things could get messy……