Opinion article • December 2025
In recent years, something has been happening that is not visible at first glance: small and independent websites are gradually disappearing from the internet. Not because they don't have good content, nor because they don't try hard enough. The truth is harsher: the environment in which they operate has changed radically — and the main culprit is Google.
When one player controls the entire market
Google is not just a search engine as we know it. Think of it this way: it's like simultaneously the rules of the game, the referee who deals the cards, and one of the players at the table.
Specifically, Google checks:
- How users find information online (through search)
- How websites make money from ads
- How do we count how many people visit a page (with Google Analytics)
- The way we browse the web (via Chrome and Android)
When the same organization plays so many roles at once, there can be no real freedom. Small publishers are completely dependent on it — and that, by definition, is a monopoly.
Robots make decisions for humans
Imagine losing your job because of an automatic decision — without explanation, without warning, without anyone listening to you. This happens every day on small websites.
Ads and search results are managed by bots. One miscalculation, one change in Google's rules, and a website can see its revenue disappear overnight. No explanation, no way to contact a real person.
For large companies this is a manageable problem. For small publishers, however, it is often devastating and leads to closure.
The "quality" game
Google claims to prefer “quality content.” In practice, however, what it really prefers is great, predictable and commercially strong content.
Small websites — even if they have great and unique content — are often labeled as “low-value.” Why? Not because they’re actually bad, but because they don’t fit into automated systems that prefer mass over originality.
Personal opinion, expertise, unique perspectives — all the things that make the internet interesting — are being pushed aside in favor of large, standardized sites.
What if there was competition?
Think about what would happen if instead of one Google there were three or four powerful companies offering similar services. Small publishers could:
- Choose which platform to work with
- To negotiate better terms
- To change partners if they are not happy
- To have a real voice and choice
Competition always protects the small and the weak. When it doesn't exist, the rules become one-sided and unfair.
Why Bing seems fairer
Many small publishers have noticed something interesting: Bing (Microsoft's search engine) behaves more fairly and predictably. Not because it is a better company from an ethical point of view, but for one simple reason: needs publishers.
It doesn't have a monopoly, so it has to try harder. It has to build trust, listen, and offer better terms. Fair treatment is not altruism — it's a necessity for survival in a competitive environment.
The real problem
The issue isn't just money. It's the future of the internet itself. A web that consists only of large corporate platforms loses the vitality, diversity, and voices of independent creators.
When small websites disappear, we lose:
- Original opinions that are not controlled by companies
- The specialized information you don't find everywhere
- Diversity and creativity
- The ability for someone to start something of their own on the internet
This disappearance is not an accidental collateral loss. It is the result of a system created to concentrate power in the hands of a few, not to allow for pluralism.
Conclusion
Google doesn't act like this because it's "bad" or "ill-intentioned." It acts like this because it canAnd maybe because there is no one else strong enough to stop her or set limits for her.
If we want a fairer, more open, and richer internet — where there is room for everyone, not just the big guys — then talking about monopolies is simply not helpful. It is absolutely necessary..
The future of the open internet depends on whether we allow one player to control the entire game — or whether we demand rules that protect diversity, innovation, and freedom of choice.
Loading comments...