Cloudflare Unveils New Way for Websites to Control and Earn from AI Crawlers

Cloudflare is giving websites a new tool to take back some control as artificial intelligence companies continue to gather info and scrape huge amounts of online content. The new system helps site owners decide if AI bots can access their material, and if so, at what price. For many publishers, this could offer a chance to turn the crawling of their work into something that pays.

Websites Are Now Setting the Rules

The rise of AI-driven crawlers has caused frustration among content creators. While these bots collect material to build large language models and other AI products, they often do it without returning traffic to the original pages. This has slowly chipped away at the visitor numbers that many websites once relied on to earn advertising revenue.

Cloudflare’s latest feature gives site owners a way to manage this. They can now decide whether to block AI crawlers completely or charge them through a system that prices each visit. This approach allows publishers to step into a position where they can control how their content is used instead of simply watching it get scraped.

This system is currently available as part of Cloudflare’s Pay Per Crawl beta program. Website owners who are interested can apply for early access here.

Publishers and Platforms Are Getting Involved

Several large publishers and social platforms have come forward to support this move. Companies behind well-known outlets and websites are paying close attention to how AI is reshaping the internet. Many of them are now pushing for ways to protect their work while finding paths to new revenue.

The internet has gone through a fast shift in how traffic moves. For years, search engines gathered content and sent users to the websites where the information came from. That model worked well for content creators. It helped build audiences and supported advertising businesses. But the flow of visitors is no longer the same.

Recent patterns show that Google’s web crawlers are still active, but the company now sends back far fewer visitors than it did just months ago. Data from Cloudflare suggests the gap between crawling and referrals has widened sharply. It used to be around six crawls for every visitor sent back to a site, but now, that gap has grown to about eighteen crawls per visitor. Some of this change seems tied to Google’s newer search features that provide answers right on the results page, which means fewer people click through to the original source.

Other AI companies pull content at even higher rates without sending traffic back. OpenAI, for example, has a much wider gap between what it takes and what it gives in return.

AI Crawlers Are Challenging Old Web Habits

For a long time, the web worked on a simple pattern. Search engines crawled the web, indexed the information, and passed visitors back to the sites they found. That cycle supported the people and companies who created content.

Now, with AI bots collecting material to train chatbots and language models, much of that balance has shifted. These AI systems often provide information directly to users without pointing them to the original websites. As a result, many publishers feel cut out of the process.

Some AI companies have also found ways to bypass technical tools that are meant to block content scraping. They argue that gathering public information in this way does not break any laws. On the other side, many publishers believe their rights are being ignored.

The clash is already playing out in courts. Some companies have filed lawsuits against AI firms, accusing them of using their work without permission. At the same time, other publishers are making deals to license their content to AI companies under agreed terms.

Legal Fights and Deals Are Now Reshaping the Space

The fight over how AI companies use online content is unfolding on several fronts. Reddit, for example, recently launched legal action against an AI company it claims scraped user posts without approval. Yet, Reddit has also struck a content-sharing deal with Google, showing that some companies are choosing both paths: to sue where needed and to partner where possible.

Cloudflare’s new tool arrives as publishers are urgently looking for ways to set boundaries and, if possible, to earn fair payment when AI firms rely on their work. The growing tension around AI crawlers is pushing the internet toward new rules, and this tool may be part of that shift.

Note: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: From Text to Talk: Meta Brings Voice Calling to Enterprises and Teases Future AI-Driven Customer Interactions

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Google’s Data Center Power Use Doubles in Four Years, Reaching 30.8 Million Megawatt-Hours in 2024

Over just four years, Google’s electricity use for its data centers has more than doubled. The company’s latest environmental report shows that by 2024, these centers consumed nearly 31 million (or 30.8 million to be exact) megawatt-hours of electricity. Back in 2020, their consumption was less than half that. This steep rise reflects the company’s fast-growing need for computing power as its digital services continue to expand.

Most of Google’s Energy Is Now Spent on Data Centers

Google’s growing electricity demand is almost entirely tied to its data centers. In 2024, these centers accounted for over 95% of the company’s total energy use. Although Google only began releasing detailed data center energy figures in 2020, looking at the energy share across the years suggests that in 2014, its centers probably used just over 4 million megawatt-hours. That’s a sevenfold increase in just a decade.

Efficiency Gains Are Slowing Down

Google has made plenty of progress improving the energy efficiency of its data centers. In the past, those upgrades helped the company cut waste. But recently, improvements have become harder to achieve. The power usage effectiveness measure, which tracks how efficiently electricity is used, barely improved last year. Google is now approaching the limits of what its existing systems can save.

Building New Energy Sources

To keep up with rising energy needs while sticking to its promise of using clean electricity, Google is investing in a range of energy options. The company is focusing on geothermal energy, solar projects, and both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

Geothermal energy, which draws heat from underground, could become a reliable solution because it’s not affected by weather. Google has supported this technology by working with companies that aim to make geothermal projects successful in more regions.

On the nuclear side, Google has made long-term plans to purchase electricity from new power plants. The company has agreed to buy hundreds of megawatts from a fusion plant expected to start operating in the early 2030s. It has also arranged to get electricity from smaller fission reactors being developed by a startup. These nuclear sources won’t be available for several years, though.

Renewables Are the Fastest Option for Now

While waiting for new nuclear projects to come online, Google has been quickly securing renewable energy that can be used sooner. Earlier this year, it arranged solar power deals in Oklahoma and South Carolina. Altogether, Google is now working with partners to develop several large carbon-free power plants, with planned investments reaching around $20 billion.

Solar and wind, along with battery storage, remain the quickest paths to adding new clean power before the decade ends. Building new nuclear plants takes years of approvals and construction. Even adding more natural gas turbines now faces long waiting lists.

Although Google has purchased enough renewable energy to match its annual electricity use on paper, this doesn’t mean that carbon-free power is always available where and when it’s needed. Matching power supply to actual usage in every hour and every region is still a big challenge.

Reaching 24/7 Carbon-Free Power Remains Difficult

So far, Google has managed to power about two-thirds of its data center operations with carbon-free electricity when measured by the hour. But this average hides big differences between locations. In Latin America, clean energy covered most of Google’s needs last year, while its centers in the Middle East and Africa still rely heavily on conventional power sources.

This uneven progress is part of the reason Google continues to back long-term energy solutions like nuclear fission and fusion. Fully powering its data centers with clean energy around the clock, in every place it operates, will probably depend on whether these projects succeed in the years ahead.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next:

• Most Consumers Trust Traditional Ads Over Influencer Posts, Survey Finds

• What Modern Parents Regret About Today’s Digital World for Their Kids
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

What Modern Parents Regret About Today’s Digital World for Their Kids

Sometimes you can’t help but wonder if life would’ve been simpler for kids without all this technology floating around them. It’s not that parents hate all of it, some of it’s useful, but you know, there’s this feeling, this small wish sitting quietly at the back of their minds. What if some things just… weren’t there?

Parents these days, they’ve seen their kids grow up surrounded by screens, apps buzzing all the time, and platforms that keep pulling them in. It’s not something older generations ever had to figure out. You get the sense that a lot of parents are just trying to keep up, while also wondering if maybe, just maybe, their children would’ve had an easier time without some of these things crowding their world.

Actually, when asked what they wish had never been invented, many parents didn’t hesitate. It wasn’t even close. The thing they wanted gone most? Online adult content. In a recent survey conducted by TheHarrisPoll, over seven out of ten parents felt life would’ve been much better for their children if that part of the internet had simply never existed. Hard to argue with them on that one.

But it didn’t stop there. Social media, in general, made a lot of parents uncomfortable. More than half wanted it out of their children’s lives. If you dig a little deeper, TikTok and X (what people used to call Twitter) were right up there, about six in ten parents would’ve gladly erased both. Instagram didn’t get much love either. More than half would’ve preferred it gone.

Then there’s the whole messaging app thing. At first glance, it seems harmless enough, right? Just texting, chatting. But nearly half the parents wished those apps weren’t part of their kids’ childhood either. It’s probably about the constant connection, that thing where kids can’t really put their phones down anymore. Speaking of phones, yeah, smartphones themselves weren’t off the hook. About four out of ten parents wanted to ditch those too. There’s this sense that smartphones made it harder for kids to just… be kids.

Video games came up as well. Some parents were okay with them, but still, about a third thought life would’ve been better without them. And surprisingly, the internet itself wasn’t completely safe from this list. Around three in ten parents would’ve preferred a world where the internet didn’t follow their kids everywhere they went.

Even streaming services, which most families use all the time now, raised some concerns. About one in five parents would’ve liked to skip those too. Funny enough, television, the old-school one that’s been around forever, still made the list. Not a huge number, but about one in six parents thought their children would’ve been better off without it.

In a way, it’s like parents are standing there watching this flood of technology sweep through childhood, and they’re not sure what to keep and what to wish away. Some tools help, sure, but deep down, a lot of them seem to carry this quiet wish, that their children could’ve grown up a little less connected, a little more free.

Mediums	Strongly Agree (%)	Somewhat Agree (%)	Total (%)
Adult online content	43%	29%	72%
Social media	26%	29%	55%
Messaging apps	20%	24%	44%
Smartphones	12%	26%	38%
Video games	11%	21%	32%
The internet	9%	19%	28%
Streaming services	9%	12%	21%
Television	6%	11%	17%

Note: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: New Study Shows How Search Queries Reflect Personal Biases and Limit Exposure to Contrasting Information
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Activists Question Google’s Commitment to AI Oversight Following Gemini 2.5 Pro Release

Outside Google DeepMind’s London office, a group of protesters staged something unusual, a public courtroom scene with a gavel, a jury, and a symbolic trial. This wasn’t just theater. The group behind it, PauseAI, came with a point to make. They believe Google walked back on its public commitments around AI safety and transparency.

Image: PauseAI / X

Back in 2024, during the AI Safety Summit in Seoul, Google had agreed to involve outside experts in evaluating its AI models. It also said it would share details of that process. But when it launched Gemini 2.5 Pro in April, those steps weren’t visible. The company called the model experimental and skipped over third-party disclosures. A few weeks later, it did publish a safety summary, but the document was light on details and didn’t name the reviewers it mentioned.

For the activists, that response didn’t go far enough. They say it's not just about one model or one company. It's about setting a precedent. If Google can quietly move past a public promise, other AI labs might feel they can too.

Over 5 dozen people joined the protest, some from tech, others from different fields. The group marched through King’s Cross, eventually stopping in front of DeepMind’s offices. Chants broke out. A few passersby watched, some joined in. The message was clear: testing matters more than marketing, and public promises should count for something.

The protest also tapped into broader concerns about AI. People talked about misinformation, job losses, and lack of oversight. But this wasn’t a vague warning about the future. It focused on one clear issue, transparency.

PauseAI says it's now speaking with UK lawmakers. They're trying to raise concerns through political channels, though there's no sign yet of a formal response from Google. The company didn’t offer any public comment when asked.

Among the demonstrators were people who actively use AI tools. One of the organizers runs a software company. He works with products from Google and OpenAI, and he knows how powerful they’ve become. That’s exactly why he’s worried. If these tools are shaping the future, he says, companies shouldn’t be left to police themselves.

This wasn’t PauseAI’s largest protest, and it may not lead to immediate change. But it captured something growing in the background, an unease with how quickly AI is advancing, and how slowly the guardrails seem to be forming.

This article was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: 

• Things I Do Not Like About Most Popular WYSIWYG Editors

• These Are The Features That Make Americans Most Frustrated With Texting From Android To iOS Systems

• Language Is Changing Again, and This Time, It's Machines We're Imitating

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Things I Do Not Like About Most Popular WYSIWYG Editors

This post is part of a paid collaboration, supported by sponsorship from a partner.

Why do many developers still dislike popular WYSIWYG editors in 2025? From poor responsiveness to limited customization, here’s what to avoid. And what to use instead.

Image: Kristian Strand / Unsplash

🖥️ A Brief History of WYSIWYG Editors

WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editors have been around since at least the 1970s. Until then, the visual presentation of written text was restricted to basic typeface fonts from ready-made font families.

The emergence of computer graphics made it logical for editors to choose What You See Is What You Get when users are creating and editing texts. The first WYSIWYG editor was developed by Xerox and called Bravo in 1974, according to the New York Times.

The expression was coined from a question made by the wife of one of the company's developers when she saw the program running: “You mean, what I see is what I get?”

Significant advances in the concepts of the interconnection between humans and machines characterized that moment in the history of computing (1970-1980). Many new developments allowed new theoretical definitions in an environment where specialists sought new frontiers.

A newsletter widely read among programmers in the late 1980s popularized the term WYSIWYG .

The Oxford Dictionary defines WYSIWYG as a computing-related adjective denoting the representation of text on the screen in the exact form corresponding to how it will appear in print.

Popularity Has Not Reversed Defects

In these 50 years of existence, WYSIWYG editors have become the standard for editing text in web development. The increasing use of JavaScript with HTML and CSS makes this an obvious solution for inputting text.

However, despite knowing that this predominance exists, there are some things that I hate about the most popular WYSIWYG editors.

First thing: many developers lose control over the design of their pages with these editors. What you should see is not always what you see. The industry should deliver the best control of the results.

Another thing that happens is that managing the content as a whole is a bit difficult. When the user tries to insert some content, the result can mess up the appearance of the text and even the application as a whole.

Creators sometimes face complaints like: “My client can’t see the creative art”.

We can also negatively highlight the responsiveness of WYSIWYG editors. The application may look good when browsing on a notebook, but completely disastrous if viewed on a mobile device. Responsibility works almost by trial and error.

Some editors like CKEditor charge extra for functions that should be basic. This is something that annoys me because this pricing policy should be more logical. I find this defect in many tools for developers.

In 2022, I used it in a Vue project and faced these issues. In short, a good editor is very difficult to build.

Frustrations with WYSIWYG Editors

1. Loss of Design Control.
2. Responsiveness Issues.
3. Unpredictable Content Management
4. Expensive for Basic Features
5. Poor Customization Options

How to Avoid This Kind of Thing

On the other hand, we can find several solutions that do not have this problem. We can find WYSIWYG HTML editors that are very versatile and easy to add to applications. One popular example is Froala.

One of the characteristics of these solutions is the clean design that avoids responsiveness issues. They ensure that the user sees what they need to see.

In general, this type of tool offers easy integration with frameworks such as React, Angular, and Vue, allowing for a reduction in errors.

I also believe that editors should have customized toolbars. This allows developers to have greater control over the content.

Searching through Reddit forums, I found that the most common complaints about editors are for older models. The most modern tools almost solve these basic problems.

Thus, there are still many things that annoy me about the most popular editors. But choosing a good tool can be the helping hand that the creator needs.

Developer Tips

• Always test on mobile early in your design process.

• Customize your toolbar to remove unused features and improve UX.
• Use headless editors when you want full control over layout and styling.

📊 WYSIWYG Editor Comparison (2025)

Editor	Clean Code	Mobile Friendly	Framework Support	Pricing	Best For
Froala	⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐⭐	React, Vue, Angular	Free + Paid	Design-Focused
Tiptap	⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐	React, Vue, Angular	Free + Paid	Structured Content
TinyMCE	⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐	React, Vue	Free + Paid	Classic Text Editing
CKEditor	⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐	React, Angular	Paid	Enterprise Features
Quill	⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐	Vanilla JS	Free	Simple Implementations

🛠️ How to Choose the Right Editor

When selecting a WYSIWYG editor, consider:

• 🔍 Does it output clean, semantic code?
• 📱 Is it truly responsive on mobile devices?
• 🔧 Does it integrate easily with your frontend framework?
• 💰 Are essential features available without expensive upgrades?
• 🎨 Can you customize the user interface to match your needs?

What’s your experience with WYSIWYG editors? Share your thoughts below!

Disclaimer: This article reflects personal experience as a computer engineer, with no commercial ties to the companies mentioned.

Text by Daniel Correia, a computer engineer specializing in front-end components.

by Web Desk via Digital Information World

These Are The Features That Make Americans Most Frustrated With Texting From Android To iOS Systems

Whether you use an Android or an iPhone device, chances are you’ve experienced the frustration of trying to text from an Android to an iOS system. When you text an iPhone while using an Android system, text messages will appear green and group chats can be difficult to formulate. You also lose several key Android features when texting an iOS system, including lower-quality video and photo sharing.

If you live outside of the United States, you most likely use an Android system. However, many Americans choose to use the iPhone with the iOS operating system. With Android and iOS being two of the largest and most popular operating systems, it’s hard to understand why they’re so incompatible. This incompatibility has led to frustrations with the public, outlined in this Secure Data Recovery survey. In this article, we’ll explore the differences between Android and iOS systems, common issues with texting between these operating systems, and why Apple and Android remain incompatible.

Differences between Android and iOS systems

While both Android and iOS systems provide their respective users with the ability to text, these systems each have distinct differences. These differences customize your individual experience, but often play a role when it comes to compatibility between operating systems.

One major difference is in the way each company designed the software to be used. Android was developed by Google and is designed for any kind of mobile phone or touchscreen device. Whether you use the Samsung Galaxy S or the OnePlus Nord, you’re using the Android system. Since it’s also a completely free technology, Android is the most used operating system for cell phones. Compare this to Apple, which developed the iOS system specifically for Apple’s mobile phone, the iPhone. This means that the software cannot be used by other mobile phone manufacturers, like Samsung.

Choosing between an Android or iOS system means you’ll also choose between the Google Play Store or Apple Store. The Google Play Store gives Android users access to millions of apps that can be downloaded to their smartphones. This platform is open, meaning that some apps could possess malware or have a lower quality compared to some of the larger app developers. Using an Apple operating system means you’ll have access to the Apple Store. Apple has very strict rules when it comes to allowing developers to post their apps on the Apple Store, making sure that all apps can be downloaded are high quality and secure.

Both Android and iOS differ when it comes to overall operating system security. Since Android is an open-source system, it tends to be more susceptible to hackers and other types of malware. However, Google has worked in recent years to develop tools like Google Play Protect and tighter security updates. Apple has a closed system, meaning that you’re safer from potential data breaches and hackers. Like Google, they frequently publish updates to continue to enhance security. Apple also encrypts text messages from end to end, providing you with greater privacy while texting.

Issues with Texting from Android to iOS systems

Difference	% Frustrated
Poor or low quality of videos/photos	58.95%
Text messages sent for quick reactions (e.g., "Loved an image" as text)	50.25%
Group text messages delivered individually, not in the group chat	48.01%
Receiving a "Replied to:" text instead of threaded under the original message	46.32%
Text message deliverability issues	45.87%
Difference in emojis	39.31%
Green vs. blue text bubbles	38.62%
Lack of read receipts	34.79%
Lack of typing indicators	32.55%
Lack of live location tracking	29.37%

Both Apple and iOS have their individual advantages, but those features that attract users in the first place can be significantly impacted when texting from one system to another. This incompatibility often leaves users of both systems frustrated as popular aspects of Apple and iOS stop working.

One significant issue that you may run into when texting from an Android to an iOS system is that the video and photo sharing quality is often lower. Users complain of blurry videos and photos not downloading to the device properly. The number of photos or videos you can share at one time also decreases, meaning you’ll have to try multiple times to send more than 10 photos.

Texting between systems can also cause issues with the creation of group chats. When you add someone with an Android to an Apple-only group chat, some popular Apple features are lost. This means you can no longer name the group chat, some users may get kicked out of the group chat randomly, and the video or photo sharing quality is even worse.

Individual texting with only one number is also impacted when an Android user tries to communicate with an iPhone user. iPhone users, who usually see blue text messages, will now receive green ones. Popular features from Apple will also stop working, such as “liking” a message or using read receipts, which allows you to see when someone has viewed your text message.

Why Apple and Android are Incompatible

The incompatibility between Apple and Android systems has long been a source of annoyance for both sets of users. Android users don’t encounter issues when communicating with someone who also has an Android, just like iOS users don’t have problems when texting devices that are within the Apple ecosystem. If you can easily text someone within the same system, then you should also be able to communicate with those outside of the Apple or Android operating system. Or so you would think.

The issue of incompatibility lies within Apple’s software. When an iPhone receives a text message, the iOS system will automatically convert that message into either an SMS or MMS message. However, when an iPhone texts another iPhone, those messages are created with RCS, or Rich Communication Services. With RCS, you can enjoy features like read receipts and high-quality image sharing.

Android has already updated its technology to include RCS, so you’d think texting between the systems would be easy. However, since iOS systems still use the outdated SMS and MMS messages for iPhone-to-non-iPhone communication, issues will instantly arise.

If Apple would just update its messaging technology, then these communication issues would be solved. However, Apple continues to refuse to update its software, despite public pushback from Android on social media. The U.S. Department of Justice has even gone so far as to sue Apple, claiming that its messaging technology gives it too much power over the smartphone market and violates antitrust laws.

For now, the ball is in Apple’s court. If Apple decides to update its messaging system, then most of these issues will go away. Until then, if you’re texting between an Android and an iOS system, you’ll just have to fight through those problems.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the choice to use either the Android or iOS systems is a personal one. You have to prioritize features like security or app download access when making the choice of which operating system to use. Unfortunately, some of these features are lost when texting between the Android and iOS systems. Hopefully, with some encouragement from the public and even the U.S. government, Apple will finally update its software and allow users from both platforms to text in peace.

Read next: 

• Google Veo 3 Now Available on Vertex AI With $300 Cloud Trial Access

• Americans are Overspending on Subscriptions by $600 a Year. Here's How to Stop It

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Android 16 Introduces New Protections Against Suspicious Mobile Networks

Google’s latest Android release is bringing a new line of defense for mobile users concerned about hidden surveillance threats. As part of Android 16, the company has added a notification system that can alert users when their phone connects to an unprotected cellular network or when a connected tower tries to extract sensitive identifying details from the device.

How Stingrays Target Devices Without Detection

The security challenge Google is addressing involves a device known as a "stingray," or cell-site simulator. These tools are capable of pretending to be legitimate mobile towers, tricking nearby phones into linking with them. Once a connection is established, the attacker may retrieve unique device identifiers or shift the communication to outdated network protocols that carry fewer protections. This technique has been associated with both government surveillance and unauthorized snooping.

Because these simulators are difficult to spot with the naked eye, Android 16 introduces software-based warnings that notify users of possible risks. For example, if the network lacks encryption or requests data such as the phone’s IMEI, a notice will appear in the system’s alert center.

New Settings Offer User Control, But Only on Modern Devices

These updates won’t appear on every device running Android 16. In fact, only newer hardware will be eligible. That’s because the system depends on advanced modem capabilities, specifically support for version 3.0 of Android’s IRadio HAL. Phones that lack this integration can’t process the signals needed to activate the alerts.

Google has revived the “mobile network security” settings page to host the new options, but it will only be visible on devices that meet both technical criteria: the ability to disable 2G connectivity and to display network notifications. So far, those requirements exclude even the current Pixel line. The first phones expected to fully support these features will likely debut alongside Android 16 later this year—starting with the anticipated Pixel 10.

More Than Just a Warning System

Android’s warning mechanism goes beyond simple notifications. It also logs when your phone reconnects to a secured network or when a network accesses its identifiers. These logs include time stamps and the number of times a request occurred. This information can help users judge whether a connection pattern seems suspicious or normal, such as reconnecting after airplane mode.

Along with the new notifications, users will still have access to Android’s 2G network toggle, which prevents devices from falling back onto legacy connections that are vulnerable to attack. Although this option has existed since earlier Android versions, it's now being bundled with the other security controls under one roof in Android 16’s Safety Center.

A Gradual Step, Not a Universal Fix

While the new features improve user awareness, they stop short of confirming whether a tower is real or fake. Android does not have the means to verify that level of detail. Instead, it surfaces relevant activity and leaves it to users to interpret the situation.

This limited approach reflects the complexity of protecting against invisible threats in mobile networks. Although Android 16 marks a step forward, full access to these protections will remain tied to devices with the right modem support. For now, that means users concerned about mobile surveillance may need to wait until newer phones roll out to benefit from these tools.

Image: AndroidAuthority. This post was created/edited using GenAI tools.

Read next: Web Search Promotes Stronger Understanding Than ChatGPT in Knowledge Tasks, Researchers Conclude
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World