And people will see less and less of the original material, popups, cookie warnings, floating videos and offers to join a mailing list. It's so sad (not)
Of course opinions vary on HN but generally it feels like a "ad-blocking is cool, paywall hopping is cool, but the server also has the right to not give us the information".
Given this, this is pretty sensational reporting by The Verge -- calling it theft, comparing it to crypto, breaking the "foundations of the internet" (... the Internet is about sharing) etc. This is a non-story, we already have these tools, this just adds an AI summary layer on top.
And in-text ads can already be removed by summarisation tools (even from before the AI era!) or by apps like Boring Report.
This is a story. With ad blockers, the assumption was that the original page as a whole is valuable, but users just don't want to pay the cost of the ads and other obtrusive elements. But now we're opening up the question of what exactly is it on that page that's of actual value - is it just the text, or only some of the text, or only the "facts" expressed on the page, or maybe something even more abstract, such as how the page corroborates a fact on another page.
I find this to be a really interesting question, both on a practical level and on an epistemological level - what is it that we as readers actually (want to) get from a resource?