Im less of the its losing utility and more its evolving. Doing things the old way moving forward will 100% create risk. Every search engine update ever has had this goal. Find what people are doing and come up with ways to penalize repetitive behaviors that dont serve the search engines purpose. The only real difference is the level of shift. One old school tactic that is becoming more meaning due to ai search is backlinks but only if used the right way to create citation authority that ai search algorithms will trust and use

Meta is one of the platforms that is very pro automation for advertising and communication. Any reference what the action was that triggered the warning. Only thing they don't like is cold outreach through dm

Ahh thats because claude has the new tool to act as a human but i guess fb can easily detect that. Playwright browser is the only one that i know of that can covertly act as a human interaction on fb without detection. Claude will likely cause issues and is probably detectable only as installed so just having it on browser will result in notice and issues as the function violates tos for fb

It will be useful for giving llms general context but its not going to get you recommended as it would not meet the requirements for llm is looking for. Llm for recommendation wants authority and value in context to consumer prose for questions they ask. It wants to see who its mention does x with y expertise that knows z subject in depth and shares knowledge that avg searcher needs regarding XX, YY and ZZ. Can you do that on a LLM info yes but not in a way that models trust as authoritatively as content that it deems natural and topical. AI 100% understands when its being fed context and accepts it but does not evaluate it equally to organic

Your example does help and is actually currently working exploit similar to an old SEO exploit from the early 2000s. What goes around comes around and like that will certainly get patched. Right now, search engines and AI systems are actively looking for contextual signals that define entities and authority. Because of that, some sites are making direct authority claims about themselves within their own content. In some cases, those claims are actually being picked up as source material for indexing or citations in LLM systems. The reason this works is pretty simple: If the model encounters a claim and there’s no contradictory context in the corpus, it may still treat the statement as a valid signal, even if it comes from the site itself. Third-party sources are still weighted more heavily, but because so many sites are failing to structure content for AI discovery, even first-party claims can occasionally make it into the index. theres a gap in the market and in that gap sits opportunity. The bigger question is what happens when engines start treating self-citation attempts as a negative signal. My guess: the impact will depend heavily on context. Some level of self-promotion is normal. Bragging, bold claims, and even a little grandiosity are expected in marketing with todays attention-driven spaces. Models will likely learn to tolerate that. However, clear authority stuffing — repeating exaggerated claims in an obvious attempt to manipulate AI systems will probably be interpreted for what they are—model manipulation. When that happens, the likely result isn’t just ignoring the signal. It could actually make those sites harder to surface in future results. In other words: Bold Claims = Fair game Unhinged Positioning = questionable but not penalized. Probably ignored. Model Manipulation = Slapped to the back of the bus.

I like the video style. First ive seen of yours. Very natural and personal. Has a professional polish to but still feels real. Exactly what tends to do well in todays social media.

Will you share any details on what has worked on nextdoor