• Cloudflare's CEO has issued a stark warning for content creators.
• Matthew Prince said creators could lose out on advertising cash as people turn to AI for search purposes.
• He suggested creators work with tech companies to block AI bots from accessing their work without paying.

The CEO of one of the internet's biggest gatekeepers has warned that content creators are at risk of losing out on subscription and advertising money as people increasingly turn to AI for search purposes.

Matthew Prince, the billionaire cofounder and CEO of cybersecurity giant Cloudflare, told CNBC on Wednesday that creators need to push back as more of their value is captured directly by AI searches.

"I think that the economy is for sure changing," Prince said.

"What's changing is not that fewer people are searching the internet," he continued. "It's that more and more of the answers to Google are being answered right on Google's page."

Creators may miss out on ad views and subscription sign-ups as search engines and AI bots can now provide answers to search queries while sending fewer people to the original source, which Prince said could spell trouble for content producers.

"If you're making money through subscriptions, through advertising, any of the things that content creators are doing today, visitors aren't going to be seeing those ads," he said. "That means it's gonna be much, much harder for you to be a content creator."

Moving forward, Prince suggested that creators should work with tech companies to block AI bots from accessing their work without paying.

"The fuel that runs these AI engines is original content. So that content has to get created in order for these AI engines to work," he said. "What content creators have to do is restrict access to content, create that scarcity, and say, 'you're not going to get my content unless you're actually getting paying me for creating that content.'"

But Prince said there was still some cause for optimism, particularly for those creating "valuable" work.

"Original content that is actually highly valuable is I think going to be more valuable in this future," he said.

The exec has also spoken about what he sees as AI's potential upside for businesses and how the technology can supplement real workers' skills.

"AI has helped us not replace people, but help make people better," Prince told Business Insider in an interview last month, adding that Cloudflare's use of AI was less about replacing teams and more about giving them "superpowers."

• When I got divorced, I was so scared of being alone that I immediately went on the dating sites.
• I jumped into a relationship very quickly without realizing we had different values.
• When that relationship ended, I learned to heal and focus on myself.

It was only six months since my divorce became final that I did something I still regret. I created a Match.com profile.

I was just a week away from turning 40 and newly alone. I was hiding my pain so well that my friend suggested I start online dating. I knew it was a bad idea, but I took her advice anyway.

I quickly got into a relationship with a man when I should have been focusing on myself and my healing post-divorce.

I did not want to face the pain of being alone and divorced

Getting divorced in my early 40s was not in the plan. When it became my reality, I struggled with loneliness. I had been married for almost 16 years and had known my ex-husband for 18 years. The idea of suddenly being alone at night and having no one to share my day with was scary. It also meant having no financial support and having to rely solely on myself for the first time.

Instead of facing it, I buried that pain. I distracted myself by reading the messages from guys on dating apps.

There were too many choices on the apps, and I quickly found out that you don't know a person unless you've gone out with them a few times and learned to ask the right questions. So that's what I did.

I felt I was interviewing and hiring a man to be a boyfriend; it did not feel great. I wanted a more natural way of meeting someone, but with my busy work schedule, long commute, and kids, the apps were the best way to meet someone.

The dating apps were helping to distract me from my pain, but also making me feel even more alone. I knew I needed to get into a relationship and off the apps fast.

I met someone who seemed like the right match

I wanted a nice, kind guy, and I did not care if he was older or younger. I wanted somebody who could be a great friend and show much-needed love and care.

I thought I found someone who fit the bill right after my birthday. He was tall, handsome, and a little bit older.

He portrayed himself as a strong, caring man. He also made me feel safe. He accepted my flaws, weirdness, and sense of humor.

I filled the emptiness in my heart with the occasional dates with him. I felt alive again when I heard his laughter. It was exciting and fun when we spent time together.

But something didn't feel right. We dated for two years, and ultimately, I realized we had different priorities and values. He was not my match; I just started dating him and stayed with him to avoid the cold, empty bed at night after my divorce.

I paid a high price for my wrong move

I made the biggest mistake of looking happy and making my friends believe I was ready for a new relationship after my divorce. The fact is, I was not prepared for a new relationship, not even close.

I was so eager to find a man to walk down the aisle with again, but I made the wrong move. I forgot to find myself first.

It's been 10 years since that relationship ended, and I have since invested money, energy, and time into my spiritual and personal growth. I can now say I am OK with being single as I approach my 50th birthday. I now value the relationship I have with myself.

The poorest kids in the country miss out on the full benefits of the expanded child tax credit in the "big beautiful bill."

Why it matters: The bill now making its way to the Senate provides more tax breaks to higher earners than those at the bottom.

By the numbers: The Republican bill raises the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child from $2,000 for three years.

• 20 million children would not fully benefit from the increase, according to an analysis from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), since their parents don't earn enough income to get the maximum amount.

"A majority of those children get nothing from the proposed expansion," says Kris Cox, director of federal tax policy at the CBPP.

• 17 million children as of now do not receive the full benefit from this tax credit, per the CBPP. None of them will get anything from the expansion.

How it works: Under current law, families need upward of $30,000 a year to receive the full tax credit amount, explains Joe Hughes, senior analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

• Parents who are poor and don't owe income taxes can only claim up to $1,700 per child, known as the "refundability cap." It's a number which adjusts annually for inflation.
• The new bill didn't raise the refundability cap. Instead, it only increases the maximum that parents, earning less $400,000 a year, can claim.
• A married couple filing jointly would need to earn $48,550 to receive the full tax credit under the new bill, per CBPP estimates. Under current law, a married couple has to earn $36,800.

Zoom out: The new bill widens the gap between what's available to kids in higher income families and those who need help most.

For example: A married couple with two children earning $400,000 a year, the max income allowed to claim the credit, would get an additional $1,000 tax credit.

• A single parent with two children, earning $24,000 a year, would get nothing, Cox explains in a recent Bluesky post.
• The parents who miss out on the full benefit are those working in low-paying jobs like cashiers, home health aids and housekeepers.

Presumably a few of these parents are tipped employees who could benefit from the no-tax-on-tips provision of the bill. However, just as with this the child tax credit, many earn too small an income to benefit.

The other side: The standard defense here is that low-income Americans don't pay very much in taxes. Their tax burden is low, so they shouldn't get the full credit because they don't need the tax relief.

• White House spokesman Kush Desai says wealth inequality decreased after the 2017 tax bill, and the new bill would lock that success in place.
• He adds that it builds on that success "by eliminating taxes on tips and overtime in addition to rewarding American manufacturing with full equipment and factory expensing to turbocharge America's economic resurgence."

Between the lines: This big bill faces big hurdles ahead in the Senate — and the bond market — and it's not clear what will eventually make it through.

The intrigue: The legislation also blocks another 4.5 million children from benefiting from the child tax credit because now to claim it, both parents, if they are filing jointly, must have their own Social Security numbers.

• Under current law, parents who don't have Social Security numbers can claim the credit if their child has one. So, for instance, a parent who is a non-citizen immigrant and files taxes with an ITIN number can claim it.
• Before 2017, any parent filing taxes could claim the credit. But when Congress changed the law in the first Trump tax bill, 1 million citizen children lost out, Cox says.

State of play: The child tax credit provisions are a stark 180 for the House.

• Just last year, the House passed a bill, with 169 Republican votes, that would have made the credit more equitable. (It failed in the Senate.)

The bottom line: An expanded child tax credit benefits a lot of middle and upper-middle class parents, but the poorest don't catch a break.

• President Donald Trump's $5 million "gold card" visa aimed at the rich could face limited demand.
• One analyst said even the wealthy may be reluctant to pay that much as a fee rather than an investment.
• The move appears to have boosted interest in the EB-5 visa program, Henley & Partners said.

In February President Donald Trump announced a $5 million "gold card" visa scheme that would offer green card privileges and a "route to citizenship."

He's suggested that as many as one million people might want to buy one, while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said that 250,000 people were "waiting in line" and "willing to pay the $5 million" fee.

This week Lutnick told Axios that a website where potential applicants could register their interest would go live within weeks and that further details would follow.

Dominic Volek, head of private clients at Henley & Partners, an investment migration consultancy, said the scheme was unlikely to generate a rush of applications.

"Their estimations are just simply way off," he told Business Insider. "As a general rule of thumb for wealthy people, they won't spend more than 10% of their liquid net worth on a single discretionary purchase" — whether that's a yacht, a watch, or the right to live in a country.

Volek said that to comfortably afford $5 million, an individual would need at least $50 million in liquid net worth.

"Globally, there's probably only 100,000 to 150,000 people who have that kind of net worth, and the majority are already in the US. And so that leaves you with less than 100,000 people as a potential market," he said.

Even if you're quite wealthy, the idea of handing over $5 million rather than investing it may be a tough sell. Many other countries with citizenship or residence-by-investment programs offer tangible returns, not pure capital outflows.

New Zealand offers residency in exchange for a $2.95 million investment, while Singapore requires a $7.8 million investment.

Tax trouble

"Those were all investments," Volek said. "That's money I put into the stock market, into a business, into a bond, and I get a return."

Another factor is taxation. Unlike many countries, the US taxes citizens — and even green card holders living abroad — on their worldwide income.

"It's not a good place to be from a tax perspective," Volek said. "If the tax treatment is not adjusted, then it will be a massive failure."

Trump's plan has triggered a ripple effect by boosting interest for the more affordable EB-5 immigrant investor visa, which offers green cards for a $1.05 million investment.

"Probably 80% of the prospects we were speaking to immediately called and said, 'Let's start the process. Let's get our petition in,'" Volek said.

According to a recent report from Henley & Partners and global wealth intelligence firm New World Wealth, EB-5 visa enquiries jumped 168% in the first quarter of this year compared to the last quarter of 2024.

By April, enquiries about the EB-5 program had already reached nearly 50% of 2024's total, the firm said.

Lutnick has suggested that the gold card visa could replace the EB-5 program.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• Microsoft's chief product officer of experiences and devices says people should keep learning to code.
• Computer science isn't dead, Aparna Chennapragada said on a recent podcast, and the role of the engineer will endure.
• For project managers, she said that editing and "taste-making" will be more important than ever.

Microsoft CPO Aparna Chennapragada doesn't buy the idea that coding is on its way out.

"I have one other additional bonus thing, which is a lot of folks think about, 'Oh, don't bother studying computer science or the coding is dead,' and I just fundamentally disagree," Chennapragada, the tech giant's chief product officer of experiences and devices, said on Lenny's Podcast.

"If anything, I think we've always had higher and higher layers of abstraction in programming," she added.

Despite fears that AI could ultimately render software engineers irrelevant — or at least materially cut down on job openings in the field — Chennapragada believes that AI only adds a further layer of abstraction in the existing process of programming.

"We don't program in assembly anymore," she said. "Most of us don't even program in C, and then you're kind of higher and higher layers of abstraction. So to me, they will be ways that you will tell the computer what to do, right? It'll just be at a much higher level of abstraction, which is great. It democratizes."

Chennapragada said it's possible that, in the future, we'll think of software engineers more as software operators, but the role itself is unlikely to disappear.

"There'll be an order of magnitude more software operators," she said. "Instead of 'Cs,' maybe we'll have 'SOs,' but that doesn't mean you don't understand computer science and it's a way of thinking and it's a mental model. So I strongly disagree with the whole, 'Coding is dead.'"

As for the fate of project managers, who are subject, like many other middle managers, to big tech's "great flattening," Chennapragada expects them to endure, albeit with modified responsibilities. Taste, she said, will be more important than ever.

"In some sense, if you look at it, there's going to be a supply of ideas, a massive increase in supply of ideas in prototypes, which is great," Chennapragada said. "It raises the floor, but it raises the ceiling as well. In some sense, how do you break out in these times that you have to make sure that this is something that rises above the noise?"

Chennapragada did not respond to a request for comment by Business Insider prior to publication.

AI makes it easier than ever to actualize an idea, she said, which means that sifting through the glut of ideas will be especially important — so project managers will need to further develop what Chennapragada calls "the taste-making and the editing" instincts.

"In a world where the supply of ideas, supply of prototypes becomes even more like an order of magnitude higher, you'd have to think about, 'What is the editing function here?'" she said.

Because it's so much easier to just get started, Chennapragada says she's observed less of an instinct to automatically turn to a project manager for approval. Though final approval will become more important than ever, she believes PMs have to earn the right to judge.

"There's an interesting side effect I am observing in startups that I'm advising, companies, and even within the companies, that there used to be more gatekeeping, I would say, in terms of like — 'Oh, we should ask the product leader what they think,'" Chennapragada said. "And again, there is a role for that editing function, but you have to earn it now."

• The word "tariff" might be about to get scarcer in the retail world, a consumer researcher told BI.
• Walmart drew President Trump's ire after saying the company would hike prices due to tariffs.
• Neutral wordings like "sourcing costs" or "supply chain expenses" may become more common, the researcher said.

The "T-word" may soon go the way of DEI and ESG.

In the months since President Donald Trump began rolling out his shifting tariff policies, companies have been grappling with how to communicate the impact the policy will have on prices. But consumers may be hearing about that less.

Instead, phrases like "sourcing costs," "supply chain expenses" or "import costs" — accompanied with a detailed explanation of measures the company took to mitigate any price increase — will become code for "tariff" in earnings calls and other business meetings, said Denise Dahlhoff, director of marketing and communications research at The Conference Board, which advises companies on economic trends.

"As a business today, you have to think of it as a multi-stakeholder world," Dahlhoff told Business Insider. "There are your customers, your employees, your investors, the government, the president, the media, and your supplier community."

The tariffs are part of Trump's economic agenda to bring back offshored American manufacturing and incentivize companies to make goods domestically by making imports more costly.

Businesses large and small have said they see disclosing tariff costs as a means to retain consumer trust, but major companies that have been explicit about tariff costs or have been suspected of such plans are facing increasing political pressure, often from the president himself.

Walmart announced during an earnings call on May 15 that they would need to raise prices due to Trump's tariffs. In a post on Truth Social on May 17, Trump criticized Walmart for "blaming" his policies and demanded that the retailer "eat the tariffs," adding that he will "be watching" for price hikes.

Walmart did not immediately respond to a request for comments, but a spokesperson previous told BI that the company has always worked to keep prices "as low as possible."

This also wouldn't be the first time Trump took tariff price hikes personally. When it was reported that Amazon was considering displaying how much tariffs are contributing to the price of individual products, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, called the idea a "hostile and political act." Amazon quickly denied ever planning to display tariff costs.

"Saying 'tariff' could be interpreted as a political statement because this country is politically very divided, so it is a very complex environment, and you want to avoid terms that might divide people or might not be universally liked," Dahlhoff said.

Retailers may avoid the issue altogether, and instead leave the consumers to do the math, Michael Baker, a senior analyst at D.A. Davidson, previously told BI.

"Retailers will have learned they need to be very careful — and it's very tricky — on how they articulate that so as to not wind up on a Truth Social post," Baker said. "That does add a layer of complication."

Dahlhoff said company leaders these days should also avoid words like DEI and ESG, which promote equity and environmentalism, but have become very politically charged after Trump threatened to cut federal funding from institutions that engage in these practices. Some businesses like Target have publicly rolled back DEI measures after Trump's inauguration, and promptly faced public boycott. The company changed the name of its DEI strategy to "Belonging at the Bullseye."

"If it was a tight rope businesses were walking before, now it's a thin string," Dahlhoff said.

Peter Cohan, an associate professor of management at Babson College and a venture capitalist, previously told BI that tariff awareness is extremely heightened among consumers, so they have a good understanding of the cause of price hikes at this point, regardless of what businesses call it.

"I do not think it's smart to cave," said Cohan of giving in to the President's demands. "If there isn't pushback, then it's appeasement, and companies changing their policies based on getting an angry call from the President will lose their ability to effectively manage their business."

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at katherineli.21 or WhatsApp at 510-365-6496. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.