Content Policy

Vietnam introduces mandatory labels for AI-generated content

Vietnam will require disclosure labels for certain AI-generated and AI-edited content from May under a new government decree aimed at improving online transparency.

Under Decree 142/2026/ND-CP, organisations and individuals using AI systems must disclose when content has been created or altered by AI in ways that could affect perceptions of authenticity.

The rules apply to AI-generated or AI-edited audio, image, and video content, particularly material imitating real people or realistic events. Particularly, it applies to content that imitates the appearance or voice of real people or recreates real-life events in a convincing manner. According to the decree, disclosures must be clear, visible, and recognisable before or during user access to the content.

The decree states that disclosures designed to obscure the AI-generated nature of content will not satisfy the requirements. Anyways, several exemptions are included. Several exemptions are included, such as technical quality improvements that do not materially alter content.

The framework also excludes certain AI-assisted editing functions, including spelling correction, translation, summarisation, and grammar editing, where original meaning is preserved. Additional exemptions apply to internal organisational use and controlled research or testing environments not intended for public release. At the end, content produced during research, development or testing activities in controlled environments and not released to the public is also an exemption.

Authorities said disclosures may take different forms depending on content type, including labels, captions, interface notices, or audio announcements. Labels may appear directly on content, in titles, captions and descriptions, through platform interfaces or even as audio announcements. Films and artistic productions may include disclosures in opening sections, end credits or supporting materials.

Responsibility for compliance will apply both to parties generating AI content and those distributing it publicly. Parties generating or editing AI content must provide the information needed for labelling, while those publishing the material to the public must ensure disclosure rules are followed.

Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology is expected to publish additional technical guidance related to the implementation of the disclosure framework. Officials said the guidance would not create additional administrative procedures or business conditions or obligations beyond those already outlined in the decree.

Why does it matter?

The decree reflects broader international efforts to improve transparency around AI-generated media as synthetic content becomes more realistic and widely accessible. Disclosure requirements are increasingly being explored by governments as a way to address misinformation risks, impersonation concerns, and public trust in digital content.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

European Commission advances AI transparency code under EU AI Act

The European Commission’s AI Office has convened a new round of working group meetings and workshops on the forthcoming Code of Practice on Marking and Labelling of AI-Generated Content.

The discussions brought together providers of generative AI systems and models, technology companies, industry representatives, civil society organisations and academic experts. Feedback from the meetings will inform the third and final draft of the code, expected in early June.

The code is intended to support transparency obligations under the AI Act, including requirements linked to marking, labelling, disclosure and detectability of AI-generated content. It covers issues such as synthetic media, deepfakes and certain AI-generated text.

Working Group 1 focused on marking and detection obligations for providers, including a revised multi-layered approach, technical feasibility, benchmarking, compliance frameworks and possible third-party assessments. Industry participants raised concerns over compliance burdens, innovation and feasibility, while civil society and academic experts called for stronger safeguards in the public interest.

Working Group 2 examined disclosure obligations for deployers of generative AI systems, particularly deepfakes and certain AI-generated text. Discussions covered origin disclosure, user-facing labels, proportionality, governance measures, editorial control and the possible development of a uniform EU label.

Additional workshops explored how machine-readable marks, provenance data, visible labels, watermarking systems and an EU-wide icon could work together across the AI value chain. Participants also discussed coordination with other EU rules, including the Digital Services Act, while stressing the need to balance transparency, legal clarity, accessibility and innovation.

Why does it matter?

The code of practice will help determine how AI-generated content is marked, labelled and disclosed across the EU. Its development highlights the practical difficulty of turning transparency obligations into workable rules, particularly when regulators, companies and civil society disagree over technical feasibility, compliance costs, user experience and safeguards against deceptive synthetic media.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!  

Grokipedia articles show selective political divergence from Wikipedia, research finds

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined structural and political differences between Wikipedia and Grokipedia, the AI-generated encyclopedia developed by xAI.

Researchers analysed 17,790 matched article pairs drawn from the 20,000 most-edited English-language Wikipedia entries. They found that Grokipedia articles are typically longer, more syntactically complex, and contain fewer references and hyperlinks per 1,000 words than their Wikipedia counterparts.

The study also identified a bimodal pattern across similarity measures, indicating that some Grokipedia entries closely resemble Wikipedia entries, while others diverge substantially in content and structure. Researchers said the findings suggest Grokipedia is not a fully independent alternative to Wikipedia, but often appears as an AI-mediated reconfiguration of Wikipedia content.

The analysis examined ideological differences by evaluating the political orientation of cited news media sources. Researchers found that divergence was concentrated primarily in politically and culturally sensitive topics, including religion, history, politics and literature.

Within those areas, Grokipedia articles showed a relative shift toward more right-leaning cited sources than Wikipedia. However, the study also noted that sources cited on both platforms remained predominantly left-leaning.

Researchers argued that Wikipedia’s human editorial processes make disputes, revisions and bias visible and contestable, while AI-generated systems may embed bias within more opaque automated workflows that are harder to scrutinise publicly.

The paper also raised broader concerns about the governance of AI-generated knowledge systems. Researchers warned that AI-generated encyclopedic content could shape future training datasets and automated information ecosystems, potentially reproducing or amplifying bias without sufficient transparency, accountability or human oversight.

Why does it matter?

The findings add to growing debates over AI-generated knowledge systems, political bias, citation quality and transparency. As generative AI increasingly produces reference and educational material, the key question is not only whether outputs are accurate, but whether their sources, editorial assumptions and revisions can be scrutinised. Grokipedia’s differences from Wikipedia show how automated knowledge systems may reshape information governance while making some forms of bias less visible.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!  

FTC targets nudify tools over TAKE IT DOWN Act compliance

The US Federal Trade Commission has sent warning letters to 12 websites offering so-called ‘nudify’ tools, expanding its enforcement of the TAKE IT DOWN Act.

The law requires covered platforms to provide a process for people to request the removal of intimate photos or videos shared online without consent, and to remove that content within 48 hours of a valid request.

The letters were sent to companies offering tools that can take a clothed image of a person and generate non-consensual sexualised images by removing clothing. According to the FTC, the companies appear to be violating the law by failing to provide a process for victims to request the removal of non-consensual intimate images from their platforms.

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said platforms ‘no longer have any excuses’ and must comply with their obligations under the TAKE IT DOWN Act or face consequences.

The letters urge the companies to comply with the law immediately. Platforms that fail to do so could face FTC legal action and civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

The action follows the FTC’s start of TAKE IT DOWN Act enforcement on 19 May. Ahead of the deadline, Ferguson sent letters to major platforms, including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok and X, reminding them of their compliance obligations.

The FTC has also issued business guidance on compliance with the law, which was signed in May 2025 and gave companies one year to meet its requirements.

Why does it matter?

The warning letters show how the FTC is applying the TAKE IT DOWN Act directly to AI-powered nudify tools, not only mainstream social media platforms. The action reflects growing concern that generative AI can make image-based sexual abuse easier to create and distribute at scale, while placing stronger legal pressure on platforms to give victims a fast removal process.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Australia’s regulator targets AI-nudify platform over child safety and deepfake risks

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has begun enforcement action against another AI-powered ‘nudify’ service accused of failing to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit deepfake images.

The regulator issued a formal Direction to Comply to one of the most visited nudify services in Australia, giving the provider 14 days to implement stronger protections preventing children from accessing the platform. eSafety said the service allows users to upload images of real people and generate sexually explicit deepfake content on demand.

The regulator warned that such technologies can facilitate non-consensual exploitation, cyberbullying, sexual extortion, image-based sexual abuse, misogynistic harassment and exploitation of minors. The service had attracted nearly 40,000 Australian visits per month as of March 2026, following a sharp increase in traffic over the previous six months.

The enforcement action was taken under Australia’s Age-Restricted Material Codes, which came into force in March 2026. The codes are designed to prevent children from accessing or being exposed to age-restricted material, including pornography, high-impact violence, self-harm, suicide or disordered eating content.

eSafety said the Argentina-based provider failed to respond to earlier engagement after the codes took effect and had not committed to improving protections for children. The regulator chose not to name the service to avoid inadvertently promoting it.

If the service does not meet the requirements within the 14-day timeframe, eSafety may pursue further action, including civil penalties of up to AU$49.5 million and delisting notices to search engine providers that help facilitate access to the site.

The action follows earlier enforcement in late 2025 that led three widely used nudify services, which had reportedly been used to generate child sexual exploitation material in schools, to withdraw from Australia. Those services have since relaunched under new ownership with additional safety measures, including mandatory age assurance.

Why does it matter?

The case shows how online safety regulators are beginning to apply age-assurance and child protection rules directly to generative AI services. Nudify platforms are treated as high-risk because they can enable non-consensual sexualised deepfakes, image-based abuse and exploitation involving minors at scale. Australia’s enforcement approach also signals that regulators may target foreign-based AI services when they are accessible to local users and fail to implement safeguards.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Researchers analyse framing of youth social media use in Australian policy discussions

A new paper, published in the journal SAGE Journals, examines how concerns around children’s social media use are framed in debates surrounding regulation and online safety. The study was authored by researchers Justine Humphry, Catherine Page Jeffery, and Jonathon Hutchinson.

According to the paper, the research focuses on debates related to Australia’s proposed social media age restriction laws. The authors argue that media coverage and political discussion increasingly frame teenagers’ social media use as an issue requiring stronger regulation.

The paper explores how discussions about risk, safety, and childhood vulnerability influenced calls for age-based restrictions on social media. The study also examines how age-based regulation emerged as a proposed policy response to wider concerns about digital platforms and young people.

The research contributes to broader academic discussions on digital governance, youth agency, and media regulation. The research was published as an open-access article in Convergence and centres on policy debates in Australia.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

eSafety Commissioner and Sport Integrity Australia focus on online harms in sport

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and Sport Integrity Australia have launched a joint initiative focused on online safety in sport.

The Online Safety in Sport Summit brought together representatives from sporting organisations, government agencies, researchers, law enforcement, and technology companies. The discussions focused on cyberbullying, online harassment, and harmful digital behaviour affecting athletes and sporting communities.

During the summit, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said harmful behaviour linked to sport increasingly occurs across social media, messaging applications, and online communities.

Research presented during the summit, titled ‘The Digital Sideline’, found that nearly one in five children participating in organised sport reported experiencing cyberbullying related to sporting activities.

Officials in Australia said that many reported online harms involved peers, including teammates and competitors, and occurred through private messages and group chats.

Participants highlighted the importance of prevention measures, early intervention, and cooperation between sporting organisations, regulators, and technology companies.

Why does it matter?

Online abuse within sport is becoming an increasingly significant policy and governance issue as digital platforms reshape athlete visibility, fan interaction, and youth participation. Cyberbullying, online harassment, and hate speech can affect mental health, athlete safety, participation rates, and broader social cohesion.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

OpenAI expands verification tools as AI slop blurs digital trust

OpenAI has announced new measures to strengthen the provenance and verification of AI-generated content as synthetic media becomes more widespread across digital platforms.

The company said it is expanding support for Content Credentials and compliance with the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) standard. The standard uses metadata and cryptographic signatures to help ensure that information about a piece of media travels securely with the content, including details on where it came from and how it may have been created or edited.

OpenAI also plans to integrate Google DeepMind’s SynthID watermarking into images generated through ChatGPT, Codex and the OpenAI API. The company said SynthID will add an invisible watermarking layer that complements C2PA metadata, particularly when metadata is removed, lost, or altered during file conversions, resizing, screenshots, or other transformations.

The company said it is adopting a multi-layered provenance approach that combines metadata, watermarking and public verification tools rather than relying on a single detection method. According to OpenAI, C2PA can provide richer contextual information, while SynthID can help preserve a signal when metadata does not survive.

The move also connects to wider concerns about AI slop, as synthetic media and low-quality AI-generated content become harder to distinguish from authentic images. Provenance tools cannot solve the problem alone, but they can provide clearer signals about how digital media was created or modified.

OpenAI also previewed a public verification tool that will allow users to check whether ChatGPT, Codex or the OpenAI API generated an uploaded image. The tool will look for provenance signals, including Content Credentials and SynthID watermarks. Still, OpenAI said it will not make a definitive judgement when no signal is detected, because provenance signals can sometimes be removed.

At launch, the verification tool is limited to OpenAI-generated content. The company said it aims to support wider cross-platform verification efforts in the coming months and eventually expand support to more types of online content.

Why does it matter?

AI-generated content is becoming harder to distinguish from authentic media, fuelling concerns around AI slop, deepfakes and manipulated information. Provenance systems such as Content Credentials, watermarking and verification tools can help people understand where media came from and whether it was generated or modified by AI. However, OpenAI’s approach also shows the limits of technical detection: metadata can be stripped, watermarks may not survive every transformation, and no single method can provide complete certainty.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!  

FTC begins TAKE IT DOWN Act enforcement

The US Federal Trade Commission has begun enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act, requiring covered platforms to remove non-consensual intimate images and known identical copies within 48 hours of a valid request.

The FTC enforces Section 3 of the law, which sets a 19 May 2026 deadline for covered platforms to create a process allowing victims and survivors to request the removal of intimate photos or videos shared online without their consent.

As part of its enforcement role, the agency has launched TakeItDown.ftc.gov, a website where victims and survivors can submit complaints about platforms that fail to act on valid removal requests or have not created a removal process.

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said the law gives families recourse against digital exploitation and extortion, particularly where children are affected. He added that ‘in the age of AI, anyone can be targeted’, making protections against abuse especially urgent.

The FTC has also published guidance for consumers whose non-consensual intimate images are posted online and separate guidance for businesses on complying with the law.

Ahead of the enforcement deadline, Ferguson sent letters to major platforms, including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X, reminding them of their obligations under the TAKE IT DOWN Act.

Why does it matter?

The law gives victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse a faster route to removal and gives the FTC a direct enforcement role when platforms fail to comply. Its importance has grown with the spread of AI-generated sexual abuse material and deepfake tools, which can make intimate image abuse easier to create, copy and distribute at scale.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Diplo chatbot can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.