Content Policy Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

India strengthens online child safety rules for social media

India is strengthening enforcement of its online child safety framework by introducing stricter obligations for social media platforms, including faster content removal requirements and new safeguards for AI-generated content.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said it has requested a detailed report from a social media platform following allegations that advertisements linked to child sexual abuse material (CSAM) appeared on its service. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has also issued notices to the platforms concerned.

The updated framework significantly shortens compliance deadlines for intermediaries. Platforms must remove unlawful content within three hours of receiving a court order or a reasoned government notice, compared with the previous 36-hour deadline.

Complaints involving nudity, morphed intimate images and similar sensitive content must be addressed within two hours, while intermediaries are also required to report offences involving CSAM and other relevant crimes to the appropriate authorities.

The amendments also expand obligations for AI-generated content. Intermediaries must ensure that permissible synthetic content is clearly labelled and accompanied by traceable metadata, while preventing the creation and dissemination of unlawful AI-generated material, including child sexual exploitation material, non-consensual intimate imagery, impersonation and deepfakes.

Significant social media intermediaries must also deploy automated tools and other technical measures to proactively detect CSAM and previously identified illegal content. India said compliance will be reinforced through government advisories and a standard operating procedure on non-consensual intimate imagery issued in 2025.

Authorities warned that platforms failing to meet their due diligence obligations could lose the liability protections provided under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and face prosecution under applicable laws.

Why does it matter?

India’s measures reflect a broader shift towards faster and more proactive platform accountability. Rather than relying primarily on user reports, regulators are increasingly requiring platforms to respond within hours, deploy automated detection systems and demonstrate that they can effectively prevent the spread of harmful content.

The inclusion of specific obligations for AI-generated content also illustrates how online safety regulation is evolving to address emerging risks such as deepfakes and synthetic child exploitation material. Together, the measures reinforce the expectation that platforms are responsible not only for removing illegal content but also for preventing its creation, distribution and recurrence.

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

NVIDIA launches AI video detector with 92% accuracy

NVIDIA has introduced Synthetic Video Detector, an AI-powered microservice designed to help media organisations identify potentially AI-generated video.

The system analyses footage frame by frame and produces a probability score indicating whether it contains synthetic content.

Editorial teams can use the result to prioritise clips for review, quarantine suspicious footage or escalate it for more detailed verification.

NVIDIA said the tool is intended to supplement established fact-checking and forensic practices rather than determine authenticity on its own.

In company testing, the detector achieved up to 92% accuracy on uncompressed video. Accuracy declined to 87% at 15% compression and 82% at 50% compression.

The system can process 1080p video in as little as 22 milliseconds on NVIDIA RTX systems and around 30 milliseconds on NVIDIA L40 GPUs.

Its architecture uses an ensemble of DINOv2 and DINOv3 vision transformer backbones and focuses on artefacts introduced by generative video systems.

Synthetic Video Detector forms part of the NVIDIA AI for Media platform and can be deployed in on-premises, edge, hybrid and approved air-gapped environments.

NVIDIA said the flexible deployment options could help broadcasters, government agencies and other organisations analyse sensitive footage while retaining control over their data.

Why does it matter?

Synthetic video is becoming harder to identify during fast-moving news events, increasing pressure on media organisations to verify footage before publication. NVIDIA’s detector could provide an additional screening signal and help editorial teams focus limited verification resources. Still, its declining performance on compressed material shows why automated detection cannot replace source checks, forensic analysis and human judgement.

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

Substack adds AI detection for posts and comments

Substack has introduced an AI detection feature that allows users to estimate whether text was written by a person or with AI assistance.

Developed in partnership with Pangram, the tool can scan posts, notes, comments and replies longer than 100 words that were published on or after 21 July 2026.

Results are not displayed automatically. Users must select the ‘Scan for AI text’ option to receive an estimate of how much of the content is likely to be human-written or AI-assisted.

The feature is available on the web and iOS, with Android support expected later.

Creators can add a ‘How I make this’ statement explaining their writing process, scan drafts before publication and report results they believe are inaccurate.

They can also turn off detection on individual posts or notes, in which case readers will be told that an AI analysis is unavailable.

Substack said the aim is to improve transparency rather than discourage responsible AI use, arguing that problems arise when readers’ expectations about authorship do not align with how content is produced.

The company is also considering community preferences for AI content, recommendation controls and further measures targeting spam, bots and AI-enabled scams.

Why does it matter?

Substack’s move reflects growing pressure on publishing and social platforms to provide clearer information about AI-assisted authorship without treating every use of AI as deceptive. On-demand detection and voluntary process disclosures may help readers make more informed choices. However, estimates can still be disputed or disabled and cannot determine the quality, originality or level of human judgement behind a text. The effectiveness of the approach will therefore depend on how users interpret the results and how reliably the detector distinguishes substantial AI generation from limited editorial assistance.

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

Meta expands Threads parental controls for teenagers

Meta is expanding parental supervision on Threads with new tools that allow parents and guardians to monitor activity, set screen-time limits and manage privacy settings for teenage users.

The tools will begin rolling out in the United States next week through Meta’s Family Center. They build on the company’s existing Teen Accounts, which provide private profiles and restrictions on potentially sensitive content by default.

Parents will be able to view a teenager’s Threads usage over the previous seven days, including average daily screen time, set daily usage limits and block access during selected hours or days.

The restrictions apply across devices, while supervision also extends to overnight use through sleep mode, which mutes notifications and enables automatic replies between 10 pm and 7 am by default.

Parents can also manage who is allowed to tag teenagers in posts and approve changes to selected privacy and sensitive-content settings.

For users under 16, parents may decide whether default Teen Account protections can be relaxed.

Meta said the expanded supervision tools are intended to provide families with a single place to manage teenage experiences across its apps and that additional features will be introduced over time.

The controls can be activated through Meta’s Family Center once supervision has been established between a parent and teenager.

Why does it matter?

The expanded supervision tools reflect growing pressure on social media platforms to provide parents with greater oversight of children’s online experiences. Features such as screen-time limits, overnight restrictions and stronger privacy controls are increasingly becoming standard expectations rather than optional additions.

The effectiveness of these measures, however, will depend on accurate age verification, teenagers’ ability to circumvent restrictions and the extent to which parental controls are complemented by platform-wide safety measures. The announcement also reflects a wider regulatory trend, with governments increasingly expecting platforms to offer stronger protections for younger users.

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

Liberties research warns against relying on AI for election guidance

The Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) has published research arguing that general-purpose AI systems should not be relied upon for personalised voting advice, after assessing ChatGPT and Gemini during Hungary’s 2026 parliamentary election campaign.

According to Liberties, the research found that the AI systems frequently failed to match users with the appropriate political party, produced inconsistent responses to identical prompts and often continued offering political guidance despite initially stating that they could not provide voting recommendations. The researchers also found that the systems did not explain a clear methodology for political matching or produce reproducible results.

The report argues that general-purpose AI systems differ from established voting advice applications, which typically operate under dedicated public oversight and transparent methodologies. It found that the AI systems gave little consideration to strategic voting, coalition dynamics or local electoral factors when generating recommendations.

Liberties said the findings expose governance gaps between the EU AI Act and the Digital Services Act, calling for stronger safeguards for AI systems that provide political information. The organisation recommends that AI providers direct users to trusted election information sources rather than offering personalised voting advice.

Why does it matter?

The report highlights the growing role of general-purpose AI systems as intermediaries for political information, even though they were not designed or regulated to function as voting advice services. Inaccurate, inconsistent or non-transparent recommendations could undermine informed electoral decision-making if users place undue trust in AI-generated guidance.

The findings also contribute to the broader debate over AI governance in democratic processes. As generative AI becomes more widely used during elections, policymakers may need to clarify how existing digital regulations apply to AI systems that influence political information without fitting neatly into established regulatory categories.

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

European Commission publishes AI Act guidance on transparency labels

The European Commission has published guidance explaining how providers and deployers should comply with new AI transparency requirements under the EU AI Act, ahead of obligations taking effect on 2 August 2026.

The rules are intended to help people recognise when they are interacting with an AI system or viewing content generated or manipulated by AI. According to the European Commission, greater transparency should reduce the risks of deception and manipulation.

Providers must ensure that interactive AI systems, including chatbots, inform users that they are communicating with AI. They must also attach machine-readable markings to synthetic or AI-manipulated content so it can be detected.

Deployers face separate obligations. They must disclose the use of deepfakes, emotion-recognition systems and biometric categorisation tools, and identify AI-generated content on matters of public interest when it is published without human review or editorial oversight.

The guidance also clarifies key concepts, including interactive AI systems, synthetic content, deepfakes and AI-generated public-interest text. It further explains exemptions for routine editing tools such as spelling and grammar correction.

Organisations can demonstrate compliance by following the voluntary Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content, which has been recognised by the Commission and the European AI Board as a practical means of meeting the AI Act’s requirements.

Most transparency obligations and enforcement powers will apply from 2 August, while AI systems already on the market must meet marking and detection requirements by 2 December 2026.

The Commission is also providing an AI Act Service Desk and additional guidance to help organisations understand and implement the new requirements.

Why does it matter?

The guidance marks the beginning of one of the AI Act’s first operational transparency obligations. By requiring AI-generated and manipulated content to be identified, the EU aims to reduce the risks posed by deepfakes, synthetic media and undisclosed AI interactions while helping users make more informed decisions about the content they encounter.

The guidance also provides organisations with greater legal certainty ahead of enforcement. Clear definitions, recognised compliance mechanisms and practical implementation support should make it easier for providers and deployers to meet the AI Act’s transparency requirements consistently across the EU.

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

Spain reports more than 40,000 online hate posts in June

Spain’s Observatory on Racism and Xenophobia (OBERAXE) detected more than 40,800 pieces of online hate speech and discriminatory content in June 2026, according to its latest social media monitoring bulletin.

Using data collected through Spain’s FARO monitoring system, the analysis found that public insecurity remained the main driver of discriminatory narratives, accounting for 69% of detected content. Sport accounted for a further 16%, with racist and Islamophobic abuse increasing during the FIFA World Cup, including attacks targeting Spanish footballer Lamine Yamal.

The report found that 89% of monitored messages contained explicitly aggressive language, while nearly one-third included images, videos, memes or coded language that can facilitate the spread of hateful content and make automated detection more difficult.

OBERAXE also recorded a significant rise in dehumanising narratives, which represented 48% of monitored content, alongside messages portraying targeted groups as threats or promoting expulsions and violence.

People of North African origin remained the primary target of online hate speech, representing 88% of analysed content, followed by Muslims and people of African descent.

The report also highlighted persistent false or misleading narratives linking migrants to crime, public disorder and insecurity, with debates over immigration policy and migrant regularisation further fuelling discriminatory online discussions.

Platform responses varied considerably. Overall, 61% of reported content was removed, slightly below the previous month’s rate. TikTok recorded the highest removal rate (98%), followed by X (93%), Facebook (62%), Instagram (32%) and YouTube (8%).

OBERAXE also found that content reported through trusted flagger mechanisms was significantly more likely to be removed than content reported by individual users, highlighting the value of institutional cooperation between public authorities and online platforms.

Why does it matter?

The findings illustrate the continuing scale of online hate speech targeting migrants and racialised communities in Spain, while showing how offline events such as major sporting competitions and migration debates can amplify discriminatory narratives online.

The report also underlines the growing importance of trusted flagger mechanisms, platform accountability and AI-assisted monitoring in implementing online safety policies. The wide variation in platform removal rates suggests that moderation practices remain inconsistent, reinforcing the role of regulatory oversight and cooperation between public authorities and digital platforms.

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

European Commission fines AliExpress €550 million for DSA breaches

The European Commission has fined AliExpress €550 million for breaching the Digital Services Act (DSA), concluding that the platform failed to adequately assess and mitigate the systemic risks associated with illegal, unsafe and counterfeit products sold through its marketplace.

The Commission found that AliExpress underestimated the risks posed by its services and failed to implement effective safeguards to protect consumers across the EU.

According to the Commission, AliExpress failed to adequately assess the effectiveness of its content moderation systems or allocate sufficient human resources to review illegal products.

Investigators also found that the platform’s recommender and advertising systems continued promoting illegal products before they were removed, while its risk assessments relied on insufficient quantitative evidence to measure the effectiveness of its mitigation measures.

The investigation also identified significant weaknesses in AliExpress’ risk mitigation measures. Counterfeit goods, unsafe toys and dangerous cosmetics remained available for extended periods, while traders repeatedly bypassed compliance checks through product miscategorisation.

The Commission further concluded that the platform failed to consistently sanction sellers of illegal products and that its brand authorisation system did not effectively prevent counterfeit listings.

AliExpress must submit an action plan by 20 October 2026 explaining how it will comply with the DSA.

The European Board for Digital Services will review the proposal before the Commission adopts a final implementation decision. Continued non-compliance could result in periodic penalty payments as the Commission monitors implementation.

Why does it matter?

The decision is one of the most significant enforcement actions taken under the Digital Services Act to date and demonstrates the European Commission’s willingness to impose substantial financial penalties on platforms that fail to manage systemic risks. It reinforces the DSA’s preventive approach, which requires very large online platforms to identify, assess and mitigate risks before harm occurs rather than relying solely on the removal of illegal content after the fact.

The case also signals that the Commission expects platforms to back their risk assessments with robust evidence, effective moderation systems and adequate human oversight. Future DSA enforcement is therefore likely to focus not only on the presence of illegal content but also on whether companies can demonstrate that their governance and risk management processes are working effectively.

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

Victoria proposes tougher child safety laws for social media and AI

Victoria’s Labor government plans to introduce child safety laws that would make it easier for families to bring legal claims against social media and AI companies accused of harming children.

The proposed reforms would remove the requirement for claims brought on behalf of minors to demonstrate permanent psychiatric impairment of at least 10% before proceedings against social media or AI providers can begin.

The government argues that addictive platform features can damage children’s mental health and that the current legal threshold creates an unnecessary barrier for affected families seeking compensation.

The reforms would also give the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) new powers to issue ‘demasking orders’, requiring social media companies to reveal the identities of anonymous users accused of online vilification.

Premier Jacinta Allan said families should be able to hold technology companies accountable when their platforms harm children and that anonymity should not shield users responsible for hateful conduct.

The government will also consider whether the lower legal threshold should apply to claims involving adults before finalising the legislation. The reforms will be developed through targeted consultations with VCAT, the courts and other stakeholders before being introduced to parliament.

Why does it matter?

The proposed reforms reflect a growing international trend towards holding technology companies more accountable for the real-world impacts of platform design, particularly where children are concerned. Lowering the threshold for legal claims could make it easier for families to seek redress while increasing pressure on platforms to address features that may contribute to harm.

The introduction of ‘demasking orders’ also illustrates how online safety policy is expanding beyond content moderation to include stronger legal mechanisms for identifying anonymous users and enforcing accountability. If adopted, the legislation could influence similar debates in other jurisdictions considering tougher platform liability rules.

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

Meta adds suicide prevention safeguards to AI chats for teens

Meta has announced new safety measures for teenagers using Meta AI, including parental alerts when supervised teens show signs of suicide or self-harm during conversations with the chatbot. The company said alerts will be sent only after manual review and will include guidance to help parents support their child.

The company is also developing a system to notify emergency services when AI conversations indicate someone may face an imminent risk of suicide. The approach builds on the company’s existing practice of referring serious suicide risks identified on Facebook and Instagram to emergency responders.

Meta said it worked with more than 75 mental health clinicians to improve how its AI responds when teenagers discuss suicide or self-harm. The updated responses are intended to acknowledge users’ feelings while directing them towards appropriate offline support and crisis services.

The company is also extending its stricter ‘Limited Content’ setting to Meta AI chats, restricting a wider range of sensitive conversations for supervised teens. The parental alerts are now available in the US, UK, Australia and Canada, with global rollout planned by the end of the year.

Why does it matter?

The measures illustrate how AI safety is expanding beyond preventing harmful content to managing situations in which users may face immediate risks to their wellbeing. As conversational AI becomes more widely used by teenagers, developers are increasingly expected to incorporate safeguards, human oversight and access to professional support into their systems.

The announcement also highlights the growing convergence between AI governance and child online safety. Features such as parental notifications, clinically informed responses and emergency escalation suggest that AI assistants are beginning to adopt safety frameworks previously developed for social media platforms, raising new questions about privacy, duty of care and appropriate intervention.

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