Content Policy Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

YouTube expands AI likeness detection tool to more creators

YouTube said it is expanding its AI likeness detection tool to all eligible creators over 18, allowing more users to identify and request the removal of unauthorised AI-generated videos that use their facial likeness.

The company said the feature, available through YouTube Studio, is intended to detect altered or synthetic videos that may depict a user’s face. Once enrolled, users can review detected matches and request the removal of content that violates YouTube’s Privacy Guidelines.

The platform said likeness detection had recently been introduced as a pilot for creators in the YouTube Partner Program and will now roll out gradually over the coming weeks to all eligible creators aged 18 or older.

YouTube said the tool is intended to help users understand where their likeness appears, safeguard their identity, and protect audiences from being misled by AI-generated depictions.

To enrol, users must grant the platform permission to use likeness-detection technology and complete a one-time verification process. According to YouTube, the tool works only on facial likeness and does not cover other identifying features such as voice.

YouTube said removal requests will be assessed under YouTube’s privacy policy, including whether the content is realistic, whether it is labelled as AI-generated, and whether the person can be uniquely identified. The company also provides exceptions for content such as parody or satire.

YouTube spokesperson Jack Malon said:

‘With this expansion, we’re making clear that whether creators have been uploading to YouTube for a decade or are just starting, they’ll have access to the same level of protection.’

The expansion follows earlier testing with creators and broader availability for groups including public officials, politicians, journalists, and the entertainment industry. It comes amid growing concern about deepfakes affecting both public figures and private individuals.

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

UK’s Ofcom accepts X commitments on illegal hate and terror content moderation

Ofcom has accepted a series of public commitments from X aimed at strengthening protections for UK users against illegal hate speech and terrorist content under the Online Safety Act framework.

Under the commitments, X will review suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within an average of 24 hours. As a backstop, the platform will review at least 85% of such reports within 48 hours. Ofcom said the targets, if met, would give UK users some of the strongest protections on X globally.

X is also committed to engaging external experts on reporting systems for illegal hate and terror content, following concerns from organisations that reports submitted to the platform were not always clearly acknowledged or acted on. The company also said it would withhold access to accounts reported for posting illegal terrorist content in the UK if it determines they are operated by or on behalf of a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK.

Ofcom said X will submit quarterly performance data over the next 12 months so the regulator can monitor whether the platform is meeting its commitments. The regulator added that its broader compliance programme examining how major social media services handle illegal hate and terrorist material remains ongoing.

The announcement comes amid wider scrutiny of illegal hate content on major social media platforms. Ofcom said evidence gathered from civil society and expert organisations, including the Antisemitism Policy Trust, Tech Against Terrorism and Tell MAMA, indicates that such content persists on some of the largest social media sites.

Ofcom also noted that its investigation into X’s Grok remains ongoing, focusing on the company’s compliance with duties to deal with illegal content and the systems it has in place to do so.

Why does it matter?

The commitments show how the UK’s Online Safety Act is beginning to translate into concrete performance expectations for major platforms. Review-time targets, expert engagement and regular reporting to Ofcom could make illegal hate and terrorist content moderation more measurable. Still, the wider test will be whether X delivers these protections in practice and whether similar pressure is applied across other large platforms.

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

Global experts gather for CPDP 2026

The CPDP Conference 2026 has released its detailed programme, outlining a multi-day agenda of panels, workshops and cultural sessions focused on AI, data protection and digital governance. The conference will run from 19 to 22 May 2026, bringing together global experts across policy, academia and industry.

Across the programme, a wide range of panels and debates will explore key themes including AI regulation, digital governance, workplace data rights and platform power. Alongside panels and discussions, there will also be short movies and workshops offering conference topics in different formats.

Workshops are scheduled throughout each day, with structured breaks including coffee sessions and lunch intervals offering networking moments for participants. Topics range from AI in healthcare and advertising to digital conflict, governance under pressure and privacy-preserving technologies.

The programme also includes specialised tracks and cultural sessions, such as film screenings and artistic discussions on algorithmic systems, alongside academic panels and policy debates. The event will conclude after a final series of workshops and sessions on 22 May in Brussels, Belgium.

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

EU AI Act transparency rules go beyond high-risk systems

The EU AI Act’s Article 50 introduces a wide-ranging transparency regime that requires organisations to disclose when AI is involved in interactions or content creation. Unlike high-risk rules elsewhere in the regulation, these obligations apply broadly across sectors and business models, covering any organisation that uses AI in areas such as chatbots, content generation, or biometric analysis.

Four core scenarios trigger compliance duties. These include situations where users interact directly with AI systems, where AI generates synthetic audio, video, text or images, where emotion recognition or biometric categorisation is used, and where AI is involved in producing deepfakes or public-interest content.

Obligations vary between providers and deployers but consistently centre on clear user notification and content labelling.

Providers of AI systems must ensure users are informed at the point of interaction and that synthetic outputs are marked in a detectable, machine-readable format. Deployers face additional disclosure duties when publishing AI-generated material or using systems that analyse human emotions or biometric data.

Deepfake content and AI-generated public-interest text require explicit labelling unless strong editorial oversight or human review is present.

Implementation will depend heavily on forthcoming EU Guidelines and a Code of Practice that will define technical standards for labelling and provenance. With enforcement due in August 2026, organisations are urged to map AI use cases, assess disclosure needs, and prepare systems for evolving transparency requirements.

Why does it matter?

Article 50 makes AI transparency a baseline requirement across everyday tools, not just high-risk systems. It forces organisations to clearly disclose AI use and label AI-generated content, directly shaping product design, publishing practices, and user trust.

By embedding disclosure into routine AI interactions, it turns transparency into a core compliance duty for any business operating in the EU AI market.

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

Italy lawsuit against Meta and TikTok tests child safety rules

A first hearing has taken place at the Milan Business Court in a case brought by MOIGE, the Italian Parents’ Movement, and a group of families against Meta and TikTok over the protection of minors on social media platforms.

According to MOIGE, the class-wide injunction seeks to protect around 3.5 million Italian children aged between 7 and 14 who are allegedly active on social platforms despite age restrictions. The organisation described the case as the first such action in Europe focused on protecting minors in the digital sector.

The hearing focused on preliminary objections, including challenges by lawyers for Meta and TikTok to the jurisdiction and competence of Italian courts to rule on the companies’ conduct. MOIGE said the platforms also contested documents submitted by its legal team concerning the alleged effects of recommendation algorithms on minors.

According to MOIGE, the documents refer to concerns around variable reinforcement mechanisms, infinite scrolling and behavioural profiling allegedly designed to maximise engagement among younger users. The organisation and the families’ lawyers argue that such design features raise concerns over addictive behaviour and wider risks to children’s well-being.

MOIGE’s lawyers urged the court to proceed quickly, arguing that delays could prolong potential harm affecting minors in Italy. The case will continue with further hearings, with the court expected to set the next steps in the proceedings.

Why does it matter?

The case could become an important test of how courts assess platform responsibility for children’s safety, age restrictions and recommendation systems. If the action advances, it may contribute to wider European debates on algorithmic design, age verification, addictive platform features and whether child online safety should be treated not only as a content moderation issue, but also as a consumer protection and public health concern.

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

Norway and Romania expand EEA cooperation with anti-disinformation funding

Romania and Norway have signed a new EEA and Norway Grants agreement that introduces dedicated cooperation measures against disinformation, reflecting growing European concerns over information manipulation, democratic resilience and geopolitical instability.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide signed the agreement in Bucharest alongside Romania’s Minister for European Investments and Projects, Dragoș Pîslaru. The agreement forms part of the wider 2021-2028 EEA and Norway Grants framework, which supports social, economic and institutional development across Europe.

The new cooperation programme will fund initiatives aimed at strengthening resilience against disinformation through partnerships involving public institutions, specialist communities and civil society organisations in both countries.

The agreement also supports broader programmes covering justice and police cooperation, green transition projects, energy efficiency, and measures designed to strengthen the rights and living conditions of Roma communities.

Romania will receive €596.3 million under the current funding cycle, making it the second-largest beneficiary after Poland. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein together provide €3.268 billion through the EEA and Norway Grants programme, with Norway contributing approximately 97% of the overall funding.

Why does it matter?

The agreement shows how disinformation is becoming part of broader European cooperation on democratic resilience and institutional capacity, not only a media or platform issue. By funding partnerships between public institutions, expert communities and civil society, the programme links information integrity with governance, security and social cohesion at a time of heightened geopolitical pressure in Europe.

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

OpenAI sued over alleged ChatGPT role in Florida State University shooting

The family of a victim killed in the April 2025 Florida State University shooting has filed a federal lawsuit in Florida against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT enabled the attack. The lawsuit was filed on Sunday by Vandana Joshi, the widow of Tiru Chabba, who was killed alongside university dining director Robert Morales.

The complaint states that the accused shooter, Phoenix Ikner, engaged in extensive conversations with ChatGPT months before leading up to the incident. According to the suit, those exchanges included images and discussions about firearms he had acquired, ideological material, ideological far-right beliefs, and possible outcomes of violent attacks.

The chatbot is further accused of providing contextual information about campus activity and commenting on factors that could increase public attention in violent incidents. This is indicated by the fact that at one point, ChatGPT said, ‘if children are involved, even 2-3 victims can draw more attention’. The filing also claims Ikner asked about legal consequences and planning considerations shortly before the attack.

The lawsuit contends that OpenAI failed to identify escalating risk indicators within the conversations and did not adequately prevent harmful guidance. It argues the system ‘failed to connect the dots’ despite Ikner’s repeated questions about suicide, terrorism and mass shootings.

OpenAI has rejected responsibility for the attack, claiming its platform is not to blame. Company spokesperson Drew Pusateri said ChatGPT generated factual responses that could be found broadly across publicly available information and did not encourage or promote illegal activity. He also stated that OpenAI continues to strengthen safeguards to identify harmful intent, reduce misuse and respond appropriately when safety risks arise.

Joshi’s complaint argues that the system reinforced the shooter’s beliefs and failed to interrupt conversations involving violent ideation. The filing alleges the ChatGPT inflamed, validated and endorsed delusional thinking and contributed to planning discussions while ‘convincing him that violent acts can be required to bring about change’.

The lawsuit forms part of a broader wave of litigation involving AI systems and alleged harm. OpenAI is already facing separate lawsuits linked to incidents involving violence and suicide, raising wider questions about safeguards and user protection

Florida’s Attorney General James Uthmeier announced a criminal investigation into OpenAI and ChatGPT following a review of chat logs connected to the case. Uthmeier said in a statement that ‘If ChatGPT is a person it would be facing charges for murder’.

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

Ofcom investigates adult platforms under Online Safety Act age-check rules

Ofcom has opened investigations into the providers of pimpbunny.com and kemono.cr to assess their compliance with age-check rules under the UK’s Online Safety Act.

The regulator said pornography services must use ‘highly effective’ age checks to determine whether users are over 18 before allowing access to pornographic material. The investigations will examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the providers have failed, or are failing, to comply with those duties.

Ofcom said it prioritised action against the providers based on the risk of harm posed by their services. The regulator took account of user numbers, including significant increases in traffic since age-check laws came into force last summer.

Separately, Ofcom has issued a provisional decision concerning fapello.com, saying it has reasonable grounds to believe the provider is in breach of its duties under the Online Safety Act. Fapello can make representations before Ofcom reaches a final decision.

Ofcom also expanded its ongoing investigation into XGroovy to examine whether it failed to respond adequately to formal information requests from the regulator. The developments form part of wider UK enforcement efforts around online child safety, age assurance and platform accountability under the Online Safety Act.

Why does it matter?

The investigations show that Ofcom is moving from guidance to enforcement under the UK’s Online Safety Act, particularly for services hosting pornographic material. Age assurance has become a central test of the UK’s child online safety regime, with regulators assessing not only whether platforms have age checks in place, but whether those checks are effective enough to prevent children from readily accessing explicit content.

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

Meta unveils Incognito Chat for private AI conversations

Meta has introduced Incognito Chat with Meta AI on WhatsApp and the Meta AI app, adding a privacy-focused option for users interacting with AI.

The company said the feature is intended for sensitive or personal questions, such as health issues, loan details or career advice. Incognito Chat is built on WhatsApp’s Private Processing technology and is designed to process conversations in a secure environment that Meta says it cannot access.

Messages in Incognito Chat are not saved and disappear by default. Meta says the feature creates temporary AI conversations that are visible only to the user, reducing concerns about long-term retention and access to sensitive prompts.

Meta also contrasted the feature with other incognito-style AI tools, saying those services may still be able to see user prompts and generated responses. The company claims its approach prevents anyone, including Meta, from reading the content exchanged during these conversations.

The company said Incognito Chat will roll out on WhatsApp and the Meta AI app over the coming months. It also plans to introduce Side Chat on WhatsApp, which will provide AI assistance linked to ongoing conversations while using the same Private Processing infrastructure.

Why does it matter?

As AI assistants become embedded in messaging, work, finance and health-related conversations, users are likely to share increasingly sensitive information with chatbots. Meta’s Incognito Chat points to growing competition in privacy-preserving AI, where companies are trying to show that AI interactions can be useful without exposing prompts, responses, or personal context to long-term storage or platform access.

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

Meta tests compromise plan in EU WhatsApp AI access dispute

European Commission officials are examining whether Meta’s policy on access to WhatsApp for AI providers may raise competition concerns in the European Economic Area.

Changes to the WhatsApp Business Solution terms are at the centre of the investigation, particularly as they affect how third-party AI providers can offer services on the platform. The Commission is assessing whether the policy could limit access for competing AI services and reduce choice for users and businesses.

Messaging platforms are becoming important distribution channels for AI-powered services. As chatbots and AI assistants become more integrated into everyday communication tools, access to widely used platforms such as WhatsApp may become an important factor in competition between providers.

Commission officials have said they will examine whether Meta’s conduct complies with the EU competition rules. Opening an investigation does not mean that the Commission has reached a conclusion or found an infringement.

The broader EU scrutiny of large digital platforms is increasingly focused on how access to infrastructure, services and user ecosystems is managed as AI tools become more widely adopted.

Why does it matter?

Competition questions are expanding into AI distribution channels. Messaging platforms can shape which AI services reach users and businesses at scale, making access rules an important part of the emerging AI market. The outcome could influence how major platforms design access policies for third-party AI providers while regulators seek to preserve competition and user choice.

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