Content Policy Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

EU pushes Android changes to open AI competition

The European Commission has outlined draft measures requiring Google to improve interoperability on Android as part of ongoing proceedings under the Digital Markets Act. Regulators are focusing on how third-party AI services can interact with hardware and software features controlled by the Android operating system.

The proposed measures are intended to give competing AI services access to key Android features already used by Google’s own AI services, including Gemini. In practice, that could allow rival services to support actions such as sending messages, sharing content, or completing tasks through user-preferred applications rather than being limited by Google’s default ecosystem.

The Commission’s approach could also make it easier for users to activate alternative AI assistants through customised interactions and device-level features, reducing dependence on default system tools. The broader aim is to give third-party providers a more equal opportunity to innovate and compete in the fast-moving market for AI services on mobile devices.

Feedback on the proposed measures is being gathered as part of the Commission’s specification proceedings under the DMA. The consultation forms part of a wider regulatory effort to enforce fair access to core platform features and strengthen digital competition across European markets, including in the AI sector.

Why does it matter?

The move targets one of the most important control points in the digital economy: the operating system layer. Opening Android features to competing AI services could reduce the structural advantage held by Google and shift power towards a more competitive, multi-provider mobile ecosystem. This is an inference based on the Commission’s stated objective of giving third-party AI services access equivalent to that available to Google’s own AI tools.

Greater interoperability under the Digital Markets Act could reshape how AI reaches users, turning smartphones into more open platforms rather than tightly controlled default environments. At the same time, the case also shows how strongly the EU is trying to apply competition law to the next phase of AI distribution, not only to search, app stores, and browsers.

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

EU advances GPAI framework with focus on forecasting systemic risks

At the third meeting of the Signatory Taskforce, the European Commission advanced discussions on how to strengthen oversight of advanced AI systems through the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, with a particular focus on risk forecasting and harmful manipulation.

The latest GPAI taskforce meeting focused on improving how providers assess and anticipate systemic risks linked to high-impact AI models. A central proposal would require providers to estimate when future systems may exceed the highest systemic risk tier already reached by any of their existing models, using structured forecasting methods.

The Commission is also considering using aggregate forecasts across the industry to provide a broader view of technological trends, including compute capacity, algorithmic efficiency, and data availability. The aim is to improve visibility into how capabilities may evolve across the sector rather than only at the level of individual providers.

Attention was also directed towards harmful manipulation, which the Code treats as a recognised systemic risk. Discussions focused on how providers should develop realistic scenarios for testing and evaluating model behaviour, including in deployment settings such as chatbot interfaces, third-party applications, and agentic systems.

The initiative reflects a wider EU regulatory approach centred on transparency, accountability, and proactive governance in AI development. Rather than waiting for harms to materialise, the Code of Practice is being used to push providers to identify risks earlier and to adopt more structured safety planning for general-purpose AI models with systemic risk.

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

Australia aligns privacy and online safety regulation

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner have signed a new agreement to strengthen cooperation on online privacy and safety regulation.

The Memorandum of Understanding formalises coordination between the two bodies as digital risks increasingly overlap across their respective mandates.

The agreement focuses on joint oversight of age-assurance technologies and compliance with social media minimum-age requirements. Both regulators say they want to ensure that systems designed to protect children from harmful or inappropriate content also respect privacy obligations under Australian law.

Officials also highlighted the growing complexity of online risks, particularly with the rapid development of AI and other emerging technologies. The framework is intended to support more consistent regulatory responses by improving communication, information sharing, and enforcement coordination.

Why does it matter?

Officials from both agencies said closer collaboration will help address digital harms more effectively while ensuring privacy protections remain central to online safety measures. The initiative reflects a broader shift towards more integrated regulation of technology-driven risks.

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

Meta expands parental oversight with new AI conversation insights for teens

Meta has introduced new supervision features that allow parents to see the topics their teenagers discuss with its AI assistant across Facebook, Messenger, and Instagram.

The update provides visibility into activity over the previous seven days, grouping interactions into areas such as education, health and well-being, lifestyle, travel, and entertainment. Parents can review these themes through a new Insights tab, although they will not see the exact prompts their teen sent or Meta AI’s responses.

The feature forms part of Meta’s broader effort to strengthen safeguards for younger users as AI becomes more embedded in everyday digital experiences. For more sensitive issues, including suicide and self-harm, Meta says it is developing additional alerts to notify parents when teens try to engage in those types of conversations with its AI assistant.

Meta has also partnered with external experts, including the Cyberbullying Research Centre, to develop structured conversation prompts to help families talk about AI use. The company says these tools are intended to support informed, non-judgemental dialogue rather than passive monitoring.

Alongside these updates, Meta has created an AI Wellbeing Expert Council to provide input on the development of age-appropriate AI systems for teens. The move reflects a wider shift towards embedding safety, transparency, and parental involvement into AI-driven platforms.

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

MIT method tackles AI overconfidence problem

Researchers at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) have developed a new training approach designed to address a persistent issue in AI systems: excessive confidence in uncertain answers.

The study identifies overconfidence as a by-product of standard reinforcement learning methods, which reward correct outputs without accounting for how those answers are reached.

The proposed method, known as RLCR (Reinforcement Learning with Calibration Rewards), enables models to generate both answers and associated confidence estimates.

By introducing a calibration-based reward mechanism, the system penalises incorrect high-confidence responses and unnecessary uncertainty in correct ones. Across multiple benchmarks, the approach reduced calibration error by up to 90 percent while maintaining or improving accuracy.

Findings suggest that conventional reinforcement learning frameworks unintentionally encourage models to guess confidently, even in the absence of sufficient evidence.

Researchers argue that this behaviour poses risks in applied settings, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, law, and finance, where users may rely heavily on perceived certainty in AI outputs.

Results also indicate that improved confidence calibration enhances practical performance during inference. Selecting answers based on model-reported confidence improves accuracy, suggesting uncertainty-aware reasoning can deliver measurable benefits in deployment.

Why does it matter?

Improving how AI systems express uncertainty directly affects their reliability in real-world use. Models that distinguish between strong and weak answers reduce the risk of users over-relying on incorrect outputs presented with undue confidence.

Better-calibrated systems also enable more informed decision-making, as confidence signals can be used to filter, rank or combine responses. Overall, uncertainty-aware reasoning strengthens trust, safety and practical performance as AI becomes more widely integrated into critical decision processes.

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

IWF data shows 63% of global child abuse content hosted in the EU

New data from the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) points to a stark imbalance in global online child protection, with the EU member states hosting the majority of confirmed child sexual abuse material URLs identified by the organisation. In 2025, IWF analysts actioned 310,437 URLs, with 63% traced to hosting services in the EU member states.

A small cluster of countries, including Bulgaria and the Netherlands, accounted for a large share of that hosting concentration, highlighting structural vulnerabilities in hosting infrastructure and uneven enforcement across jurisdictions. The IWF notes that such concentrations often reflect a combination of high-volume sites, migration between hosting locations, and inconsistent takedown speeds.

These findings come shortly after the EU failed to preserve legal continuity for the temporary framework that had allowed companies to carry out certain voluntary detection measures while negotiations on a permanent child sexual abuse law continued. That lapse has intensified concerns about a widening gap between the scale of online abuse and the legal tools available to detect and disrupt it.

The IWF argues that fragmented regulation and uneven infrastructure responses make it easier for criminal content to persist online. Where abuse material remains concentrated on a few high-volume sites in jurisdictions with slower or less consistent takedown practices, it stays accessible for longer and is more likely to be copied, redistributed, or reposted elsewhere.

By contrast, takedown performance can vary sharply across jurisdictions. The UK accounted for just 951 actioned URLs in 2025, or 0.30% of the total, a figure the IWF links to a much stronger domestic removal framework and closer operational cooperation.

The broader message of the data is that child sexual abuse material cannot be tackled effectively through fragmented national responses alone. The IWF is using the figures to press for a more coherent international framework for detection, reporting, and removal, warning that without aligned rules and stronger accountability, systemic weaknesses in digital governance will continue to leave serious gaps in child protection.

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

eSafety Commissioner of Australia issues notices to Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite and Steam

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has issued legally enforceable transparency notices to Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite and Steam over concerns that online games are being used by individuals seeking to groom children and by extremist groups to spread violent propaganda and radicalise young people.

The notices require the platforms to explain how they identify, prevent and respond to harms including grooming, cyberbullying, online hate, sexual extortion and violent extremism. They also ask how systems, staffing and safety-by-design measures align with the Australian Government’s Basic Online Safety Expectations.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said online games and gaming-adjacent services can serve as first points of contact between children and offenders in cases involving serious online harm. She said: ‘What we often see after these offenders make contact with children in online game environments, they then move children to private messaging services.’

Inman Grant also said: ‘Predatory adults know this and target children through grooming or embedding terrorist and violent extremist narratives in gameplay, increasing the risks of contact offending, radicalisation and other off-platform harms.’

eSafety said it publishes reports based on transparency notices to provide the public, including parents, with more information about safety risks and existing mitigations, while also increasing pressure on technology companies to adopt Safety by Design. Online game platforms must also comply with Australia’s Online Safety Codes and Standards, and a breach of a direction to comply with a code or standard can attract penalties of up to A$49.5 million per breach.

Compliance with a transparency notice is mandatory. If companies fail to respond, eSafety has enforcement options, including financial penalties of up to A$825,000 a day.

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

Ofcom steps up child safety enforcement with Telegram and chat site investigations

The UK’s online safety regime has entered a more confrontational phase, with Ofcom opening new investigations into Telegram and two chat platforms over suspected failures to protect children from serious harm. The move signals a shift from broad compliance warnings to more direct enforcement against services deemed to pose acute risks under the Online Safety Act.

Ofcom said it is investigating Telegram to determine whether the platform is doing enough to prevent child sexual abuse material from being shared. Separate probes have also been opened into Teen Chat and Chat Avenue, where the regulator says there are concerns that chat functions may be facilitating grooming and other harms to children. According to Ofcom, the providers have not demonstrated sufficient safeguards for UK users despite earlier engagement.

The cases are part of a wider enforcement drive rather than isolated actions. Ofcom has already been pressing file-sharing and file-storage services over child sexual abuse risks, and says some platforms have since introduced automated detection tools, blocked access for UK users, or otherwise changed their systems in response to regulatory pressure. In other cases, investigations have been closed after providers took corrective steps.

That broader context matters. Since the first online safety duties became enforceable, Ofcom has been moving from rule-setting into operational enforcement, testing whether platforms are actually putting in place the systems and processes needed to reduce illegal harms.

In the child safety area, that increasingly means proactive risk management, technical detection measures, and design choices that make it harder for offenders to share abusive material or contact children in the first place.

Ofcom has also made clear that services available in the UK cannot treat these duties as optional. Under the Online Safety Act, companies can face significant financial penalties for failing to comply, and the regulator can ask courts to impose business disruption measures or restrict access where necessary. That gives the current investigations weight beyond the individual platforms involved.

The bigger significance of the latest action is that platform accountability is being judged less on stated policies and more on demonstrable safeguards. The Telegram case in particular shows that even large, globally used platforms are now exposed to direct scrutiny if UK regulators believe child safety risks are not being properly addressed.

Taken together, the investigations suggest that Ofcom is trying to establish a more interventionist model of online safety enforcement, one in which companies are expected to anticipate and reduce harm rather than respond only after it has spread.

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

Philippines presses Meta for faster action on online disinformation

The Philippine government is intensifying pressure on Meta to act more quickly to address harmful online disinformation, arguing that the company’s current enforcement approach is insufficient to address rapidly spreading false content that can affect public order, economic confidence, and national security. The latest move comes in the form of a formal response from the Department of Information and Communications Technology, following an earlier joint request involving the Presidential Communications Office and the Department of Justice.

Officials acknowledged Meta’s willingness to engage and its existing moderation policies, but said broad descriptions of enforcement mechanisms fall short of what the situation requires. According to the DICT, the government is seeking clear commitments, faster intervention processes, and measurable outcomes rather than general assurances about existing platform rules.

The pressure campaign is tied to concerns that false and misleading online content can trigger real-world harm, especially during politically and economically sensitive periods. Government statements have linked the problem to panic-inducing disinformation that could affect fuel prices, economic stability, and public trust, and have warned that inadequate action from Meta could lead to legal and regulatory consequences.

The latest DICT response sharpens that message. While recognising Meta’s engagement, the agency said general explanations of moderation policies were not enough, arguing that what is needed now are faster enforcement processes, concrete commitments, and measurable results. The government has tied that position to its wider ‘Kontra Fake News’ campaign, which it says is intended to protect access to accurate information while holding those who deliberately spread falsehoods accountable.

The dispute is also part of a broader institutional shift. The DICT, Presidential Communications Office, and Department of Justice have moved towards a more coordinated response to digital disinformation, including a memorandum of agreement aimed at a whole-of-government approach to false content and related threats such as deepfakes. That makes the Meta case more than a platform-specific complaint: it is becoming part of a wider governance and enforcement strategy.

In the meantime, officials of the Philippines have tried to draw a line between legitimate expression and harmful manipulation. The government says freedom of expression remains protected, but that protection does not extend to coordinated or deliberately harmful disinformation that can trigger panic or erode confidence in public institutions. That distinction is likely to become more important if talks with Meta fail and the government moves towards tougher intervention.

The broader significance of the case lies in what it says about platform governance. Rather than accepting general assurances about moderation systems, governments are increasingly demanding faster, more transparent, and more locally responsive enforcement from major technology companies. In the Philippine case, that pressure is now being expressed through a formal inter-agency effort that could test how far states are willing to go when platforms are seen as too slow to respond to politically and economically sensitive disinformation.

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

YouTube expands AI deepfake detection tools for celebrities

The expansion of its likeness detection technology to the entertainment industry has been announced by YouTube, extending access beyond content creators to talent agencies, management companies and the individuals they represent.

The move is part of a broader effort by the platform to address the growing misuse of AI to generate misleading or unauthorised videos of public figures. By extending the tool to entertainment industry stakeholders, YouTube is signalling that AI-driven impersonation is no longer treated as a niche creator issue but as a broader identity and rights problem.

The system works in a way broadly comparable to Content ID, allowing eligible users to identify videos that use AI to replicate a person’s face or likeness. Once such content is detected, individuals can request its removal through YouTube’s existing privacy complaint process.

The rollout has been developed with input from major industry players, including Creative Artists Agency, United Talent Agency, William Morris Endeavor, and Untitled Management. Those partnerships are intended to help YouTube refine how the system works in practice and ensure it reflects the needs of artists and rights holders dealing with synthetic media.

Importantly, access to the tool is not limited to people who actively run YouTube channels. Celebrities and public figures can use it even without a direct creator presence on the platform, extending its reach across a much broader part of the entertainment ecosystem.

The significance of the update lies in how platforms are beginning to treat AI impersonation as a governance issue rather than merely a content-moderation problem.

As synthetic media tools become easier to use and more convincing, technology companies are under growing pressure to provide faster and more credible mechanisms for detecting misuse, protecting identity rights, and limiting deceptive content.

YouTube’s latest move shows that platform responses are becoming more structured and rights-based, especially in sectors where a person’s likeness is closely tied to reputation, image, and commercial value. The bigger question now is whether such tools will prove effective enough to keep pace with the scale and speed of AI-generated impersonation online.

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