Freedom of expression Archives | Page 36 of 66

Google AI Mode raises fears over control of news

Google’s AI Mode has quietly launched in the UK, reshaping how users access news by summarising information directly in search results.

By paraphrasing content gathered across the internet, the tool offers instant answers while reducing the need to visit original news sites.

Critics argue that the technology monopolises UK information by filtering what users see, based on algorithms rather than editorial judgement. Concerns have grown over transparency, fairness and the future of independent journalism.

Publishers are not compensated for content used by AI Mode, and most users rarely click through to the sources. Newsrooms fear pressure to adapt their output to align with Google’s preferences or risk being buried online.

While AI may streamline convenience, it lacks accountability. Regulated journalism must operate under legal frameworks, whereas AI faces no such scrutiny even when errors have real consequences.

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

TikTok adopts crowd‑sourced verification tool to combat misinformation

TikTok has rolled out Footnotes in the United States, its crowd‑sourced debunking initiative to supplement existing misinformation controls.

Vetted contributors will write and rate explanatory notes beneath videos flagged as misleading or ambiguous. If a note earns broad support, it becomes visible to all US users.

The system uses a ‘bridging‑based’ ranking framework to encourage agreement between users with differing viewpoints, making the process more robust and reducing partisan bias. Initially launched as a pilot, the platform has already enlisted nearly 80,000 eligible US users.

Footnotes complements TikTok’s integrity setup, including automated detection, human moderation, and partnerships with fact‑checking groups like AFP. Platform leaders note that effectiveness improves as contributors engage more across various topics.

Past research shows comparable crowd‑sourced systems often struggle to publish most submissions, with fewer than 10% of Notes appearing publicly on other platforms. Concerns remain over the system’s scalability and potential misuse.

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

AI sparks fears over future of dubbing

Voice actors across Europe are pushing back against the growing use of AI in dubbing, fearing it could replace human talent in film and television. Many believe dubbing is a creative profession beyond simple voice replication, requiring emotional nuance and cultural sensitivity.

In Germany, France, Italy and the UK, nearly half of viewers prefer dubbed content over subtitles, according to research by GWI. Yet studios are increasingly testing AI tools that replicate actors’ voices or generate synthetic speech, sparking concern across the dubbing industry.

French voice actor Boris Rehlinger, known for dubbing Hollywood stars, says he feels threatened even though AI has not replaced him. He is part of TouchePasMaVF, an initiative defending the value of human dubbing and calling for protection against AI replication.

Voice artists argue that digital voice cloning ignores the craftsmanship behind their performances. As legal frameworks around voice ownership lag behind the technology, many in the industry demand urgent safeguards.

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

Google states it has not received UK request to weaken encryption

Google has confirmed it has not received a request from the UK government to create a backdoor in its encrypted services. The clarification comes amid ongoing scrutiny of surveillance legislation and its implications for tech companies offering end-to-end encrypted services.

Reports indicate that the UK government may be reconsidering an earlier request for Apple to enable access to user data through a technical backdoor, which is a move that prompted strong opposition from the US government. In response to these developments, US Senator Ron Wyden has sought to clarify whether similar requests were made to other major technology companies.

While Google initially declined to respond to inquiries from Senator Wyden’s office, the company had not received a technical capabilities notice—an official order under UK law that could require companies to enable access to encrypted data.

Senator Wyden, who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, addressed the matter in a letter to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The letter urged the US intelligence community to assess the potential national security implications of the UK’s surveillance laws and any undisclosed requests to US companies.

Meta, which offers encrypted messaging through WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, also stated in a 17 March communication to Wyden’s office that it had ‘not received an order to backdoor our encrypted services, like that reported about Apple.’

While companies operating in the UK may be restricted from disclosing certain surveillance orders under law, confirmations such as Google’s provide rare public insight into the current landscape of international encryption policy and cooperation.

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

Tech giants back Trump’s AI deregulation plan amid public concern over societal impacts

Donald Trump recently hosted an AI summit in Washington, titled ‘Winning the AI Race,’ geared towards a deregulated atmosphere for AI innovation. Key figures from the tech industry, including Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang and Palantir’s CTO Shyam Sankar, attended the event.

Co-hosted by the Hill and Valley Forum and the Silicon Valley All-in Podcast, the summit was a platform for Trump to introduce his ‘AI Action Plan‘, comprised of three executive orders focusing on deregulation. Trump’s objective is to dismantle regulatory restrictions he perceives as obstacles to innovation, aiming to re-establish the US as a leader in AI exportation globally.

The executive orders announced target the elimination of ‘ideological dogmas such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)’ in AI models developed by federally funded companies. Additionally, one order promotes exporting US-developed AI technologies internationally, while another seeks to lessen environmental restrictions and speed up approvals for energy-intensive data centres.

These measures are seen as reversing the Biden administration’s policies, which stressed the importance of safety and security in AI development. Technology giants Apple, Meta, Amazon, and Alphabet have shown significant support for Trump’s initiatives, contributing to his inauguration fund and engaging with him at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Leaders like OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang have also pledged substantial investments in US AI infrastructure.

Despite this backing, over 100 groups, including labour, environmental, civil rights, and academic organisations, have voiced their opposition through a ‘People’s AI action plan’. These groups warn of the potential risks of unregulated AI, which they fear could undermine civil liberties, equality, and environmental safeguards.

They argue that public welfare should not be compromised for corporate gains, highlighting the dangers of allowing tech giants to dominate policy-making. That discourse illustrates the divide between industry aspirations and societal consequences.

The tech industry’s influence on AI legislation through lobbying is noteworthy, with a report from Issue One indicating that eight of the largest tech companies spent a collective $36 million on lobbying in 2025 alone. Meta led with $13.8 million, employing 86 lobbyists, while Nvidia and OpenAI saw significant increases in their expenditure compared to previous years. The substantial financial outlay reflects the industry’s vested interest in shaping regulatory frameworks to favour business interests, igniting a debate over the ethical responsibilities of unchecked AI progress.

As tech companies and pro-business entities laud Trump’s deregulation efforts, concerns persist over the societal impacts of such policies.

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

Trump pushes for ‘anti-woke’ AI in US government contracts

Tech firms aiming to sell AI systems to the US government will now need to prove their chatbots are free of ideological bias, following a new executive order signed by Donald Trump.

The measure, part of a broader plan to counter China’s influence in AI development, marks the first official attempt by the US to shape the political behaviour of AI in services.

It places a new emphasis on ensuring AI reflects so-called ‘American values’ and avoids content tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) frameworks in publicly funded models.

The order, titled ‘Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government’, does not outright ban AI that promotes DEI ideas, but requires companies to disclose if partisan perspectives are embedded.

Major providers like Google, Microsoft and Meta have yet to comment. Meanwhile, firms face pressure to comply or risk losing valuable public sector contracts and funding.

Critics argue the move forces tech companies into a political culture war and could undermine years of work addressing AI bias, harming fair and inclusive model design.

Civil rights groups warn the directive may sideline tools meant to support vulnerable groups, favouring models that ignore systemic issues like discrimination and inequality.

Policy analysts have compared the approach to China’s use of state power to shape AI behaviour, though Trump’s order stops short of requiring pre-approval or censorship.

Supporters, including influential Trump-aligned venture capitalists, say the order restores transparency. Marc Andreessen and David Sacks were reportedly involved in shaping the language.

The move follows backlash to an AI image tool released by Google, which depicted racially diverse figures when asked to generate the US Founding Fathers, triggering debate.

Developers claimed the outcome resulted from attempts to counter bias in training data, though critics labelled it ideological overreach embedded by design teams.

Under the directive, companies must disclose model guidelines and explain how neutrality is preserved during training. Intentional encoding of ideology is discouraged.

Former FTC technologist Neil Chilson described the order as light-touch. It does not ban political outputs; it only calls for transparency about generating outputs.

OpenAI said its objectivity measures align with the order, while Microsoft declined to comment. xAI praised Trump’s AI policy but did not mention specifics.

The firm, founded by Elon Musk, recently won a $200M defence contract shortly after its Grok chatbot drew criticism for generating antisemitic and pro-Hitler messages.

Trump’s broader AI orders seek to strengthen American leadership and reduce regulatory burdens to keep pace with China in the development of emerging technologies.

Some experts caution that ideological mandates could set a precedent for future governments to impose their political views on critical AI infrastructure.

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

Meta tells Australia AI needs real user data to work

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, has urged the Australian government to harmonise privacy regulations with international standards, warning that stricter local laws could hamper AI development. The comments came in Meta’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s review on harnessing digital technology, published this week.

Australia is undergoing its most significant privacy reform in decades. The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, passed in November and given royal assent in December, introduces stricter rules around handling personal and sensitive data. The rules are expected to take effect throughout 2024 and 2025.

Meta maintains that generative AI systems depend on access to large, diverse datasets and cannot rely on synthetic data alone. In its submission, the company argued that publicly available information, like legislative texts, fails to reflect the cultural and conversational richness found on its platforms.

Meta said its platforms capture the ways Australians express themselves, making them essential to training models that can understand local culture, slang, and online behaviour. It added that restricting access to such data would make AI systems less meaningful and effective.

The company has faced growing scrutiny over its data practices. In 2024, it confirmed using Australian Facebook data to train AI models, although users in the EU have the option to opt out—an option not extended to Australian users.

Pushback from regulators in Europe forced Meta to delay its plans for AI training in the EU and UK, though it resumed these efforts in 2025.

Australia’s Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has issued guidance on AI development and commercial deployment, highlighting growing concerns about transparency and accountability. Meta argues that diverging national rules create conflicting obligations, which could reduce the efficiency of building safe and age-appropriate digital products.

Critics claim Meta is prioritising profit over privacy, and insist that any use of personal data for AI should be based on informed consent and clearly demonstrated benefits. The regulatory debate is intensifying at a time when Australia’s outdated privacy laws are being modernised to protect users in the AI age.

The Productivity Commission’s review will shape how the country balances innovation with safeguards. As a key market for Meta, Australia’s decisions could influence regulatory thinking in other jurisdictions confronting similar challenges.

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

Spotify under fire for AI-generated songs on memorial artist pages

Spotify is facing criticism after AI-generated songs were uploaded to the pages of deceased artists without consent from estates or rights holders.

The latest case involves country singer-songwriter Blaze Foley, who died in 1989. A track titled ‘Together’ was posted to his official Spotify page over the weekend. The song sounded vaguely like a slow country ballad and was paired with AI-generated cover art showing a man who bore no resemblance to Foley.

Craig McDonald, whose label manages Foley’s catalogue, confirmed the track had nothing to do with the artist and described it as inauthentic and harmful. ‘I can clearly tell you that this song is not Blaze, not anywhere near Blaze’s style, at all,’ McDonald told 404 Media. ‘It has the authenticity of an algorithm.’

He criticised Spotify for failing to prevent such uploads and said the company had a duty to stop AI-generated music from appearing under real artists’ names.

‘It’s kind of surprising that Spotify doesn’t have a security fix for this type of action,’ he said. ‘They could fix this problem if they had the will to do so.’ Spotify said it had flagged the track to distributor SoundOn and removed it for violating its deceptive content policy.

However, other similar uploads have already emerged. The same company, Syntax Error, was linked to another AI-generated song titled ‘Happened To You’, uploaded last week under the name of Grammy-winning artist Guy Clark, who died in 2016.

Both tracks have since been removed, but Spotify has not explained how Syntax Error was able to post them using the names and likenesses of late musicians. The controversy is the latest in a wave of AI music incidents slipping through streaming platforms’ content checks.

Earlier this year, an AI-generated band called The Velvet Sundown amassed over a million Spotify streams before disclosing that all their vocals and instrumentals were made by AI.

Another high-profile case involved a fake Drake and The Weeknd collaboration, ‘Heart on My Sleeve’, which gained viral traction before being taken down by Universal Music Group.

Rights groups and artists have repeatedly warned about AI-generated content misrepresenting performers and undermining creative authenticity. As AI tools become more accessible, streaming platforms face mounting pressure to improve detection and approval processes to prevent further misuse.

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

Library cuts across Massachusetts deepen digital divide

Massachusetts libraries face sweeping service reductions as federal funding cuts threaten critical educational and digital access programmes. Local and major libraries are bracing for the loss of key resources including summer reading initiatives, online research tools, and English language classes.

The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) said it has already lost access to 30 of 34 databases it once offered. Resources such as newspaper archives, literacy support for the blind and incarcerated, and citizenship classes have also been cancelled due to a $3.6 million shortfall.

Communities unable to replace federal grants with local funds will be disproportionately affected. With over 800 library applications for mobile internet hot spots now frozen, officials warn that students and jobseekers may lose vital lifelines to online learning, healthcare and employment.

The cuts are part of broader efforts by the Trump administration to shrink federal institutions, targeting what it deems anti-American programming. Legislators and library leaders say the result will widen the digital divide and undercut libraries’ role as essential pillars of equitable access

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

China deploys new malware tool for border phone searches

Chinese authorities reportedly use a powerful new malware tool called Massistant to extract data from seized Android phones. Developed by Xiamen Meiya Pico, the tool enables police to access messages, photos, locations, and app data once they have physical access to a device.

Cybersecurity firm Lookout revealed that Massistant operates via a desktop-connected tower, requiring unlocked devices but no advanced hacking techniques. Researchers said affected users include Chinese citizens and international travellers whose phones may be searched at borders.

The malware leaves traces on compromised phones, allowing for post-infection removal, but authorities already have the data by then. Forums in China have shown increasing user complaints about malware following police interactions.

Massistant is seen as the successor to an older tool, MSSocket, with Meiya Pico now controlling 40% of China’s digital forensics market. They previously sanctioned the firm for its surveillance tech links to the Chinese government’s use.

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