Freedom of the press Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

UK publishers gain control over Google AI search content

Online publishers in the UK will be able to prevent their content from appearing in Google’s AI-generated search features without losing visibility in traditional search results, following new requirements introduced by the Competition and Markets Authority.

The measures are part of the CMA’s conduct requirements for Google’s search services under the UK’s digital markets competition regime. They are intended to give news organisations and other publishers greater control over how their content is used in AI-powered search products such as AI Overviews and AI Mode.

Publishers have argued that AI-generated summaries can reduce website traffic by providing users with key information directly in search results, limiting the need to visit original articles. Until now, opting out of Google’s AI features could also affect visibility in standard search results, creating a difficult choice for organisations that rely on search traffic to reach readers and generate revenue.

Under the new requirements, Google must give UK website owners more control over how their content and links appear in AI search features. Google will test new tools with selected UK sites before wider rollout, allowing publishers to opt out of AI-generated search features while remaining visible in traditional search results.

Google will also be required to provide clearer attribution and links to the publisher when publisher content appears in AI-generated results. The CMA said the measures are designed to improve transparency, support fairer dealing between publishers and Google, and help users understand where information in AI search results comes from.

The regulator described the measure as a world-first for Google’s search services. Further announcements concerning Google’s search business are expected from the CMA in the coming weeks.

Why does it matter?

The decision addresses one of the central tensions created by AI search: search engines can summarise publishers’ content while reducing users’ incentive to click through to the sources. By separating AI search opt-outs from traditional search visibility, the CMA aims to give publishers greater, more meaningful control without forcing them to sacrifice reach. The case could shape how other regulators approach attribution, content use, traffic diversion, and bargaining power between AI platforms and publishers.

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

UNESCO report warns AI-driven abuse threatens women journalists globally

UNESCO, in partnership with Information Integrity Initiative (III) for UN Women and the International Center for Journalists, has published a new global report warning that online violence against women journalists is intensifying in the AI era, contributing to psychological harm, professional withdrawal, and growing levels of self-censorship.

The report, titled ‘Tipping Point: Online Violence Impacts, Manifestations and Redress in the AI Age’, was released ahead of World Press Freedom Day 2026, and the report examines how digital harassment affects participation in journalism and online public debate.

Researchers found that 45% of surveyed women journalists and media workers reported self-censoring on social media because of online violence, compared with 30% recorded in UNESCO’s 2020 study. Around 22% also reported self-censorship within professional environments.

The study additionally identified severe mental health impacts linked to sustained online abuse. Approximately one quarter of respondents reported being diagnosed with or treated for anxiety or depression associated with online violence, while 13% reported post-traumatic stress disorder.

AI-enabled abuse emerged as a major concern throughout the report. Researchers documented increasing use of deepfakes, manipulated sexual imagery, non-consensual intimate content, cyberflashing, and synthetic media targeting women journalists.

According to the findings, 5% of surveyed participants experienced deepfake or manipulated visual content, while nearly one quarter reported receiving unwanted sexual advances or explicit material through digital messaging systems.

The report also highlighted increasing attempts by journalists to pursue legal accountability. Around 22% reported incidents to police, while 14% initiated legal action against perpetrators, facilitators, or employers. Despite those increases, UNESCO warned that significant barriers to justice remain, including reluctance by authorities to investigate online abuse cases and victim-blaming responses.

These findings align with broader warnings contained in UNESCO’s World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development report, which documented rising attacks against journalists, growing self-censorship, and expanding digital threats to media freedom worldwide.

Why does it matter?

AI systems are lowering the cost and increasing the scale of harassment campaigns, enabling synthetic media, impersonation, and coordinated abuse to spread more rapidly across digital platforms. UNESCO suggests that protecting press freedom increasingly requires stronger platform accountability, digital safety mechanisms, AI governance frameworks, and support systems for journalists facing technology-facilitated abuse.

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

CJEU backs fair remuneration for press publishers

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that member states may allow press publishers to claim fair remuneration when they authorise online service providers to use their publications.

The judgement came in a case involving Meta Platforms Ireland’s challenge to an Italian Communications Regulatory Authority decision on criteria for determining fair remuneration for online use of press publications. Meta argued that the Italian framework conflicted with EU rules on publishers’ rights under the Digital Single Market copyright directive.

The CJEU found that a fair remuneration right for publishers can be compatible with EU law if the payment is consideration for authorising online service providers to use press publications. Publishers must also be able to refuse authorisation or grant it free of charge, and online service providers cannot be required to pay for it when they do not use the publications.

The ruling also says online service providers may be required to negotiate with publishers without limiting content visibility during talks and to provide data needed to calculate remuneration. The CJEU said such obligations may restrict the freedom to conduct a business, but appear justified where they help ensure fair negotiations and support EU objectives on copyright, media pluralism, and publishers’ ability to recoup investments.

The CJEU also found that powers granted to AGCOM to set criteria, determine remuneration in the event of disagreement, ensure compliance with information obligations, and impose penalties may be permissible if they support the effective implementation of publishers’ rights.

The final assessment remains for the national court, which must verify whether the Italian legislation satisfies the conditions identified by the CJEU.

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

New IRIS report links AI narratives to civic action

A report by International Resource for Impact and Storytelling examines how organisations worldwide are adapting to AI and algorithm-driven platforms. It focuses on how technology and storytelling are being used to support democracy and counter harmful narratives.

The study draws on insights from 10 organisations, identifying key approaches such as co-opting technology, countering surveillance and disinformation, and innovating in storytelling. These strategies aim to reshape narratives and challenge authoritarian pressures.

Examples include campaigns addressing digital surveillance, projects using journalism to amplify marginalised voices, and creative approaches to civic engagement. The report also highlights the role of artists and storytellers in influencing how AI is understood.

The findings highlight the growing importance of narrative and culture in the digital landscape, as organisations experiment with new forms of communication and resistance. The research reflects global efforts to align AI with democratic values.

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

AI-driven disinformation threatens public trust, Nobel economist warns

Research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Columbia University’s Maxim Ventura-Bolet argues that AI could worsen the economics of misinformation by making low-quality and misleading content cheaper and easier to produce at scale.

According to an analysis in The Strategist, their economic modelling suggests that digital markets reward misleading and emotionally charged content because it attracts engagement, advertising revenue and data collection. The analysis argues that without regulation, markets are likely to produce more disinformation and less reliable information as AI lowers the cost of content production.

The article says social media platforms and AI systems have reshaped how people consume information. Instead of visiting original news sources, users increasingly rely on algorithm-driven feeds, search summaries and AI-generated overviews, reducing traffic and revenue for original publishers.

It also argues that AI systems can intensify the problem by producing large volumes of convincing but unreliable material quickly and cheaply. Since AI tools depend on online information for training and outputs, distorted or misleading data can feed back into the information ecosystem and further reduce quality.

The analysis links the issue to political polarisation, warning that audiences are more likely to engage with information that reinforces existing beliefs. That demand can further reward producers of misleading content while putting additional pressure on public-interest journalism.

Stiglitz and Ventura-Bolet argue that market forces alone will not correct the decline in information quality. The article says possible responses include stronger platform accountability for content amplification, obligations to address coordinated disinformation campaigns and intellectual property protections for news producers.

The analysis also points to Australia’s memorandum of understanding with Anthropic as a sign of engagement between government and AI companies, while stressing that voluntary cooperation is not a substitute for regulation.

Why does it matter?

The analysis highlights how AI and platform algorithms can affect the economic incentives behind public information, not only the speed at which false content spreads. If engagement-based systems continue to reward misleading material while weakening the revenue base for quality journalism, the risks extend beyond individual misinformation incidents to the overall reliability of the online information environment.

That matters for democratic debate, public trust and informed decision-making. It also raises regulatory questions about platform accountability, the use of news content by AI systems and whether voluntary agreements with technology companies are enough to protect the information ecosystem.

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

Swiss media groups launch responsible AI journalism framework

Swiss media organisations have adopted a national code of conduct for the responsible use of AI, aiming to strengthen transparency, copyright protection and public trust in journalism.

The initiative is backed by major Swiss publishing groups, private radio and television organisations, the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation and the national news agency Keystone-ATS. It is based on the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.

The code states that media companies and their employees remain responsible for all published editorial content, whether produced by journalists or with the support of AI systems. It also commits media organisations to train staff in AI use, respect copyright, follow data protection rules and take steps to prevent the spread of false information.

Swiss media groups also agreed to inform the public transparently about their use of AI, including through dedicated information pages, and to introduce binding marking obligations for AI-supported content. The framework is designed as a self-regulatory tool at a time when public concern over AI-generated content remains high.

To support implementation, the code provides for a two-tier reporting and control mechanism. The relevant departments within media companies will first handle questions and complaints. In contrast, an independent AI ombudsperson will act as a second instance for serious or unresolved cases and publish an annual report.

Swiss President Guy Parmelin said AI could strengthen journalism if used responsibly and transparently, while warning that fake news threatens journalistic credibility and social cohesion. Legislative changes needed to implement the Council of Europe convention in Switzerland are expected by the end of 2026.

Why does it matter?

The Swiss code shows how media organisations are moving to set AI governance standards before legal obligations fully take shape. Its significance lies in linking AI-assisted journalism with editorial responsibility, transparency, copyright, data protection and complaint mechanisms, rather than treating AI labelling as the only issue. The model could influence how other media sectors balance innovation with public trust and accountability.

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

UNESCO supports Western Balkans regulators on EU digital rules implementation

UNESCO organised a study visit for media regulators from the Western Balkans under an EU-funded project on journalism as a public good. The initiative aimed to support preparation for European rules affecting the information ecosystem.

Participants from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia examined implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). The visit included exchanges with institutions in France and the Netherlands on regulatory approaches.

The Netherlands presented a model based on a risk-based regulatory culture, with separate roles for a Digital Services Coordinator and a media authority. France presented a more integrated structure within a central media regulator, supported by specialised bodies and legislation.

Meetings involved stakeholders, including the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, TikTok, Reporters Without Borders, and UNESCO. Discussions covered platform engagement, regulatory cooperation, and institutional practice.

Participants identified institutional cooperation, technical expertise, and engagement with platforms as key elements of effective implementation. Discussions with Mariya Gabriel also addressed public-interest journalism, platform governance, and regional cooperation to tackle digital risks while safeguarding freedom of expression.

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

India AI governance faces court, privacy and cyber pressures

An opinion article published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals says India’s data protection and AI governance environment is facing growing pressure as compliance work around the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) unfolds, court challenges continue, and regulators widen oversight into new sectors. The piece, published on 26 March, is labelled as an opinion article and includes an editor’s note stating that the IAPP is policy neutral and publishes contributed opinion pieces to reflect a broad spectrum of views.

The article says several legal and regulatory developments are unfolding simultaneously. One example cited is a public interest litigation filed before India’s Supreme Court by journalist Geeta Seshu and the Software Freedom Law Centre, India, challenging parts of the DPDPA on constitutional and rights-related grounds. According to the piece, the Supreme Court later issued a notice to the Government of India on 12 March.

Concerns outlined in the article include the absence of journalistic exemptions, the lack of compensation for data breach victims when penalties are imposed to the government, broad state powers to exempt departments from the law, and questions about the independence of the Data Protection Board given the government’s control over appointments. The article notes that similar petitions had already been filed, but says this was the first time the court issued notice to the government.

The article also turns to proceedings before the Kerala High Court involving privacy concerns about biometric and personal data collected through Digi Yatra, a not-for-profit foundation that operates airport passenger-processing infrastructure in India. According to the piece, a public interest litigation filed by C R Neelakandan asked for a temporary restraint on the sharing of collected personal data and its commercial use without proper authorisation.

The article says the Kerala High Court issued notice to the Digi Yatra Foundation and sought clarification from the government on whether the Data Protection Board had been established to oversee such matters.

Alongside the litigation, the opinion piece points to government efforts to show legal preparedness for AI-related risks. It says Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw outlined existing safeguards during the ongoing parliamentary session, referring to the Information Technology Act, the DPDPA, and subordinate rules, along with published guidelines on AI governance, toy safety, harmful content, awareness-building measures, and cyber safety.

Cybersecurity developments also feature in the article. It says the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, working with the SatCom Industry Association, issued guidelines on 26 February for space, including satellite communications. According to the piece, the framework is intended to strengthen resilience in India’s space ecosystem.

It applies to covered entities, including government agencies, satellite service providers, ground station operators, terminal equipment vendors, and private space entities. Incident reporting within six hours and annual audits are among the measures described.

A further section of the article draws on Thales’ 2026 Data Threat Report. The piece says 64% of surveyed organisations in India identified AI-driven transformation as their biggest security risk, while 55% said they had to deal with reputational damage caused by AI-generated misinformation. It also says 65% reported deepfake-driven attacks, 35% had a complete view of their data, and 36% could fully classify their data.

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

Deepfakes in campaign ads expose limits of Texas election law

AI-generated political advertisements are becoming increasingly visible in Texas election campaigns, highlighting gaps in existing laws designed to regulate deepfakes in political messaging.

Texas was the first state in the United States to adopt legislation restricting the use of deepfakes in campaign advertisements. However, the law applies only to state-level races. It does not cover federal contests, including the US Senate race that has dominated advertising spending in Texas and featured several AI-generated campaign ads.

Some lawmakers and experts warn that the growing use of AI-generated political content could complicate election campaigns. During recent primary contests, campaign advertisements featuring manipulated or synthetic images of political figures circulated widely across media platforms.

State Senator Nathan Johnson, who has proposed legislation to strengthen the state’s rules regarding deepfakes, said the rapid evolution of AI technology makes the issue increasingly urgent. Johnson argues that voters should be able to make decisions based on accurate information rather than manipulated media.

The current Texas law, adopted in 2019, contains several limitations. It only applies to video content, requires proof of intent to deceive or harm a candidate, and covers material distributed within 30 days of an election. Critics say these restrictions make the law difficult to enforce and limit its practical impact.

Lawmakers from both parties attempted to address some of these issues during the most recent legislative session. Proposed reforms included removing the 30-day restriction, requiring clear disclosure when AI is used in political advertising, and allowing candidates to pursue legal action to block misleading ads. Although both chambers of the Texas legislature passed versions of the legislation, the proposals ultimately failed to become law.

Supporters of stricter regulation argue that the rapid advancement of generative AI tools is making it harder to distinguish synthetic media from authentic content. Some political leaders warn that increasingly realistic deepfakes could eventually influence election outcomes.

Others, however, caution that regulating political content raises constitutional concerns. Some lawmakers argue that many AI-generated political ads resemble satire or parody, forms of political speech protected by the First Amendment.

At the federal level, regulation of congressional campaign advertising falls under the Federal Election Commission’s authority. In 2024, the agency declined to begin a formal rulemaking process on AI-generated political ads, leaving states and policymakers to continue debating how to address the emerging issue.

Experts warn that as AI tools continue to improve, distinguishing authentic political messaging from deepfakes and other forms of synthetic content will likely become more complex.

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

EU updates voluntary code for labelling AI-generated content

The European Commission has released a second draft of its voluntary Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content, designed to support compliance with transparency rules under the Artificial Intelligence Act.

Published on 5 March, the updated draft reflects feedback from hundreds of stakeholders, including industry groups, academic researchers, policymakers, and civil society organisations.

Revisions follow consultations held in early 2026 as part of the broader rollout of the EU’s AI regulatory framework.

The proposed code outlines technical approaches for identifying AI-generated material. A two-layered system using secure metadata and digital watermarking is recommended, with optional fingerprinting, logging, and verification to improve detection.

Guidelines also address how platforms and publishers should label deepfakes and AI-generated text related to matters of public interest. Public feedback is open until 30 March, with the final code expected in early June before transparency rules take effect on 2 August 2026.

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