Freedom of the press Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

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!

Writers publish protest book to challenge AI use of copyrighted works

Thousands of writers have joined a symbolic protest against AI companies by publishing a book that contains no traditional content.

The work, titled “Don’t Steal This Book,” lists only the names of roughly 10,000 contributors who oppose the use of their writing to train AI systems without their permission.

An initiative that was organised by composer and campaigner Ed Newton-Rex and distributed during the London Book Fair. Contributors include prominent authors such as Kazuo Ishiguro, Philippa Gregory and Richard Osman, along with thousands of other writers and creative professionals.

Campaigners argue that generative AI systems are trained on vast collections of copyrighted material gathered from the internet without authorisation or compensation.

According to organisers, such practices allow AI tools to compete with the creators whose works were used to develop them.

The protest arrives as the UK Government prepares an economic assessment of potential copyright reforms related to AI. Proposals under discussion include allowing AI developers to use copyrighted material unless rights holders explicitly opt out.

Many writers and artists oppose that approach and demand stronger copyright protections. In parallel, the publishing sector is preparing a licensing initiative through Publishers’ Licensing Services to provide AI developers with legal access to books while ensuring authors receive compensation.

The dispute reflects a growing global debate over how copyright law should apply to generative AI systems that rely on massive datasets to develop chatbots and other digital tools.

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

EU faces challenges in curbing digital abuse against women

Researchers and policymakers are raising concerns about how new technologies may put women at risk online, despite existing EU rules designed to ensure safer digital spaces.

AI-powered tools and smart devices have been linked to incidents of harassment and the creation of non-consensual sexualised imagery, highlighting gaps in enforcement and compliance.

The European Commission’s Gender Equality 2026–2030 Strategy noted that women are disproportionately targeted by online gender-based violence, including harassment, doxing, and AI-generated deepfakes.

Investigations into tools such as Elon Musk’s Grok AI and Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses have drawn attention to how digital platforms and wearable technologies can be misused, even where legal frameworks like the Digital Services Act (DSA) are in place.

Experts emphasise that while the EU’s rules offer a foundation to regulate online content, significant challenges remain. Advocates and lawmakers say enforcement gaps let harmful AI functions like nudification persist.

Commissioners have stressed ongoing cooperation with tech companies and upcoming guidelines to prioritise flagged content from independent organisations to address gender-based cyber violence.

Authorities are also monitoring new technologies closely. In the case of wearable devices, regulators are considering how users and bystanders are informed about recording features.

Ongoing discussions aim to strengthen compliance under existing legislation and ensure that digital spaces become safer and more accountable for all users.

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

Council of Europe issues new guidance on AI and gender equality

Ahead of International Women’s Day on 8 March, the Council of Europe adopted two new recommendations addressing gender equality and the prevention of violence against women in the context of emerging technologies.

One recommendation targets the design and use of AI to prevent discrimination, while the other focuses on accountability for technology-facilitated violence against women and girls.

The AI recommendation advises member states on preventing discrimination throughout the lifecycle of AI systems, from development to deployment and retirement. It highlights risks like gender bias while promoting transparency, explainability, and safeguards.

Special attention is given to discrimination based on gender, race, and sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression (SOGIESC).

The second recommendation sets the first international standard for addressing technology-facilitated violence against women. It outlines strategies to overcome impunity, including clearer legal frameworks, accessible reporting systems, and victim-centred approaches.

Emphasis is placed on multistakeholder engagement, trauma-informed policies, and safety-by-design in technology products to prevent digital harm.

Both recommendations reinforce the importance of combining regulation, institutional support, and public awareness to ensure technology advances equality rather than perpetuates harm.

The formal launch is scheduled for 10 June 2026 at the Palais de l’Europe in Strasbourg during an event titled ‘From standards to action: making accountability for technology-facilitated violence against women and girls a reality.’

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