European users will soon lose access to Setapp Mobile, an alternative app store created under the EU Digital Markets Act. The service will shut down on 16 February 2026.
MacPaw, a Ukrainian software developer known for Mac productivity tools, launched Setapp as a subscription-based app platform. Its mobile store debuted in 2024 to challenge Apple’s App Store in the EU.
Ongoing uncertainty around Apple’s EU fee structure weakened the business case. The Core Technology Fee and frequent commercial changes made planning and sustainable monetisation difficult.
Setapp’s desktop service will continue operating, while the mobile store is discontinued. Other alternative app stores remain available in the EU, including Epic Games Store and the open source AltStore.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Authorities in Russia are increasing pressure on WhatsApp, one of the country’s most widely used messaging platforms. The service remains popular despite years of tightening digital censorship.
Officials argue that WhatsApp refuses to comply with national laws on data storage and cooperation with law enforcement. Meta has no legal presence in Russia and continues to reject requests for user information.
State backed alternatives such as the national messenger Max are being promoted through institutional pressure. Critics warn that restricting WhatsApp targets private communication rather than crime or security threats.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Yesterday, UNESCO expressed growing concern over the expanding use of internet shutdowns by governments seeking to manage political crises, protests, and electoral periods.
Recent data indicate that more than 300 shutdowns have occurred across over 54 countries during the past two years, with 2024 recorded as the most severe year since 2016.
According to UNESCO, restricting online access undermines the universal right to freedom of expression and weakens citizens’ ability to participate in social, cultural, and political life.
Access to information remains essential not only for democratic engagement but also for rights linked to education, assembly, and association, particularly during moments of instability.
Internet disruptions also place significant strain on journalists, media organisations, and public information systems that distribute verified news.
Instead of improving public order, shutdowns fracture information flows and contribute to the spread of unverified or harmful content, increasing confusion and mistrust among affected populations.
UNESCO continues to call on governments to adopt policies that strengthen connectivity and digital access rather than imposing barriers.
The organisation argues that maintaining open and reliable internet access during crises remains central to protecting democratic rights and safeguarding the integrity of information ecosystems.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission has unveiled a broad cybersecurity package that moves the EU beyond certification reform towards systemic resilience across critical digital infrastructure.
Building on plans to expand EU cybersecurity certification beyond products and services, the revised Cybersecurity Act introduces a risk-based framework for securing ICT supply chains, with particular focus on dependencies, foreign interference, and high-risk third-country suppliers.
A central shift concerns supply-chain security as a geopolitical issue. The proposal enables mandatory derisking of mobile telecommunications networks, reinforcing earlier efforts under the 5G security toolbox.
Certification reform continues through a redesigned European Cybersecurity Certification Framework, promising clearer governance, faster scheme development, and voluntary certification that can cover organisational cyber posture alongside technical compliance.
The package also tackles regulatory complexity. Targeted amendments to the NIS2 Directive aim to ease compliance for tens of thousands of companies by clarifying jurisdictional rules, introducing a new ‘small mid-cap’ category, and streamlining incident reporting through a single EU entry point.
Enhanced ransomware data collection and cross-border supervision are intended to reduce fragmentation while strengthening enforcement consistency.
ENISA’s role is further expanded from coordination towards operational support. The agency would issue early threat alerts, assist in ransomware recovery with national authorities and Europol, and develop EU-wide vulnerability management and skills attestation schemes.
Together, the measures signal a shift from fragmented safeguards towards a more integrated model of European cyber sovereignty.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The moment many have anticipated with interest or concern has arrived. On 16 January, OpenAI announced the global rollout of its low-cost subscription tier, ChatGPT Go, in all countries where the model is supported. After debuting in India in August 2025 and expanding to Singapore the following month, the USD 8-per-month tier marks OpenAI’s most direct attempt yet to broaden paid access while maintaining assurances that advertising will not be embedded into ChatGPT’s prompts.
The move has been widely interpreted as a turning point in the way AI models are monetised. To date, most major AI providers have relied on a combination of external investment, strategic partnerships, and subscription offerings to sustain rapid development. Expectations of transformative breakthroughs and exponential growth have underpinned investor confidence, reinforcing what has come to be described as the AI boom.
Against this backdrop, OpenAI’s long-standing reluctance to embrace advertising takes on renewed significance. As recently as October 2024, chief executive Sam Altman described ads as a ‘last resort’ for the company’s business model. Does that position (still) reflect Altman’s confidence in alternative revenue streams, and is OpenAI simply the first company to bite the ad revenue bullet before other AI ventures have mustered the courage to do so?
ChatGPT, ads, and the integrity of AI responses
Regardless of one’s personal feelings about ad-based revenue, the facts about its essentiality are irrefutable. According to Statista’s Market Insights research, the worldwide advertising market has surpassed USD 1 trillion in annual revenue. With such figures in mind, it seems like a no-brainer to integrate ads whenever and wherever possible.
Furthermore, relying solely on substantial but irregular cash injections is not a reliable way to keep the lights on for a USD 500 billion company, especially in the wake of the RAM crisis. As much as the average consumer would prefer to use digital services without ads, coming up with an alternative and well-grounded revenue stream is tantamount to financial alchemy. Advertising remains one of the few monetisation models capable of sustaining large-scale platforms without significantly raising user costs.
For ChatGPT users, however, the concern centres less on the mere presence of ads and more on how advertising incentives could reshape data use, profiling practices, and the handling of conversational inputs. OpenAI has pleaded with its users to ‘trust that ChatGPT’s responses are driven by what’s objectively useful, never by advertising’. Altman’s company has also guaranteed that user data and conversations will remain protected and will never be sold to advertisers.
Such bold statements are never given lightly, meaning Altman fully stands behind his company’s words and is prepared to face repercussions should he break his promises. Since OpenAI is privately held, shifts in investor confidence following the announcement are not visible through public market signals, unlike at publicly listed technology firms. User count remains the most reliable metric for observing how ChatGPT is perceived by its target audience.
Competitive pressure behind ads in ChatGPT
Introducing ads to ChatGPT would be more than a simple change to how OpenAI makes money. Advertising can influence how the model responds to users, even if ads are not shown directly within the answers. Business pressure can still shape how information is presented through prompts. For example, certain products or services could be described more positively than others, without clearly appearing as advertisements or endorsements.
Recommendations raise particular concern. Many users turn to ChatGPT for advice or comparisons before making important purchases. If advertising becomes part of the model’s business, it may become harder for users to tell whether a suggestion is neutral or influenced by commercial interests. Transparency is also an issue, as the influence is much harder to spot in a chat interface than on websites that clearly label ads with banners or sponsored tags.
While these concerns are valid, competition remains the main force shaping decisions across the AI industry. No major company wants its model to fall behind rivals such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or other leading systems. Nearly all of these firms have faced public criticism or controversy at some point, forcing them to adjust their strategies and work to rebuild user trust.
The risk of public backlash has so far made companies cautious about introducing advertising. Still, this hesitation is unlikely to last forever. By moving first, OpenAI absorbs most of the initial criticism, while competitors get to stand back, watch how users respond, and adjust their plans accordingly. If advertising proves successful, others are likely to follow, drawing on OpenAI’s experience without bearing the brunt of the growing pains. To quote Arliss Howard’s character in Moneyball: ‘The first guy through the wall always gets bloody’.
ChatGPT advertising and governance challenges
Following the launch of ChatGPT Go, lawmakers and regulators may need to reconsider how existing legal safeguards apply to ad-supported LLMs. Most advertising rules are designed for websites, apps, and social media feeds, rather than systems that generate natural-language responses and present them as neutral or authoritative guidance.
The key question is: which rules should apply? Advertising in chatbots may not resemble traditional ads, muddying the waters for regulation under digital advertising rules, AI governance frameworks, or both. The uncertainty matters largely because different rules come with varying disclosure, transparency, and accountability requirements.
Disclosure presents a further challenge for regulators. On traditional websites, sponsored content is usually labelled and visually separated from editorial material. In an LLM interface such as ChatGPT, however, any commercial influence may appear in the flow of an answer itself. This makes it harder for users to distinguish content shaped by commercial considerations from neutral responses.
In the European Union, this raises questions about how existing regulatory frameworks apply. Advertising in conversational AI may intersect with rules on transparency, manipulation, and user protection under current digital and AI legislation, including the AI Act, the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act. Clarifying how these frameworks operate in practice will be important as conversational AI systems continue to evolve.
ChatGPT ads and data governance
In the context of ChatGPT, conversational interactions can be more detailed than clicks or browsing history. Prompts may include personal, professional, or sensitive information, which requires careful handling when introducing advertising models. Even without personalised targeting, conversational data still requires clear boundaries. As AI systems scale, maintaining user trust will depend on transparent data practices and strong privacy safeguards.
Then, there’s data retention. Advertising incentives can increase pressure to store conversations for longer periods or to find new ways to extract value from them. For users, this raises concerns about how their data is handled, who has access to it, and how securely it is protected. Even if OpenAI initially avoids personalised advertising, the lingering allure will remain a central issue in the discussion about advertising in ChatGPT, not a secondary one.
Clear policies around data use and retention will therefore play a central role in shaping how advertising is introduced. Limits on how long conversations are stored, how data is separated from advertising systems, and how access is controlled can help reduce user uncertainty. Transparency around these practices will be important in maintaining confidence as the platform evolves.
Simultaneously, regulatory expectations and public scrutiny are likely to influence how far advertising models develop. As ChatGPT becomes more widely used across personal, professional, and institutional settings, decisions around data handling will carry broader implications. How OpenAI balances commercial sustainability with privacy and trust may ultimately shape wider norms for advertising in conversational AI.
How ChatGPT ads could reshape the AI ecosystem
We have touched on the potential drawbacks of AI models adopting an ad-revenue model, but what about the benefits? If ChatGPT successfully integrates advertising, it could set an important precedent for the broader industry. As the provider of one of the most widely used general-purpose AI systems, OpenAI’s decisions are closely watched by competitors, policymakers, and investors.
One likely effect would be the gradual normalisation of ad-funded AI assistants. If advertising proves to be a stable revenue source without triggering significant backlash, other providers may view it as a practical path to sustainability. Over time, this could shift user expectations, making advertising a standard feature rather than an exception in conversational AI tools.
Advertising may also intensify competitive pressure on open, academic, or non-profit AI models. Such systems often operate with more limited funding and may struggle to match the resources of ad-supported platforms such as ChatGPT. As a result, the gap between large commercial providers and alternative models could widen, especially in areas such as infrastructure, model performance, and distribution.
Taken together, these dynamics could strengthen the role of major AI providers as gatekeepers. Beyond controlling access to technology, they may increasingly influence which products, services, or ideas gain visibility through AI-mediated interactions. Such a concentration of influence would not be unique to AI, but it raises familiar questions about competition, diversity, and power in digital information ecosystems.
ChatGPT advertising and evolving governance frameworks
Advertising in ChatGPT is not simply a business decision. It highlights a broader shift in the way knowledge, economic incentives, and large-scale AI systems interact. As conversational AI becomes more embedded in everyday life, these developments offer an opportunity to rethink how digital services can remain both accessible and sustainable.
For policymakers and governance bodies, the focus is less on whether advertising appears and more on how it is implemented. Clear rules around transparency, accountability, and user protection can help ensure that conversational AI evolves in ways that support trust, choice, and fair competition, while allowing innovation to continue.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Digital violence targeting women and girls is spreading across Europe, according to new research highlighting cyberstalking, surveillance and online threats as the most common reported abuses.
Digital tools have expanded opportunities for communication, yet online environments increasingly expose women to persistent harassment instead of safety and accountability.
Image-based abuse has grown sharply, with deepfake pornography now dominating synthetic sexual content and almost exclusively targeting women.
Algorithmic systems accelerate the circulation of misogynistic material, creating enclosed digital spaces where abuse is normalised rather than challenged. Researchers warn that automated recommendation mechanisms can quickly spread harmful narratives, particularly among younger audiences.
Recent generative technologies have further intensified concerns by enabling sexualised image manipulation with limited safeguards.
Lawmakers in the EU are moving closer to forcing technology companies to pay news publishers for the use of journalistic material in model training, according to a draft copyright report circulating in the European Parliament.
The text forms part of a broader effort to update copyright enforcement as automated content systems expand across media and information markets.
Compromise amendments also widen the scope beyond payment obligations, bringing AI-generated deepfakes and synthetic manipulation into sharper focus.
MEPs argue that existing legal tools fail to offer sufficient protection for publishers, journalists and citizens when automated systems reproduce or distort original reporting.
The report reflects growing concern that platform-driven content extraction undermines the sustainability of professional journalism. Lawmakers are increasingly framing compensation mechanisms as a corrective measure rather than as voluntary licensing or opaque commercial arrangements.
If adopted, the position of the Parliament would add further regulatory pressure on large technology firms already facing tighter scrutiny under the Digital Markets Act and related digital legislation, reinforcing Europe’s push to assert control over data use, content value and democratic safeguards.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Several major AI companies appear slow to meet EU transparency obligations, raising concerns over compliance with the AI Act.
Under the regulation, developers of large foundation models must disclose information about training data sources, allowing creators to assess whether copyrighted material has been used.
Such disclosures are intended to offer a minimal baseline of transparency, covering the use of public datasets, licensed material and scraped websites.
While open-source providers such as Hugging Face have already published detailed templates, leading commercial developers have so far provided only broad descriptions of data usage instead of specific sources.
Formal enforcement of the rules will not begin until later in the year, extending a grace period for companies that released models after August 2025.
The European Commission has indicated willingness to impose fines if necessary, although it continues to assess whether newer models fall under immediate obligations.
The issue is likely to become politically sensitive, as stricter enforcement could affect US-based technology firms and intensify transatlantic tensions over digital regulation.
Transparency under the AI Act may therefore test both regulatory resolve and international relations as implementation moves closer.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Pressure is growing on Keir Starmer after more than 60 Labour MPs called for a UK ban on social media use for under-16s, arguing that children’s online safety requires firmer regulation instead of voluntary platform measures.
The signatories span Labour’s internal divides, including senior parliamentarians and former frontbenchers, signalling broad concern over the impact of social media on young people’s well-being, education and mental health.
Supporters of the proposal point to Australia’s recently implemented ban as a model worth following, suggesting that early evidence could guide UK policy development rather than prolonged inaction.
Starmer is understood to favour a cautious approach, preferring to assess the Australian experience before endorsing legislation, as peers prepare to vote on related measures in the coming days.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
US regulators have closed a loophole that allowed Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, to operate gas-burning turbines at its Memphis data centre without full air pollution permits. The move follows concerns over emissions and local health impacts.
The US Environmental Protection Agency clarified that mobile gas turbines cannot be classified as ‘non-road engines’ to avoid Clean Air Act requirements. Companies must now obtain permits if their combined emissions exceed regulatory thresholds.
Local authorities had previously allowed the turbines to operate without public consultation or environmental review. The updated federal rule may slow xAI’s expansion plans in the Memphis area.
The Colossus data centre, opened in 2024, supports training and inference for Grok AI models and other services linked to Musk’s X platform. NVIDIA hardware is used extensively at the site.
Residents and environmental groups have raised concerns about air quality, particularly in nearby communities. Legal advocates say xAI’s future operations will be closely monitored for regulatory compliance.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
