Smartphones sans Google (GAFAM)

Norway’s proposed under-16 ban could extend beyond social media to Roblox.

Norway plans to introduce legislation restricting under-16s’ access to platforms considered harmful to children, including TikTok, Snapchat and Roblox.

The bill is expected to be presented to Parliament by the end of 2026. Tech companies would be responsible for verifying users’ ages.

Protecting children online is important. But should access restrictions come with age checks that could compromise the privacy of everyone using these services?

Governments should also push platforms to address addictive design and harmful content, rather than relying mainly on bans.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/norway-targets-harmful-social-media-games-with-under-16-ban-2026-10-19/

#Privacy #DigitalRights #AgeVerification

Google no longer just points you to information. Its AI generates answers for you. Who’s responsible when it falsely accuses someone?

Two German court cases have challenged Google’s responsibility for claims generated by its AI Overviews.

In one case, Google’s AI attributed criminal allegations and legal proceedings involving someone else to a doctor.

Google had been notified but refused to remove the disputed content. A court in Aachen ordered it to stop displaying the claims, with a potential fine of up to €250,000 per violation.

The legal details matter: the Aachen ruling is provisional, while the Munich case ended in a settlement.

When AI-generated answers can damage someone's reputation, platforms cannot simply ignore the consequences.

https://the-decoder.com/two-german-courts-now-hold-google-liable-for-what-its-ai-overviews-say/

#Google #AI #Privacy

Meta removed language that experts said could let it scrape news sites for AI training

After backlash, Meta deleted a clause from its commercial terms that appeared to authorize the use of content from domains linked to business accounts “to provide, develop, improve, research, train, and maintain” its products.

Legal experts (including Cornell’s James Grimmelmann) and Nieman Lab saw it as a potential free pass to scrape publisher content, possibly overriding robots.txt.

Meta says there is no change to how it uses web crawlers and that the language only applied to ads and business products. It has now removed the controversial sentence.

Content owners can still use robots.txt to signal their preferences.

When Big Tech rewrites its terms to claim broad rights over web content, how much control do publishers and users actually keep over their data?

https://www.theverge.com/tech/1013409/meta-removes-language-that-may-have-allowed-it-to-scrape-news-sites

#Privacy #Meta #AI #DigitalRights