Google Proposes Search Overhaul to Satisfy EU Regulators

Google has offered to change how its search engine works in Europe, hoping to avoid a possible fine from regulators in Brussels who believe the company has been unfair to its competitors. The proposal, which was seen by Reuters, would affect how results appear when people search for things like hotels, restaurants, or flights.

This new offer comes just a few months after the European Commission said Google had been favouring its own services, such as Google Shopping and Google Flights, instead of giving equal treatment to other businesses. These concerns fall under a new law in the European Union known as the Digital Markets Act. The law is meant to reduce the power of very large tech companies by making them treat other online services more fairly and give users more choice.

According to the documents, Google’s latest idea involves creating a special box at the top of its search page. In that box, one outside service would be featured using the same format that Google uses for its own services. The box would include three direct links chosen by the selected company, pointing to things like travel bookings or local dining options. The company chosen for the top spot would be picked using clear and neutral rules.

Other similar services would still appear below in the results, but they would not be placed in a box unless the user clicks to expand that part of the page. Google said this structure is meant to be fair, although it has not fully agreed with the Commission’s view that it has broken the rules.

In a joint note that Google and the Commission shared with other companies, the tech firm said it wants to avoid a legal dispute by finding a practical solution that satisfies both sides. A meeting has been set for July 8, where Google’s rivals will be able to give their opinion on the proposal and suggest changes if needed.

Some of those companies, who spoke to Reuters but did not want to be named, believe Google’s changes still do not go far enough. Their concern is that only one competing service would get a prominent position, while the rest would still be left in the background. They argue that this does not truly fix the problem of Google controlling how users discover information or where they end up clicking.

The European Commission has not made a final decision yet. It will consider the feedback it receives in July before deciding whether to accept Google’s plan or move forward with a formal penalty.

Image: DIW-Aigen

Read next: 

• Survey Finds 1 in 6 Fear AI, While Two-Thirds See It Advancing Their Careers

• AI Web Scraping on the Rise, Should Companies Block It or Welcome It?
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

AI Web Scraping on the Rise, Should Companies Block It or Welcome It?

As generative AI technology becomes more advanced, it is increasingly web-scraping content to supply big language models. For businesses, this raises a new question: Are AI bots welcomed as a source of traffic and visibility, or repelled as digital intruders?

A recent study by Liquid Web surveyed over 500 developers and business owners to find out how companies are responding to AI-driven web scraping. The outcome reflects a divide in the digital world. While some are gaining visibility and income from AI-driven referrals, others worry they are handing a competitive edge to their competitors.

This is what the information tells us about how businesses are dealing with this shifting target and what the trade-offs are.

AI Scraping: A Double-Edged Sword

The report provides that 43% of businesses believe AI scraping is benefiting their competitors more than their own businesses. However, 1 in 5 businesses report they've experienced an increase in revenue, with an average 23% increase in revenue due to AI-driven referrals.

AI scraping has also brought about greater exposure:

• 27% indicated increased interaction via AI-powered discovery tools and chatbots
• 26% observed more brand mentions in AI-created content
• 22% experienced an increase in direct traffic because of AI-driven search results

These numbers indicate a growing tension: AI can enhance exposure but can also strip individuals of control over how content is used, re-used, and monetized.

A Growing Divide: AI Bot Policies

More than half of organizations polled, (56%), have formal policies regarding how AI bots engage with their sites. Policies vary widely:

• 28% block AI bots completely
• 17% offer unlimited access
• 39% have partial restrictions based on the bot type, compliance, or value

Health, tech, and marketing industries are more likely to block access, with the focus on protecting content. At the other end, government, legal services, and hospitality industries are more likely to permit AI scraping.

Why Certain Companies Block AI Bots

The reasons to block scrapers are clear:

• 66% do it to protect intellectual property
• 62% intend to secure proprietary content
• 57% look to prevent AI models from using their data without consent

There are also perceived security advantages. 59% of those blocking AI bots report having more secure websites. It is not without cost, however: 28% had less search engine traffic, and 18% had a ranking decrease.

Why Others are Saying Yes to Scraping

On the other hand, there are businesses that see AI as the source of new traffic. 68% of firms that allow scraping mention increased AI search visibility as the most significant benefit. Other findings are:

• 51% saw improved web traffic
• 41% reported higher search rankings
• 45% observed increased brand awareness
• 42% saw SEO improvements

Nevertheless, 23% were concerned that competitors would gain from their openness, and nearly one-third saw no real effect either positively or negatively.

Legal Grey Areas and Ethical

The legality of web scraping is in a gray zone. Courts, for example, in the LinkedIn v. HiQ Labs case, have found that scraping public data doesn’t exactly violate federal law. That doesn’t eliminate risk, though. Litigation over terms of service, copyright law, and data privacy statutes like GDPR or CCPA still pose risk to businesses.

Ethical considerations are also taking hold of businesses as they struggle with how much transparency to provide. Policy scraping transparency is rare, and most companies are working out how to reconcile openness with data ownership.

SEO Benefits

Blocking scrapers has unforeseen SEO effects. By blocking the bots, businesses can become invisible from AI-produced summaries or answers. These are increasingly utilized by websites like Google, Perplexity, and ChatGPT.

The study suggests a compromise solution: allow Googlebot and Bingbot to have standard visibility, but exclude unwanted scrapers. Structured data added to the site's content can also affect the perception of AI models towards site content.

Technical Strategies for Monitoring and Regulating AI Bots

The report also contains a step-by-step guide for companies who wish to control bot access more accurately. It contains:

• Behavioral monitoring and log analysis to detect unusual bot behavior
• robots.txt rules, typically ignored by scrapers
• CAPTCHAs, rate limiting, and JavaScript traps to filter out non-human traffic
• Token-based or rate-limiting API authentication in order to have secure data delivery

Companies can also adopt bot fingerprinting. This recognizes bots based on interaction patterns and device settings.

Industry-Specific Strategies

The research emphasizes the way scraping affects industries differently:

• Finance companies endanger real-time data exposure and are prone to restricting API access
• Media outlets see referral traffic drop and may install paywalls or disclaimers
• Ecommerce sites fear competitors scraping prices and supply levels
• SaaS startups are faced with scrapers targeting feature sets or onboarding flows
• Anti-scraping procedures need to be coordinated with industry-specific threats.

Final Takeaway: A Decision Framework for the Age of AI

Rather than a straightforward yes or no, research encourages a questioning spirit. Organizations must ask:

• Is it proprietary or confidential?
• Would referrals by AI generate trackable traffic or revenue?
• Do we have the capability for effectively monitoring scraping?
• Are we subject to obligatory compliance or privacy legislation?

For the majority, the best solution will be conditional access—blocking suspicious scrapers and allowing legitimate bots on controlled terms. As quoted by Liquid Web President Sachin Puri, “AI bots are bound to reshape the web. From customer behavior to decision to selection to success. This is a traffic and visibility problem but a big revenue opportunity powered by authentic and original content.”

AI web scraping has moved at such a speed that has taken it from a niche concern to a large challenge, and opportunity, for businesses. While large language models continue to redefine the way users discover and engage with online content, businesses are facing increasing pressure to decide how much of their online presence to expose to such systems.

Liquid Web's research results are indicative of a divided landscape. There are companies that are seeing real benefits from exposure to AI in traffic, rankings, and brand visibility overall. There are others, particularly those operating in verticals that handle sensitive or proprietary data, that are shifting to restrict or block AI scrapers altogether in order to maintain control and minimize risk.

Legal and ethical gray areas pose another hindrance, with much of the industry still not knowing what's compliant, safe, or sustainable. And while aggressive blocking can protect intellectual property, it can also suppress a brand's visibility on AI-powered discovery sites, as AI-driven search experiences become the norm.

For companies weighing their choices, a hybrid method appears to be the most practical. Allowing useful bots with organized information, rate limiting, and detection features could be a compromise between security and openness.

Lastly, no single fix will work for all situations. The optimal fix does vary by company' goals, risk tolerance, and technical capabilities. The one certainty is this, however: doing nothing is not an option. The web scraping performed by AI already has an effect on who is noticed, and who goes unnoticed, in the online environment.

Read next: Inside the Chat: Could WhatsApp Be Hacked by a Government? Expert Reveals How
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Inside the Chat: Could WhatsApp Be Hacked by a Government? Expert Reveals How

Earlier today, Iranian officials urged the country’s citizens to remove the messaging platform WhatsApp from their smartphones. Without providing any supporting evidence, they alleged the app gathers user information to send to Israel.

WhatsApp has rejected the allegations. In a statement to Associated Press , the Meta-owned messaging platform said it was concerned “these false reports will be an excuse for our services to be blocked at a time when people need them most”. It added that it does not track users’ location nor the personal messages people are sending one another.

It is impossible to independently assess the allegations, given Iran provided no publicly accessible supporting evidence.

But we do know that even though WhatsApp has strong privacy and security features, it isn’t impenetrable. And there is at least one country that has previously been able to penetrate it: Israel.

3 billion users

WhatsApp is a free messaging app owned by Meta. With around 3 billion users worldwide and growing fast, it can send text messages, calls and media over the internet.

It uses strong end-to-end encryption meaning only the sender and recipient can read messages; not even WhatsApp can access their content. This ensures strong privacy and security.

Image: DIW-Aigen

Advanced cyber capability

The United States is the world leader in cyber capability. This term describes the skills, technologies and resources that enable nations to defend, attack, or exploit digital systems and networks as a powerful instrument of national power.

But Israel also has advanced cyber capability, ranking alongside the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Canada.

Israel has a documented history of conducting sophisticated cyber operations. This includes the widely cited Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran’s nuclear program more than 15 years ago. Israeli cyber units, such as Unit 8200 , are renowned for their technical expertise and innovation in both offensive and defensive operations.

Seven of the top 10 global cybersecurity firms maintain R&D centers in Israel, and Israeli startups frequently lead in developing novel offensive and defensive cyber tools.

A historical precedent

Israeli firms have repeatedly been linked to hacking WhatsApp accounts, most notably through the Pegasus spyware developed by Israeli-based cyber intelligence company NSO Group . In 2019, it exploited WhatsApp vulnerabilities to compromise 1,400 users, including journalists, activists and politicians.

Last month, a US federal court ordered the NSO Group to pay WhatsApp and Meta nearly US$170 million in damages for the hack.

Another Israeli company, Paragon Solutions , also recently targeted nearly 100 WhatsApp accounts. The company used advanced spyware to access private communications after they had been de-encrypted.

These kinds of attacks often use “ spearphishing ”. This is distinct from regular phishing attacks, which generally involve an attacker sending malicious links to thousands of people.

Instead, spearphishing involves sending targeted, deceptive messages or files to trickspecificindividuals into installing spyware. This grants attackers full access to their devices – including de-encrypted WhatsApp messages.

A spearphishing email might appear to come from a trusted colleague or organisation. It might ask the recipient to urgently review a document or reset a password, leading them to a fake login page or triggering a malware download.

Protecting yourself from ‘spearphishing’

To avoid spearphishing, people should scrutinise unexpected emails or messages, especially those conveying a sense of urgency, and never click suspicious links or download unknown attachments.

Hovering the mouse cursor over a link will reveal the name of the destination. Suspicious links are those with strange domain names and garbled text that has nothing to do with the purported sender. Simply hovering without clicking is not dangerous.

Enable two-factor authentication, keep your software updated, and verify requests coming through trusted channels. Regular cybersecurity training also helps users spot and resist these targeted attacks.

This story was originally published on TheConversation.

Read next: Google Used YouTube Videos to Train AI, Creators Left in the Dark

by Web Desk via Digital Information World

Google Used YouTube Videos to Train AI, Creators Left in the Dark

A detailed report by CNBC has brought to light the little-known practice of Google using YouTube videos to develop some of its most powerful artificial intelligence systems, raising questions among creators, legal observers and digital rights groups who had not been informed that their work might be feeding the company’s training pipelines. The investigation found that material uploaded to YouTube, a platform where more than 20 million new videos are added every day, has been used by Google to train systems like Gemini and Veo 3, including advanced capabilities in video and audio generation.

Although Google acknowledged that it draws on a portion of its YouTube video library to improve AI models, it declined to specify which videos were used or how creators were notified, stating only that it honors existing agreements. Many creators, including some with substantial audiences and reputational stake in their work, were unaware that their contributions might serve as training data for AI systems that could, over time, automate or replicate the very creative decisions that define their channels.

Among those concerned is Luke Arrigoni, chief executive of Loti, a firm that develops tools for protecting creators’ digital identities. Arrigoni has argued that by ingesting years of creative work into an algorithm, Google risks enabling a system that mimics the form but not the spirit of original material, leaving creators in a position where their ideas are transformed into synthetic outputs that benefit the platform without acknowledgment or control.

The concerns deepened with the launch of Veo 3, Google’s AI video generator unveiled in May, which demonstrated its ability to construct photorealistic scenes complete with dialogue, atmosphere and emotion, all synthetically generated using its training data. According to CNBC, one example involved a scene of animals rendered in the style of popular animation, with no identifiable human input beyond the algorithm’s internal design, suggesting the model had absorbed not just technical patterns, but creative cues as well.

Dan Neely, who leads Vermillio, a company that develops tools to detect AI-generated content overlap, said his team has recorded multiple cases where Veo 3’s outputs showed measurable similarity to human-produced videos. In one instance, a video originally posted by YouTube creator Brodie Moss appeared to closely match an output from the Veo model. Using Trace ID, a tool developed by Vermillio to score AI similarity, the original video received a 71 for overall resemblance, while the audio alone surpassed 90, a level Neely considers significant.

The incident has renewed scrutiny over YouTube’s terms of service, which grant the platform broad licensing rights, including the ability to sublicense content for uses like machine learning. Yet the sheer scale of the platform, along with the speed at which generative systems like Veo 3 are advancing, has led many creators to reconsider what participation in such platforms truly entails. Few had considered that uploading content might result in training the tools that could eventually outpace or even replace their own creative output.

While YouTube allows users to prevent certain third-party companies — such as Apple, Amazon and Nvidia — from using their videos for model training, no such opt-out applies to Google’s internal efforts. This has further inflamed concerns among media organizations and creator-focused firms, which argue that consent, transparency and compensation have lagged behind technical innovation. As an example of growing friction, Disney and Universal recently filed a joint lawsuit targeting another generative platform, Midjourney, for unauthorized use of copyrighted imagery, a sign that the industry may be moving toward more forceful legal responses.

At the same time, Google has moved to preempt some of the criticism by offering indemnity to users of its AI tools, meaning the company itself will accept legal responsibility in the event of a copyright challenge involving generated content. YouTube has also partnered with the Creative Artists Agency to offer talent-facing support for identifying and managing likenesses that appear in AI-generated works, and has created a request-based takedown mechanism for creators who believe their identity has been misused. However, according to Arrigoni, the existing tools are not always reliable, and in practice, the process of appealing misuse remains opaque and slow.

Despite these tensions, a few creators expressed a cautious willingness to coexist with these tools, viewing them as inevitable companions in a changing creative environment. For others, though, the situation raises more difficult questions about who truly owns online content once it’s uploaded, and whether the rules that governed traditional content licensing are adequate for a world in which machines not only learn from human creativity but increasingly imitate and distribute their own interpretations of it.

The dilemma now facing creators and platforms alike is not simply about data, but about authorship, value and visibility in a system where the line between contributor and training resource is being quietly redrawn.

Image: Glenn Marczewski / Unsplash

Read next: OpenAI Tests Direct Gmail and Calendar Integration in ChatGPT, Prompting Data Privacy Concerns
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

OpenAI Tests Direct Gmail and Calendar Integration in ChatGPT, Prompting Data Privacy Concerns

OpenAI is testing a new feature that would allow ChatGPT to interact directly with Gmail and Google Calendar. The update, spotted by @btibor91 on X, could enable users to pull in emails, summarise content, generate responses, and schedule events, all without leaving the chatbot.

At present, Gmail integration exists only through OpenAI’s Deep Research tool, which limits usage to background sourcing within longer reports. The latest test suggests a more hands-on approach is coming, one that turns email into an active part of the chat flow. If fully launched, this would bring ChatGPT closer to acting as a digital assistant that manages both information and personal workflow in real time.

But the shift raises questions about how personal data might be handled. Access to email bodies and calendar entries could, if left unchecked, open a path for sensitive information to feed back into the system. While OpenAI says user privacy is a priority, its track record has not always supported that. Earlier this month, it was revealed that conversations deleted by users inside ChatGPT had still been stored, undermining confidence in how memory and consent are managed.

This is especially relevant if Gmail access becomes part of the chatbot’s Search tool, where user queries already interact with broader AI functions. With no public explanation yet of whether email content will be used to train the model, the idea of handing over inbox access may give some users pause, even if the interface promises convenience.

ChatGPT’s integration with Google services could make it more powerful, but only if the boundaries around data use are clearly drawn. Without that, the benefit of automation may come at the cost of control.

Read next:

• Researchers Link Browser Fingerprints to Ad Targeting, Undermining Online Privacy Promises

• Two-Fifths of U.S. Workers Now Use AI; Frontline Adoption Stalls, Leadership Use Climbs Sharply
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Two-Fifths of U.S. Workers Now Use AI; Frontline Adoption Stalls, Leadership Use Climbs Sharply

Artificial intelligence has become a more familiar part of daily work life in the United States, with its use spreading quickly across offices and professional environments.

Over the past two years, the number of employees who say they use AI tools at least a few times each year has nearly doubled, rising from just over one-fifth of the workforce in 2023 to around two-fifths in 2025. Within that same period, the proportion of workers engaging with AI on a weekly basis has almost doubled as well, while daily use has quietly increased from four to eight percent over the past year alone.

The growth in AI use has been most visible in white-collar occupations, particularly in sectors such as technology, consulting, and financial services. In these industries, between one-third and one-half of employees now report using AI frequently in the course of their work. Among white-collar professionals more broadly, over one in four are now regular users of AI, a clear increase compared to the previous year.

Outside office-based roles, however, the picture has remained mostly unchanged. For those working in frontline jobs or production-related positions, regular use of AI has not followed the same trend. In fact, the percentage of these workers who report using AI a few times a week or more has remained flat, showing only a slight dip since 2023. The contrast between sectors where AI is being embraced and those where it remains largely unused suggests a growing divide in workplace technology exposure.

Among employees who manage other leaders or oversee larger teams, AI adoption appears to be advancing at a faster pace than among individual contributors. Roughly one in three of these senior leaders now report frequent AI use, which is about double the rate observed among non-managers. This suggests that those in strategic or supervisory roles may be more likely to explore or depend on AI-based tools in their decision-making processes.

Despite these shifts, most workers have not changed their outlook on the risk AI may pose to job security. The proportion of employees who believe it is likely that automation or AI will eliminate their position within the next five years remains consistent with previous years, holding steady at around fifteen percent. However, this figure rises slightly in some fields, particularly among those working in technology, retail, and finance, where around one in five anticipate that their roles could eventually be replaced.

Although more organisations are beginning to introduce AI into their operations, many have done so without offering clear guidance or structured support for their staff. While just under half of all employees now say that AI is being introduced into their workplace in some form, fewer than one in four say that their employer has provided a detailed strategy or communicated a clear plan about how AI should be used. Only three in ten say that their organisation has issued either broad guidelines or formal policies governing the use of AI tools. This means that many employees are encountering AI without knowing where it fits into the rules or priorities of their workplace.

When asked about the challenges surrounding the use of AI, employees most often point to confusion about its purpose or relevance. Even among those who regularly use AI at work, only a small proportion strongly agree that the tools they are given are genuinely helpful for the tasks they perform. For others, especially those without first-hand experience, the usefulness of AI remains unclear.

Where staff have used AI to support customer-facing tasks, feedback is more positive. Most workers with direct experience in this area say that AI has improved their interactions with customers. In contrast, those who have never used AI in this way are far less likely to believe it would make any difference, with fewer than one in five expecting a benefit.

Research indicates that a clearer sense of direction from leadership may be key to expanding AI use across the workplace. Employees who say their organisation has shared a detailed plan are significantly more likely to feel both comfortable and well-prepared to work with AI tools. In fact, those with this level of communication are several times more likely to describe themselves as confident users, compared with peers who have received no guidance.

If companies are serious about using AI more widely, it may not be enough to simply provide access to new tools. The evidence suggests that helping employees understand how AI fits into their role — and offering structured, practical support — is what makes the difference between curiosity and genuine adoption.

H/T: Gallup.

Read next: Researchers Link Browser Fingerprints to Ad Targeting, Undermining Online Privacy Promises
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Facebook Adds Passkey Logins to Strengthen Account Security

Facebook is making it easier for people to protect their accounts by offering a new sign-in option known as passkeys. This feature gives users another way to log in without needing a password, and it’s designed to make accounts harder to break into.

With this update, users can use tools like face recognition or fingerprint scanning to unlock their accounts. What makes this approach more secure is that your login information never leaves your device. Instead, it’s stored safely on the phone itself and used to confirm your identity when needed.

Facebook is gradually introducing this feature on mobile phones that run iOS or Android. Messenger will also be added to the rollout a bit later. Once the setup is complete, the same passkey can be used to access both services.

People who shop using Meta Pay will notice that the new system can also help fill in payment details automatically. It is being added as part of a wider effort to protect sensitive information, including private backups of messages.

Other social platforms such as TikTok, LinkedIn, and X already brought in passkey support some time ago. While Facebook is joining the shift a little later, the change still gives users a more reliable way to stay in control of their accounts.

When the option becomes available, it will be listed in the account settings under the Accounts Center. Once turned on, it can be used right away on any supported device. For older devices, people can still rely on their usual login methods such as passwords or codes.

This update follows a growing focus on stronger security for online platforms, especially as concerns about account theft and data protection continue to rise. By giving people more options, Facebook is helping users take another step towards safer access.

Read next: 16 Billion Login Records Leak Online in One of the Largest Credential Exposures to Date
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World