Survey Suggests Google’s AI Overviews Haven’t Replaced the Click-Through Habit

A new poll of 1,000 adults in the United States, conducted in May for NP Digital, indicates that the majority of people still click on search results after reading an AI-generated summary from Google.

Only 4.4% of respondents said they never click through. In contrast, 13.3% said they do so every time, 30.5% said often, 41.5% said sometimes, and 10.3% admitted they rarely follow a link. The pattern shows that while behaviour is shifting, the summaries are not stopping people from moving beyond the search page.

Perceptions of how the tool has changed browsing habits were divided. Just under a third thought they now visit fewer websites, yet more than half, 51.9%, reported no real change in their routines.

Trust in AI Overviews also varied. About 41% placed them on par with the snippets and links usually offered by search, while 31% said they trusted the summaries more and 28% trusted them less. The proportion expressing less trust almost mirrors the number who had noticed serious errors over the past year, which stood at 25.3%. Of those errors, half were described as inaccurate, 20.6% as outdated, and 21% as irrelevant to the query.

Satisfaction levels landed in the middle range. Around 29.8% of people said they were very satisfied, 36.6% were somewhat satisfied, and 25.1% said moderate. Only 5% said they were somewhat dissatisfied, with 3.5% very dissatisfied, producing a net satisfaction rate of 57.9%. Even so, more than half said they would prefer to switch off the summaries if they had the choice, 17.7% would turn them off completely, and 38% would do so at least for some queries.

When asked about Google’s search quality more broadly since AI Overviews launched in May 2024, 24.4% rated it great, 45.3% good, 24.7% moderate, 3.1% poor, and 2.5% very poor.

The survey also looked at where people search for certain topics. TikTok and other social platforms were chosen more often for food and cooking (42.7%), entertainment and pop culture (36.3%), and current events (33.8%). Google remained the stronger choice for education and exams (8.7%), business and entrepreneurship (8.7%), and parenting and family (9.2%).

Taken together, the findings suggest that Google’s AI Overviews are shaping how people approach search, but they have not erased the need for traditional click-throughs. People still rely on original sites for detail, even as they experiment with new ways of finding information.

Read next: WhatsApp Plans Username Search to Make Connections Easier
by Web Desk via Digital Information World

Processed Diet Trial Shows Fast Health Shifts in Men

A team in Copenhagen has shown that men who ate mostly processed meals for only three weeks began putting on weight and showing early biological changes tied to fertility. The numbers of calories were matched against whole-food diets, which makes the outcome harder to dismiss as just overeating.

The study followed forty-three men in their twenties and early thirties. Each one spent three weeks on a diet where roughly three-quarters of the calories came from packaged, industrially made food, then after a long break repeated the trial with meals made largely from unprocessed ingredients. Some men were given meals that covered daily needs, others got an extra five hundred calories, but everything was delivered in pre-portioned packs so intake could be tracked.

The processed meals in this trial looked very much like everyday convenience food. Breakfasts might include sweetened cereals with flavored yogurt, lunches made up of white bread sandwiches or packaged noodles, and dinners based on frozen pasta dishes or processed meats. Snacks and drinks were drawn from chips, chocolate bars, and sugary beverages. The whole-food menu, by contrast, leaned on fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, plain dairy, whole grains, and fresh meat or fish. Both menus provided the same calorie and protein totals, but the nutrient quality was clearly different.

What happened was that weight rose when the diet leaned on ultra processed food, even though the macronutrient totals looked the same on paper. Gains averaged around a kilo and a half, nearly all of it fat rather than lean tissue. On the whole-food diet, the trend went the other way: the men dropped some weight.

Cholesterol readings also shifted. In men eating just enough calories, total cholesterol and the ratio of bad to good lipids crept higher on the processed meals. In those given extra calories, blood pressure rather than cholesterol moved upward. It wasn’t dramatic, but it was consistent across participants.

Signals linked to reproduction told another part of the story. Follicle-stimulating hormone, which helps drive sperm production, dipped in the men taking in extra calories from processed food. Sperm motility also pointed downward in that group, although the change wasn’t strong enough to be classed as statistically certain. Testosterone readings edged lower in some of the men too, mostly in the calorie-adequate arm.

Hormonal markers tied to metabolism shifted at the same time. One in particular, GDF-15, which is thought to help the body regulate energy use, dropped in the excess-calorie processed group. Leptin moved in the opposite direction, trending higher. These changes suggest that the body processes industrial meals differently, regardless of whether calories line up neatly on a chart.

Chemical testing picked up other contrasts. Lithium levels in blood and semen were lower after the processed diet, while a plastic-related compound, a phthalate, tended to rise. Both point toward exposures that come with food handling and packaging rather than the food ingredients themselves.

It’s worth stressing that this was a short trial with a very specific group: lean young men who stuck to strict meal plans. That limits how far the results can be applied, and some inflammatory signals seen on the unprocessed diet may simply reflect the sudden switch away from their usual eating habits. Even so, the pattern was clear, within weeks, processed meals altered weight, hormones, blood chemistry, and even traces of environmental chemicals.

Ultra-processed products already make up over half of the daily diet in several countries. The findings strengthen the idea that health risks may come not just from eating too much, but from the nature of the food itself.

Read next: 

• Tiny Plastic Particles Found in Indoor Air, With Cars Showing the Highest Levels

• Are Drifting Thoughts Making Us Scroll More Than We Realize?

• WhatsApp Closes Exploit Chain Used to Deliver Spyware on Apple Devices
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Meta Tightens AI Chatbot Rules for Teens Amid Safety Concerns

Meta has started changing the way its artificial intelligence chatbots interact with teenagers, after weeks of mounting criticism from lawmakers and child-safety groups. The company says the systems will no longer engage with young users on subjects tied to self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, or conversations that could be seen as romantic in nature. When those topics appear, the bots will now direct teens toward outside support services instead of generating replies themselves.

Alongside that shift, Meta is also cutting back which AI characters young people can access across Facebook and Instagram. Rather than letting teens try the full spread of user-made chatbots, which has included adult-themed personalities, the firm will restrict them to characters designed around schoolwork, hobbies, or creative activities. For now, the company describes the measures as temporary while it works on a more permanent set of rules.

Why the Policy Is Changing

The move follows a Reuters report that raised alarms over an internal Meta document suggesting the chatbots could, under earlier guidelines, engage in romantic dialogue with minors. The examples, which circulated widely, included language that appeared to blur the boundary between playful interaction and inappropriate intimacy. Meta later said those instructions were out of line with its standards and have been removed, but the fallout has continued.

The report quickly drew attention from Washington. Senator Josh Hawley announced a formal investigation, while a coalition of more than forty state attorneys general wrote to AI firms, stressing that child safety had to be treated as a baseline obligation rather than an afterthought. Advocacy groups echoed those calls. Common Sense Media, for example, urged that no child under eighteen use Meta’s chatbot tools until broader protections are in place, describing the risks as too serious to be overlooked.

What Comes Next for Meta

Meta has not said how long the interim measures will stay in place. The rollout has begun in English-speaking countries and will continue in the coming weeks. Company officials acknowledged that earlier policies had permitted conversations which, though once considered manageable, carried risks once deployed more widely. Meta now says additional safeguards will be added as part of a longer-term safety overhaul.

Risks Beyond Teen Chatbots

Concerns have not been limited to teenage use. A separate Reuters investigation found that some user-made chatbots modeled on well-known celebrities were able to produce sexualized content, including generated images in compromising scenarios. Meta said such outputs breach its rules, which ban impersonations of public figures in intimate or explicit contexts, but admitted that enforcement remains an ongoing challenge.

With regulators pressing harder and public attention fixed on how AI interacts with young people, Meta faces growing pressure to demonstrate that its systems can be kept safe. The latest restrictions are a step in that direction, though many critics argue that partial fixes will not be enough, and that the company may need to rebuild its safeguards from the ground up.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.

Read next:

• Families Lose Billions in Remittance Fees Every Year, Stablecoins Could Change That

• AI Search Tools Rarely Agree on Brands, Study Finds

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Families Lose Billions in Remittance Fees Every Year, Stablecoins Could Change That

If you’ve ever sent money abroad, you probably know how time-consuming and expensive it can be. After you send the money, you might have to wait days or even over a week for it to reach the recipient. Not only that, but some of the money you sent disappears in fees. Now imagine that happening not just once, but millions of times, every single month, for families who are relying on those transfers to survive.

That’s the reality for migrant workers. They send home hundreds of billions of dollars every year, but the banks and transfer services collect their cut before the money even reaches the recipient.

By 2025, the World Bank predicts global remittances are going to hit $913 billion. The average fee on those transfers is about 6.5%. That works out to more than $59 billion vanishing into fees. This is money that’s supposed to be paying for rent, food, medicine, or school.

Now here’s where things get interesting. A stablecoin app called Rizon analyzed the numbers and its researchers found that if families used stablecoins instead of traditional transfers, they could save more than $39 billion a year. And because stablecoins like USDC are tied 1:1 to the U.S. dollar, you avoid the usual volatility that comes with other cryptocurrencies.

For example, let’s look at a typical $50 transfer. With the old transfer system, you lose about $3.25 in fees. But with stablecoins, it’s closer to $1.09. That’s about a 66% drop. Imagine that across billions of transfers. It adds up fast.

Which countries would save the most?

Some countries depend on remittances more than others, and they’re the ones who would benefit the most from reduced fees. Here’s what data tells us:

Researchers calculated potential savings by country by assuming the top remittance-receiving countries in 2023 will keep receiving the same share of remittances in 2025. They then applied those shares to the World Bank’s global projection for remittances that will be sent in 2025.

Researchers found that:

• India could save about $5.5 billion a year.
• Mexico could save a little over $3 billion.
• China could save $2.3 billion.
• The Philippines, Pakistan, and Bangladesh could all save between $1 and $1.8 billion each.
• Even countries further down the list, Guatemala, Nigeria, Egypt, Ukraine, could still save close to a billion dollars combined.

More than just cheaper

Stablecoins don’t just make things cheaper. They actually change how remittances work.

Right now, you send money, you wait, it shows up in local currency, and the recipient is stuck with whatever the exchange rate happens to be. With stablecoins, the transfer is instant. And the recipient doesn’t have to immediately swap into local currency, they can keep their money in dollars, which is a huge deal if your country is dealing with inflation.

They can also spend it directly with a Visa card, send it to someone else, or withdraw local cash. It’s not just cheaper, it’s a completely different experience.

Why this matters

Using stablecoins for remittances isn’t about gambling on crypto. It’s about getting money home quickly, safely, and without all the middlemen. With the potential savings that can be achieved through stablecoins, we’re talking about billions of dollars that will go toward food, housing, and medical expenses. Migrant workers work tirelessly abroad so their families can live better at home. Letting them keep more of what they earn is not just efficient. It’s fair.

How researchers did the math

Rizon’s analysis used the World Bank’s 2025 projection of $913 billion in global remittances. With today’s average fee of 6.5%, that would mean around $59.3 billion lost each year in transaction costs. Based on Rizon’s fee structure, 0.075% on-ramp, 1.5% foreign transaction, and $0.30 per transfer, a typical $50 remittance would fall from $3.25 with traditional transfer methods to $1.09, a 66% reduction. Applied globally, that translates to about $39.4 billion in potential savings annually, assuming broad adoption.

For country estimates, researchers assumed that each nation will receive the same share of global remittances in 2025 as they did in 2023, and applied that share and potential savings calculations to the projected total remittances of 2025.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Country	2023 Remittances (USD) $Billion	2023 Share of Global	2025 Projected Remittances (USD) $Billion	Traditional Fees at 6.5% (USD) $Billion	Potential Savings (USD) $Billion
Global Total	857	100%	913	59.34	39.17
India	120	14.00%	127.84	8.31	5.48
Mexico	66	7.70%	70.31	4.57	3.02
China	50	5.80%	53.27	3.46	2.29
Philippines	39	4.60%	41.55	2.7	1.78
Pakistan	27	3.20%	28.75	1.87	1.23
Bangladesh	22	2.60%	23.45	1.52	1
Guatemala	20	2.30%	21.32	1.39	0.92
Nigeria	20	2.30%	21.32	1.39	0.92
Egypt	20	2.30%	21.32	1.39	0.92
Ukraine	15	1.80%	15.99	1.04	0.69

Read next: AI Search Tools Rarely Agree on Brands, Study Finds

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Claude Users Must Choose: Allow Chats for Training or Face Five-Year Data Retention

Anthropic is introducing new rules for those using its Claude chatbot. By the end of September, individuals will need to choose whether their conversations can be used for training the company’s future models. This marks a departure from its earlier practice, where consumer data was kept only for short periods and never included in model development.

Longer Data Retention

The company had previously deleted most consumer chats within a month unless legal or policy requirements meant they had to be stored longer. Inputs flagged for violations could be held for two years. Under the new policy, those who do not change their settings will see conversations retained for up to five years. The decision affects Claude Free, Pro, Max, and Claude Code accounts. Customers using enterprise, government, education, or API services are not included.

Competitive Pressure in AI

Model developers depend on large volumes of authentic conversation data. Rival firms such as OpenAI and Google are following similar paths, and Anthropic is now moving in the same direction. By collecting more material from everyday exchanges and coding tasks, the company strengthens its ability to refine its systems.

Consent by Design

The process for gathering consent has raised concerns. New signups select their choice during registration. Existing users, however, are shown a notice with a large acceptance button and a smaller toggle for training permissions underneath, which is already set to “on.” This design has been described by some analysts as one that encourages agreement rather than careful review.

Broader Industry Context

The shift reflects an unsettled period for data policies across the sector. OpenAI is under a court order requiring it to keep all ChatGPT conversations indefinitely, including deleted ones, as part of an ongoing legal case. Only enterprise contracts with zero data retention remain exempt. Such changes highlight how little control many individuals now have over their data once it enters these platforms.

User Awareness

Privacy specialists warn that the complexity of these terms makes genuine consent difficult. Settings that appear straightforward, such as delete functions, may not behave as users expect. With policies changing rapidly and notices often buried among other company updates, many people remain unaware of what agreements they have accepted or how long their information stays stored.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: Meta’s Threads Experiments With Long Posts, Taking Aim at X’s Extended Articles

by Asim BN via Digital Information World

Meta’s Threads Experiments With Long Posts, Taking Aim at X’s Extended Articles

Meta has started testing a feature that lets Threads users publish more than the usual 500 characters.

Instead of splitting updates into a chain, people in the test group can attach a block of text to a post. The attached section opens in a separate box, which readers expand by tapping “Read more.”

A New Writing Window

Those taking part in the trial see an extra page icon when creating a post. Selecting it brings up a larger editor designed for longer writing. The editor also includes simple formatting tools, giving users the option to add italics, bold, or underlined words instead of sticking to plain text.

Early Limitations

The test does not yet support images, videos, or live links. Meta has left room for changes based on feedback, which means those options could appear before a full release. For now the focus is on plain text with basic styling.

Comparing With Rivals

X, which once enforced a strict 280-character cap, has been moving toward long posts for subscribers. It also offers a separate articles feature. Threads appears to be aiming at a lighter version of the same idea, one that works inside the app without turning into a paywall feature.

• Also read: Are popular foreign mobile apps serving foreign interests in the US?

Why It Matters

Threads was built as a short-form service, but people often want more space to explain their point. Allowing a longer note inside a post may reduce the need for screenshots of text or long strings of replies. Whether this becomes permanent will depend on how widely users adopt it during testing.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: Are ChatGPT’s Favorite Words Creeping Into Daily Conversation?

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Are popular foreign mobile apps serving foreign interests in the US?

Mobile apps are notoriously “data-hungry,” with developers collecting personal and even sensitive data from their users and their users’ devices and using that information for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes.

This kind of data collection is problematic enough when it takes place within the US: that is, when a US citizen has their data harvested by a US company. Just the fact of these treasure troves of personal data being out there dramatically raises the risks of misuse and outright breach (and the unmitigated exposure that brings). But what about the scenarios in which all that personal information (including behavioral data) is systematically syphoned off to foreign powers, including hostile foreign powers?

Countries and regimes hostile to the United States could certainly capitalize on the kinds of access a popular mobile app could give them to Americans’ personal information, let alone what they could do with users’ undivided and prolonged attention. It’s with these heightened consequences in mind that Incogni’s researchers drilled down into the issue of personal-data exfiltration by foreign mobile apps.

Incogni’s researchers generated a list of 10 most-downloaded mobile apps for the past 12 months. They then identified either the headquarters of the companies responsible for each app or the home country of each apps’ ultimate beneficiary owners.

Incogni’s research team also systematically documented the data-collection and sharing practices of these apps, as they’ve been disclosed in the relevant Google Play Store privacy sections. These mandatory disclosures include information regarding the categories of collected data, sharing practices, and the stated purposes behind data collection.

An overview of the results

The results of Incogni’s study are sobering. The apps included in the study were collectively downloaded an estimated 1 billion times, with three quarters of those 1 billion downloads going to Chinese apps. Looking only at the 10 foreign-owned apps most popular in the US, 6 have ties to China: TikTok, Temu, Alibaba, Shein, CapCut, and AliExpress.

Apps developed by Chinese-owned tech companies were some of the most data-hungry in the study, collecting an average of 18 data types from each American user and sharing 6 of them. The most data-hungry app in the study, TikTok, is one of these Chinese-owned apps. It collects a range of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, and phone numbers.

B2B e-commerce platform Alibaba is another data-hungry Chinese-owned app. It collects an average of 20 data types on each of its American users, sharing 6. It requires access to users’ files, documents, videos and photos, phone numbers, home addresses, and full names.

Similarly, Temu, a Chinese B2C retail platform, collects 18 distinct data types on average while claiming to share only one of them. Temu collects users’ approximate locations, installed apps, and other user-generated content. Chinese shopping app Shein, on the other hand, stands out for sharing a whopping 12 of the 17 data types it collects from its users, including data like users’ phone numbers, names, and photos.

It’s not just about China, though. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) recently restricted some transactions involving the sensitive data of US citizens with countries of concern, like China, Russia, and Iran. An app like Telegram might be able to skirt such restrictions, though. Telegram’s official country of origin is the UAE (United Arab Emirates), but accusations of connections to Russia have clouded the developers’ reputations since its establishment.

A recent investigation has renewed accusations of Russian (in this case specifically FSB) collusion. But Pavel Durov, founder, owner and CEO of Telegram, has a record of assuming business and legal risks in the name of protecting users’ privacy. So the situation is unclear, and all the more so because these latest accusations come from a Russian source, media outlet IStories, putting their veracity into doubt.

Foreign apps are a problem, no matter where they’re from

As the case of the Telegram app shows, where an app’s developer is officially headquartered need not accurately reflect which foreign entities have access to user data collected by the app. An American-owned or American-controlled app, on the other hand, might represent a far safer option for US citizens, at least in the short term.

An app whose developers are beholden to US law first and foremost is potentially safer for US-based users because those developers can be subpoenaed or otherwise compelled to cooperate with authorities — something that’s generally not possible with foreign-owned apps, especially those with ties to unfriendly countries.

Foreign apps are a problem, but US-owned apps aren’t exactly a safe bet. Meta, owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, among others, is a great example of this. Meta is notorious for its data-harvesting and data-hoarding efforts, partnerships with domestic and foreign entities, and allegedly underhanded usage of user data.

The difference between an app like TikTok and one like Facebook is that, should alleged data-privacy abuses become so egregious that they threaten national security, the US government can compel Meta to disclose details regarding Facebook’s operations in the US, something it can’t do with ByteDance, TikTok’s owner.

That said, on an individual (rather than national) level, foreign-owned apps might actually have less of an impact on US users, at least in the short term. A US company might be more likely to share its users’ data with entities that can impact a US citizen in the short term, affecting their ability to get loans, housing or employment, for example.

Then again, there’s little stopping a foreign-owned company from selling its US users’ data to US entities, potentially resulting in all the same, negative consequences.

Data collection is the real problem

“The results of this study have been really eye-opening. So many of the downloads for the most popular apps go to foreign-owned companies, and so many of those to Chinese companies in particular. In terms of national interests and even national security, this is a big problem.” Said Darius Belejevas, Head of Incogni. He continued:

“But on the individual level, things are much less clear. Which entity can affect a US citizen’s life more immediately, the Chinese Communist Party or some vast network of US data brokers? The reality is that all unnecessary data collection is risky: whoever is doing the collecting and wherever the spoils are stored, that data can be bought and sold or simply stolen and leaked, meaning it ends up in all the wrong places all the same.”

Incogni’s full analysis, including detailed breakdowns of exactly what data is collected and/or shared by each app, as well as the public dataset, can be found here.

Read next: Global AI App Market Settles as New Players Push Into the Rankings

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World