Google has updated its Inappropriate Content Policy to include language that expressly prohibits advertisers from promoting websites and services that generate deepfake pornography. While the company already has strong restrictions in place for ads that feature certain types of sexual content, this update leaves no doubt that promoting "synthetic content that has been altered or generated to be sexually explicit or contain nudity" is in violation of its rules.
Any advertiser promoting sites or apps that generate deepfake porn, that show instructions on how to create deepfake porn and that endorse or compare various deepfake porn services will be suspended without warning. They will no longer be able to publish their ads on Google, as well. The company will start implementing this rule on May 30 and is giving advertisers the chance to remove any ad in violation of the new policy. As 404 Media notes, the rise of deepfake technologies has led to an increasing number of ads promoting tools that specifically target users wanting to create sexually explicit materials. Some of those tools reportedly even pretend to be wholesome services to be able to get listed on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, but it's masks off on social media where they promote their ability to generate manipulated porn.
Google has, however, already started prohibiting services that create sexually explicit deepfakes in Shopping ads. Similar to its upcoming wider policy, the company has banned Shopping ads for services that "generate, distribute, or store synthetic sexually explicit content or synthetic content containing nudity. " Those include deepfake porn tutorials and pages that advertise deepfake porn generators.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/google-prohibits-ads-promoting-websites-and-apps-that-generate-deepfake-porn-130059324.html?src=rss Epic Games won its antitrust lawsuit against Google in December when a federal jury found that the latter violated US antitrust laws with regards to how it runs the Play Store. A few months later, the gaming developer submitted its list of demands, which if implemented will blow the Play Store wide open. Now, Google has filed an injunction telling the court that no, it will not give Epic what it wants without a fight, because the company's asks "stray far beyond the trial record."
The remedies Epic had submitted would require the court not just to create a global regulatory regime to set prices for apps, Google wrote in the filing as seen by Engadget, but also to micromanage "a highly complex and dynamic ecosystem" used by billions of consumers and app developers around the world. If you'll recall, Epic wants Google to open up Android to third-party app stores and to make its catalog of apps available to those stores. It also wants restrictions on pre-installed apps to be outlawed and to prohibit any Google activity that incentivizes third-parties.
Google said that bowing down to all those demands would "effectively prevent [it] from competing," which in turn would negatively affect Android users and developers. Epic's proposals only benefit Epic, Google said in its filing, and will harm other developers by depriving them of control over where their app is distributed. Manufacturers will no longer be able to take advantage of the partnerships Google typically offers, while users have to deal with additional security and privacy risks.
The company also slammed Epic over the "vagueness" of its proposed injunction, which would require the repeated and ongoing intervention of the courts. Similarly, Epic's demands would apparently require the court to micromanage Google's business.
"Epic’s demands would harm the privacy, security, and overall experience of consumers, developers, and device manufacturers," Wilson White, Google's Vice President of Government Affairs & Public Policy, told Engadget in a statement. "Not only does their proposal go far beyond the scope of the recent US trial verdict — which we will be challenging — it’s also unnecessary due to the settlement we reached last year with State Attorneys General from every state and multiple territories. We will continue to vigorously defend our right to a sustainable business model that enables us to keep people safe, partner with developers to innovate and grow their businesses, and maintain a thriving Android ecosystem for everyone."
Google said that if Epic truly wants to promote competition rather than create "an unfair, court- supervised advantage for itself," then it would take cues from its settlement with the state officials that previously accused the company of abusing its dominance on Android app distribution. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney was, unsurprisingly, unhappy with that settlement, tweeting at the time: "If Google is ending its payments monopoly without imposing a Google Tax on third party transactions, we'll settle and be Google's friend in their new era. But if the settlement merely pays off the other plaintiffs while leaving the Google Tax in place, we'll fight on. Consumers only benefit if antitrust enforcement not only opens up markets, but also restores price competition."
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/google-says-epics-play-store-demands-are-too-much-and-too-self-serving-123023699.html?src=rss A group of publications that include the Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News and the Orlando Sentinel are suing Microsoft and OpenAI, as reported by The Verge. The eight publications in this particular lawsuit, all owned by Alden Capital Group (ACG), are accusing the companies of "purloining millions" of their copyrighted articles "without permission and without payment to fuel the commercialization of their generative artificial intelligence products, including ChatGPT and Copilot."
This is but the latest lawsuit filed against Microsoft and OpenAI for their use of copyrighted materials without express consent from publishers. The New York Times also famously sued the companies late last year, alleging that they've used "almost a century's worth of copyrighted content." Their products can regurgitate Times' articles verbatim and can "mimic its expressive style," the publication said, even though they didn't have a prior licensing agreement. In a motion seeking to dismiss key parts of the lawsuit, Microsoft accused the Times of doomsday futurology by claiming that generative AI can pose a threat to independent journalism.
ACG's newspapers complain of the same thing, that the companies' chatbots are reproducing their articles word-for-word shortly after they're published without a prominent link back to the sources. They included several examples in their complaint. In addition, the chatbots are apparently suffering from hallucinations and are attributing inaccurate reporting to ACG's publications. The publisher argued that the defendants pay for the computers, the specialized chips and the electricity they use to build and operate their generative AI products. And yet they're using copyrighted articles "without permission and without paying for the privilege" even though they need content to train their large language models. The plaintiffs referenced OpenAI's previous admission that it would be "impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials."
OpenAI is no longer a non-profit company, the plaintiffs said, and is now valued at $90 billion. Meanwhile, ChatGPT and Copilot have added "hundreds of billions of dollars to Microsoft's market value." The publications are seeking an unspecified amount in damages and are asking the court to order the defendants to destroy GPT and LLM models that use their materials.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-and-openai-sued-yet-again-by-chicago-tribune-and-new-york-daily-news-085501073.html?src=rss A group of publications that include the Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News and the Orlando Sentinel are suing Microsoft and OpenAI, as reported by The Verge. The eight publications in this particular lawsuit, all owned by Alden Capital Group (ACG), are accusing the companies of "purloining millions" of their copyrighted articles "without permission and without payment to fuel the commercialization of their generative artificial intelligence products, including ChatGPT and Copilot."
This is but the latest lawsuit filed against Microsoft and OpenAI for their use of copyrighted materials without express consent from publishers. The New York Times also famously sued the companies late last year, alleging that they've used "almost a century's worth of copyrighted content." Their products can regurgitate Times' articles verbatim and can "mimic its expressive style," the publication said, even though they didn't have a prior licensing agreement. In a motion seeking to dismiss key parts of the lawsuit, Microsoft accused the Times of doomsday futurology by claiming that generative AI can pose a threat to independent journalism.
ACG's newspapers complain of the same thing, that the companies' chatbots are reproducing their articles word-for-word shortly after they're published without a prominent link back to the sources. They included several examples in their complaint. In addition, the chatbots are apparently suffering from hallucinations and are attributing inaccurate reporting to ACG's publications. The publisher argued that the defendants pay for the computers, the specialized chips and the electricity they use to build and operate their generative AI products. And yet they're using copyrighted articles "without permission and without paying for the privilege" even though they need content to train their large language models. The plaintiffs referenced OpenAI's previous admission that it would be "impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials."
OpenAI is no longer a non-profit company, the plaintiffs said, and is now valued at $90 billion. Meanwhile, ChatGPT and Copilot have added "hundreds of billions of dollars to Microsoft's market value." The publications are seeking an unspecified amount in damages and are asking the court to order the defendants to destroy GPT and LLM models that use their materials.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-and-openai-sued-yet-again-by-chicago-tribune-and-new-york-daily-news-085501073.html?src=rss The Federal Communications Commission has slapped the largest mobile carriers in the US with a collective fine worth $200 million for selling access to their customers' location information without consent. AT&T was ordered to pay $57 million, while Verizon has to pay $47 million. Meanwhile, Sprint and T-Mobile are facing a penalty with a total amount of $92 million together, since the companies had merged two years ago. The FCC conducted an in-depth investigation into the carriers' unauthorized disclosure and sale of subscribers' real-time location data after their activities came to light in 2018.
To sum up the practice in the words of FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: The carriers sold "real-time location information to data aggregators, allowing this highly sensitive data to wind up in the hands of bail-bond companies, bounty hunters, and other shady actors." According to the agency, the scheme started to unravel following public reports that a sheriff in Missouri was tracking numerous individuals by using location information a company called Securus gets from wireless carriers. Securus provides communications services to correctional facilities in the country.
While the carriers eventually ceased their activities, the agency said they continued operating their programs for a year after the practice was revealed and after they promised the FCC that they would stop selling customer location data. Further, they carried on without reasonable safeguards in place to ensure that the legitimate services using their customers' information, such as roadside assistance and medical emergency services, truly are obtaining users' consent to track their locations.
The companies told Fast Company that they intend to challenge the fines. T-Mobile, which faces the biggest penalty worth $80 million — Sprint was fined $12 million — said it was excessive. AT&T said the decision lacked "both legal and factual merit" and that the decision "perversely punishes [the companies] for supporting life-saving location services."
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/fcc-fines-americas-largest-wireless-carriers-200-million-for-selling-customer-location-data-121246900.html?src=rss