Tag: google

Google DeepMind CEO Calls for U.S.-Led Global AI Safety Watchdog

Demis Hassabis, the co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind, is advocating for the United States to create a new artificial intelligence oversight body with authority to evaluate the world’s most sophisticated AI models and potentially coordinate industry-wide slowdowns when risks escalate.

Axios reports that the Nobel Prize-winning scientist behind Google’s ultra-woke Gemini AI system outlined his proposal in a personal manifesto published this week titled “A Framework for Frontier AI and the Dawning of a New Age.” In an exclusive interview with Axios, Hassabis emphasized the urgency of implementing a more systematic regulatory approach to artificial intelligence, one that would be industry-funded, staffed by leading technical experts, and accountable to the U.S. government.

Speaking from his London headquarters, Hassabis characterized current AI-driven cybersecurity risks as warning signals of greater dangers ahead. He predicted that within 18 months, these capabilities, along with potentially catastrophic biological and nuclear threats, could exist within open-source AI models that would be impossible for any government to control. The DeepMind CEO stressed that risks would emerge not only from open-source models but also from the more powerful proprietary systems being developed by major AI laboratories.

“What we collectively do now will determine how the next phase of civilization unfolds,” Hassabis wrote in his manifesto.

Hassabis has spent recent months conducting private consultations to build support for his proposal, meeting with Trump administration officials, leaders of other AI laboratories, and European government representatives before making his plan public. He reported receiving positive responses from the administration, which had previously adopted a hands-off stance toward AI regulation before the recent Mythos incident raised alarm bells.

The DeepMind chief, who commands significant respect across different factions within the AI community, indicated that leaders of other major AI labs have expressed agreement with the general direction of his proposal. “This is where the industry needs to go,” Hassabis said of the feedback he has received. His timeline for implementation is ambitious, aiming for the new regulatory body to become operational before the end of the current year.

Keep reading

YouTube defends video that falsely claims Sydney massacre survivor is ‘crisis actor’

A Google executive told an inquiry on Tuesday that a YouTube video that falsely claimed a wounded survivor of an antisemitic massacre in Sydney was a crisis actor blooded with makeup had met the platform’s standards and would remain online.

Google Australia manager Rachel Lord was testifying at a government inquiry into the spread of antisemitism in Australia including an attack by two gunmen on a Sydney Hanukkah celebration in December that left 15 dead.

Lord was questioned about a complaint made by survivor Arsen Ostrovsky about a video posted on YouTube. Ostrovsky was attacked online after an image showing blood streaming from a wound in his head was posted on X two hours after he was shot.

Lord said the decision to allow the video to remain on YouTube had been reviewed at “quite senior levels.”

“We have spent a lot of time thinking about where we draw the line and we continue to re-evaluate where we are doing that,” Lord said.

Richard Lancaster, the lawyer leading the inquiry’s evidence, referred to a transcript of the video to avoid showing the images in public.

Four men appear on split screen saying Ostrovsky’s bleeding head appeared “very crisis actor-ish” and mentioned “makeup.” They also describe him as an “intelligence asset” who had a “degree in theater.”

The video also describes Ostrovsky as a Zionist and claims the massacre was a “false flag operation.” Police allege father and son shooters Sajid and Naveed Akram were inspired by the Islamic State group.

Lancaster told Lord the video remaining online demonstrated a “really serious deficiency” in YouTube’s hate speech guidelines.

Lord replied that she appreciated Lancaster’s “feedback.”

YouTube told Australia’s online safety regulator three days after the massacre that the platform was “focused on ensuring Australians and all users around the world have access to high quality information about the tragic events,” Lord said.

Ostrovsky told the inquiry last month that he had been targeted by online hate, abuse, vilification and AI manipulation since he suffered the minor head wound on Dec. 14.

The inquiry was then shown an AI-generated image of Ostrovsky apparently laughing as someone applied fake blood to his head.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rules Police Conduct a Fourth Amendment “Search” When Grabbing Your Google Location History Data Through Geofence Warrants

The U.S. Supreme Court held Monday that law enforcement officers conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they obtain cell phone users’ precise Location History data from Google using a geofence warrant.

In a 6-3 decision in Chatrie v. United States, the Court ruled that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location information, even when that data is stored by a third-party technology company such as Google. The ruling represents one of the Court’s most significant digital privacy decisions since its 2018 Carpenter decision involving historical cell-site location data.

Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Jackson separately concurring.

Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred only in the judgment, while Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined in part by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett also filed a separate dissent.

This builds directly on the landmark Carpenter v. United States (2018) decision, which already required warrants for cell-site location information (CSLI).

The Court made clear that Google’s even more precise and sweeping Location History data — which logs a user’s location every two minutes or so, within about 20 meters, and can even reveal elevation and which floor of a building someone is on — deserves at least the same protection.

The case, Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112), arose from a May 20, 2019, armed robbery of a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Police had surveillance footage and witness statements but no suspect. On June 14, they obtained a Virginia magistrate’s geofence warrant directed at Google.

Keep reading

Google Removes the Final Workaround for Full Ad Blocking in Chrome

Google is removing the last technical workaround that kept effective ad blockers alive in Chrome.

When Chrome 150 ships on June 30, the browser will delete a hidden setting called the ExtensionManifestV2Disabled flag, a switch that power users had been toggling to keep old-style extensions running after Google officially discontinued them.

Without it, uBlock Origin and every other extension built on the old Manifest V2 framework, the set of rules that governed how browser extensions worked for years, will stop functioning permanently. Chrome 151, expected in July, will strip the remaining MV2 flags entirely. No policy override and no hidden setting will bring them back.

The company that sells more advertising than any other on Earth now controls whether you can block those ads. And it just decided you can’t, at least not effectively.

What Google took away and why it took it

The technical change is the replacement of Chrome’s webRequest API with the declarativeNetRequest API.

Under the old system, extensions like uBlock Origin could watch your browser’s traffic as it happened, see an ad or tracker trying to load, and block it on the spot before it ever reached your screen.

Under the new system, extensions have to hand Google a pre-written list of things to block and Chrome decides whether to follow those instructions. The lists are capped at a fixed number of rules, and the extension can’t react to anything that isn’t already on the list.

uBlock Origin’s developer, Raymond Hill, has been clear that a Manifest V3 version cannot replicate the original’s full capabilities. A stripped-down version called uBlock Origin Lite exists for MV3, but it handles only a fraction of the filter lists, the community-maintained databases of known ads and trackers, that the original supported.

It also can’t perform cosmetic filtering, the process of hiding ad containers and promotional elements that remain on a page even after the ad itself is blocked. Without it, you get blank boxes where ads used to be, or sponsored content that looks native to the page. For more than 40 million Chrome users who relied on the original, the replacement is a downgrade by design.

Google engineer Devlin Cronin confirmed the timeline in a Chromium code review commit, a logged change to Chrome’s underlying source code that other developers can inspect, writing that “MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in any supported version of Chrome, and we are removing support for them and the associated functionality. We won’t be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we’ve actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately). Of course, other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire.”

Keep reading

Google’s New AI-Fueled Search Bar Threatens to Further Upend Journalism Industry

Google made an announcement last month that could turn the journalism world upside down, accelerating the internet’s shift toward an overwhelmingly AI-driven landscape and serving the Trump agenda of media suppression.

At its developer conference in May, the company announced the most disruptive changes to Google Search in over 25 years. Google Search will further demote its index of the web — a list of links that information-seekers can explore as they choose. Instead of prominently displaying links, it will increasingly become a destination that answers questions directly through AI, linking only to the sources it decides to reference in its overview. On the majority of our tests, the AI overview was followed by a heavy block of sponsored results and a combination of videos, short clips, trending posts, and discussions. Index links — for example, to articles on news sites and research studies — were given only a small fraction of real estate. Additionally, Google is aggressively pushing readers to use AI Mode, which completely removes the index links.

In practical terms, this means users of the world’s largest search engine will see, in response to their queries, a summary generated by an AI bot developed by a corporate behemoth with close ties to the Trump White House.

This seismic move builds upon the launches of AI Overview in 2024 and AI Mode in 2025, shifting toward nearly eliminating the user’s ability to search autonomously, and toward an overwhelmingly AI-driven experience of the internet (and therefore, for many people, of life).

We must take into account the political context in which this shift transpires. Alphabet (Google’s parent company), along with Facebook’s parent company (Meta), as well as Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia, were among major tech companies that donated to President Donald Trump’s inauguration. They have also consistently capitulated to Trump’s recent manipulations.

Keep reading

Google Removes the Final Workaround for Full Ad Blocking in Chrome

Google is removing the last technical workaround that kept effective ad blockers alive in Chrome.

When Chrome 150 ships on June 30, the browser will delete a hidden setting called the ExtensionManifestV2Disabled flag, a switch that power users had been toggling to keep old-style extensions running after Google officially discontinued them.

Without it, uBlock Origin and every other extension built on the old Manifest V2 framework, the set of rules that governed how browser extensions worked for years, will stop functioning permanently. Chrome 151, expected in July, will strip the remaining MV2 flags entirely. No policy override and no hidden setting will bring them back.

The company that sells more advertising than any other on Earth now controls whether you can block those ads. And it just decided you can’t, at least not effectively.

What Google took away and why it took it

The technical change is the replacement of Chrome’s webRequest API with the declarativeNetRequest API.

Under the old system, extensions like uBlock Origin could watch your browser’s traffic as it happened, see an ad or tracker trying to load, and block it on the spot before it ever reached your screen.

Under the new system, extensions have to hand Google a pre-written list of things to block and Chrome decides whether to follow those instructions. The lists are capped at a fixed number of rules, and the extension can’t react to anything that isn’t already on the list.

uBlock Origin’s developer, Raymond Hill, has been clear that a Manifest V3 version cannot replicate the original’s full capabilities. A stripped-down version called uBlock Origin Lite exists for MV3, but it handles only a fraction of the filter lists, the community-maintained databases of known ads and trackers, that the original supported.

It also can’t perform cosmetic filtering, the process of hiding ad containers and promotional elements that remain on a page even after the ad itself is blocked. Without it, you get blank boxes where ads used to be, or sponsored content that looks native to the page. For more than 40 million Chrome users who relied on the original, the replacement is a downgrade by design.

Google engineer Devlin Cronin confirmed the timeline in a Chromium code review commit, a logged change to Chrome’s underlying source code that other developers can inspect, writing that “MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in any supported version of Chrome, and we are removing support for them and the associated functionality. We won’t be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we’ve actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately). Of course, other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire.”

Cronin’s sign-off, that “other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire,” suggests the removal as a Chrome-specific choice. It isn’t. Google controls 65% of the desktop browser market and the MV2 code being stripped from Chromium, the open-source project that Chrome and many other browsers are built on top of, affects every browser that shares that foundation.

Google justifies the migration on security grounds and there’s some substance to the argument. The old webRequest API gives extensions deep access to every network request a browser makes, from images and page loads to login credentials, and the extension sees the data before Chrome acts on it.

A compromised or malicious extension with that access can read your passwords as you type them, redirect you to fake websites, or slip harmful code into pages you trust.

The declarativeNetRequest API is designed to prevent exactly this kind of attack by restricting extensions to predefined rule sets. Instead of giving an extension free rein over your browser traffic, Chrome only lets it submit a list of instructions in advance and handles the blocking itself. That narrows the ways a bad actor can exploit an extension because the extension never gets to touch your data directly.

But Google generated roughly $239.5 billion in advertising revenue in 2025, and content blockers directly reduce the number of ads users see. The MV3 restrictions don’t ban ad blocking entirely. They cap how many rules an extension can use and eliminate dynamic blocking, the ability to recognize and stop new ad formats and trackers as they appear in real time.

Ad companies constantly change how they deliver ads, rotating domains and disguising tracking scripts, and the old extensions could keep up with that. The new ones can only block what’s already on a list that was written before the ad loaded. The result is ad blockers that work against yesterday’s ads but struggle against the ones that adapt daily.

The same company that built Chrome and sells the ads it displays also wrote the rules governing what ad blockers can do inside it. Whether those incentives shaped MV3’s design is the most obvious question in the room, and Google has never given a convincing answer.

Keep reading

Stanford Graduation Descends Into Chaos as Students Stage Mass Walkout on Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s Commencement Speech

More than 100 Stanford University graduates walked out of their commencement ceremony on Sunday to protest Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

Videos posted on social media showed students leaving their seats at Stanford Stadium while chanting “Free, free Palestine.”

Others booed and shouted “shame on you” as Pichai addressed the crowd.

The protest was organized by groups including Students for Justice in Palestine and No Tech for Apartheid.

Pichai, a Stanford alumnus who earned a master’s degree in materials science and engineering in 1995, was selected earlier this year to deliver the keynote address at the university’s 135th commencement ceremony.

Many of the protesting graduates carried Palestinian flags as they exited the stadium, turning what is traditionally one of the university’s most celebratory events into a political demonstration.

The protest centered on Google’s involvement in Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion cloud computing and artificial intelligence contract jointly held with Amazon that provides services to the Israeli government.

Keep reading

Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google

Potentially impacting all AI search engines and chatbots known to poorly paraphrase source links, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews.

The preliminary ruling came in a case flagged by The Decoder, where two publishers found that Google’s AI Overviews incorrectly linked them to scams and other sketchy business practices. After smearing publishers by making affirmative statements like “Yes, [it] is known for dubious business practices and is often perceived as a scam,” Google failed to correct the misleading output, even after the publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this year.

Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.

But the court found that, unlike traditional search engines that merely present lists of links to third-party statements, Google’s tool made “independent, new, and substantive statements” based on its own misinterpretation of links on the Internet.

That’s a problem, the court said, because while publishers may have been able to sue to stop third parties from publishing defamatory statements appearing in Google search results, only Google can correct the underlying algorithm and outputs displayed in AI Overviews. And because, at least initially, the company did not, it therefore “must be held accountable,” the court ruled. Beyond that, Google’s argument was deemed particularly weak, since the AI overview in this case “contains statements that do not appear in the search results at all.”

The court’s order—requiring a temporary injunction barring Google from spreading the false claims in any further AI Overviews—may have global implications, as the court seems to be the first to hold an AI firm liable for AI speech.

In the past, AI firms have hoped that disclaimers warning about misinformation would protect them from lawsuits over untrustworthy outputs. Last year, one chatbot maker even argued that AI speech is its own category of “pure speech” and the First Amendment should protect it.

According to a Google translation of the German court ruling, however, the false outputs were “primarily an expression of the defendant’s commercial activity,” and the AI tool’s “opinions” and false statements were capable of impacting public opinion.

The court concluded that, in weighing the balance, publishers’ interest in removing the false information outweighed Google’s commercial speech rights.

Keep reading

Google to Release 64 Million Bacteria-Infected Mosquitoes Across California and Florida Over the Next Two Years

Google is seeking federal approval to release up to 64 million specially treated mosquitoes across California and Florida over the next two years, according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcement published earlier this month in The Federal Register, the official journal of the U.S. government.

The tech giant is “requesting an experimental use permit (EUP) for the Wolbachia pipientis wAlbB contained in live adult Culex quinquefasciatus male mosquitoes (DQB Strain),” according to the announcement.

A summary of the request reads:

“Google LLC is proposing to use up to 14.080 mg of the active ingredient Wolbachia pipientis wAlbB Contained in Live Adult Culex quinquefasciatus Male Mosquitoes (DQB Strain) for two years in California and Florida. In Florida, up to 16,000,000 DQB Male Mosquitoes are proposed to be released in year 1, and up to 16,000,000 released in year 2. In California, up to 16,000,000 are proposed to be released in year 1, and up to 16,000,000 released in year 2. Proposed testing will include the states of California and Florida to generate data to support a Section 3 product registration application under FIFRA.”

Keep reading

Employee sues Google over ‘unfair’ dismissal linked to anti-Israel protest – Guardian

A former AI engineer at Google DeepMind has accused the US tech giant of unfairly dismissing him over protests against the company’s deals with Israel, The Guardian reported on Wednesday. The man described the decision to fire him as discriminatory and filed a claim with a British employment tribunal.

Google’s ties with the Israeli government, including a $1.2 billion AI and cloud computing contract signed jointly with Amazon, have repeatedly sparked employee protests. In 2024 alone, the company fired dozens of dissenting staff members.

According to the engineer, he was called into a meeting with a manager that led to his dismissal after distributing flyers around DeepMind’s London office reading: “Google provides military AI to forces committing genocide” and “Is your paycheck worth this?” He also reportedly sent emails to his colleagues and called on them to unionize.

The former employee, who is of Palestinian origin, alleged in his lawsuit that Google discriminated against his belief that no one should be complicit in war crimes and claimed he was acting as a whistleblower, according to The Guardian. The US tech giant insisted that the employee’s version of events “does not accurately reflect the facts” and said that he had resigned.

In October, several media outlets reported that the 2021 agreement Google and Amazon signed with Israel barred the companies from restricting West Jerusalem’s access to their services even in cases it violated their terms of use. The deal also reportedly included clauses explicitly preventing the two tech giants from breaking ties with Israel under pressure from employees, shareholders and activists.

Keep reading