The Mail dives in, forging the punchline, and arXiv puts a cap on the slop

The ABC of licensing, can't blame Google for everything, Ofcom holds the line, and Germany's answer to Big AI - all in this week's Content Aware.

by Emina Zulic

Published: 15:04, 08 October 2026

Haman hones in on...who foots the bill
Sam Altman says the world should accept some harm in exchange for AI's benefits, but when asked who pays when OpenAI agents break into other people's systems, he doesn't have an answer. Our resident reality checker Denis points out that laws for these situations already exist, and that everyone should follow them, including AI, and fins an unlikely voice of reason who shows the mass taking of other people's work was always a choice.
Read

Publishing & Media

Going deep pays off
The Daily Mail's multimedia storytelling strand, called Deep Dive, went behind a paywall in May and since then, each interactive piece brings in up to 100 new subscribers on average, with one on the most popular pieces on baby names driving around 4,500 on its own. The results have been strong enough for the team to be doubled, at a time when many publishers are looking for a trim of the newsroom. The pieces are done by people - journalists, designers, and developers - with AI only stepping in for the tedious tasks in the background. The Mail's bet is that readers will pay for something that they can't get out of a quick headline, and so far it's working.
Read

The signature they didn't sign
More than 15 of The New Yorker's cartoonists' signatures have been added to ChatGPT's AI-generated "New Yorker-style" cartoons, without their permission and without getting paid. One cartoonist's pen name appeared in the corner of a fake that went viral, and he only found out about it when strangers started asking whether he'd actually drawn it. According to The New Yorker, its parent company Condé Nast never gave their permission to any AI company to train on their cartoons, and on the other side, OpenAI won't say how their model learned to snatch those signatures. Having your style copied is bad enough for a cartoonist, but having your name added to a work that you didn't make is something else entirely, and neither of those is good. 
Read

Opt-out or opt to pay
Australia's public broadcaster has told a parliamentary inquiry that AI companies have probably already used its content, and that they have a simple fix: buy a licence for it. The ABC also spoke out against the opt-out model that was floated in the leaked government paper we recently talked about, arguing that it's not really possible to search the entire web and opt out of all the sites that might be scraping its content. OpenAI and Anthropic also stood in front of that same committee and asked Australia to loosen its copyright rules a bit so that they can still train on local content. With at least four AI inquiries now in motion, Canberra keeps hearing the same two arguments: creators want to be paid for their work, while AI firms keep asking for a way not to.
Read

Is it really all Google?
While it is easy to blame Google for more or less everything related to traffic, it is not always the culprit. Google traffic for The Verge started dropping six months before we got AI Overviews, while the direct, social, and email traffic all dropped at the same time, which isn't something that we can blame Google for. Barry Adams shares his thoughts on the fact that while Google does get its share of the blame, and rightfully so, not every decline lands at its door. 
Read

Academia has a slop problem
arXiv, the open-access repository where researchers share academic papers before peer review, is now rate limiting authors to two submissions a month because of AI submissions. In two years, the site has seen submissions double to more than 40,000 a month, and its volunteer moderators can't keep up, delaying genuine research by days or weeks. It also added a one-year ban in May for anyone who is caught submitting AI slop, so the AI slop struggle isn't new to them. This all sounds familiar to publishers who have been dealing with AI spam in their inboxes: in a world where writing costs nothing, checking all of it is the expensive part. 
Read

Wikipedia joins the victims list
The Wikimedia Foundation claims OpenAI agents edited its wikis without permission, tried to misuse its tools to grab data from other sites, and managed to send heavy traffic which may have helped cause a partial Wikidata outage in May. While the edits stopped at the sandbox pages and didn't get to the public ones, Wikimedia's volunteers are still the ones who had to clean up the mess, with bot traffic pushing Wikimedia's bandwidth use up 50% since 2024. The foundation wants AI operators to be required to label their traffic so bad behaviour can be traced, which is essentially what publishers are trying to get as well with the Stealth Bot Prohibition Act. 
Read

The waiting game explained
Google has shared how long its search processes actually take, from discovering and indexing new content to processing sitemaps, removals, and core updates. It was shown at a Google event in Europe, with typical and slowest times for each of the steps, with one odd number: spam updates are listed as taking one to two days, but the September spam update came with a two-week window. These numbers are a neat thing to have when you need to explain why some changes haven't shown up yet.
Read

The update's final wave
The September spam update we covered last week has finished rolling out, two weeks after it started on the 24th of September. While most spam updates take a couple of days, this one came in waves, with spikes of volatility around 25th to 27th September, 30th September, and from 4th to 6th of October. Google still refers to it as a "normal spam update", even though some SEOs say it that it felt more like a core update. Now that things have settled, it might not be a bad idea to check the Search Console and see where you stand. 
Read

From inside Glide

People, not pageviews
Knowing that engagement went up last week is useful, but knowing who drove it and whether they will come back is what lets you act on it. Glide Nexa's engagement analytics are built on known reader profiles, so every share, follow, and save is tied to a real person and a specific piece of content. That means teams will be able to notice readers who are willing to upgrade, readers who are seemingly drifting away before they cancel, and plan content around the behaviour of their audience.
Read

Big Tech

Suno's TOS face the music
Italy's competition authority, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, have flagged Suno's terms of service as being potentially unfair to consumers. Some of their concerns are Suno's freedom to change prices and close accounts for any reason, disputes that are shipped off to arbitration in the US, and a content licence which requires users to give up the moral rights to their own work. The last claim is the most problematic one for Suno, who already face copyright cases from US record labels and have lost one to the German collecting society GEMA in July. Fines which can go up to €10 million are another sign that Europe's regulators are paying attention to the small print, even if the users aren't.
Read

Ofcom vs the platforms
Meta, TikTok, and X are taking Ofcom to court over how much data they are demanding under the UK's Online Safety Act, which also includes how many harmful posts they removed and how many users saw them. X referred to it as the most burdensome information request they've received from any regulator, which isn't something Ofcom is concerned about as they are not backing down, and the same week opened its first Online Safety Act investigation into Meta, over whether the Instagram update Instants, with disappearing photos, was properly risk-assessed for children. Meta claims it did the checks and briefed Ofcom, but it's clear that the regulator wants safety built in out of the box, and not thrown in afterwards. 
Read

The AI Act in action 
OpenAI has announced that they are adding an invisible watermark to text that was generated by ChatGPT and Codex, in order to comply with the EU's AI Act. It will be automatic for EU users, but opt-in everywhere else, including the US where according to a poll nearly eight in ten people say they are pro-watermarking rules. The detector is not going to be released to the public at launch, but access to support evaluation will be granted to researchers case by case, in order to avoid false positives. It's an interesting example of how regulation really works, as OpenAI have complied where the law demands it and only there. 
Read

Play Store on trial
A £1.2 billion class action has opened at the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal, which claims that Google's 30% cut on Play Store purchases has led to the inflation of prices for around 20 million UK customers since 2015. It argues that Google has been extracting unfair prices for almost two decades, while Google insists it isn't dominant and that the Play Store fees are among the lowest fees around. The class action follows a similar one which resulted in a win against Apple last year, which is now heading to the Court of Appeal. Between this and the Apple and Amazon case, the Competition Appeal Tribunal might soon become Big Tech's bogeyman.
Read

AI & Copyright

Small bird, big claims
Aleph Alpha, an AI startup from Germany, has created Kolibri, an open-weight English-German model which is built for public administration and other regulated sectors, and claims the model beats rivals from Alibaba, Mistral, and Nvidia, on both reasoning and coding. It is small enough to run on-premises, which means the data is not leaving the building, and since it's built and trained in the EU, Aleph Alpha claims it follows the EU AI Act and GDPR, as well as copyright rules. What also sets it apart is that it is trained to say "I don't know" when it doesn't know something, which isn't something that many chatbots have mastered. As the EU is looking for alternatives to US and Chinese AI, Kolibri is the newest addition to the roster. 
Read

An agent with escape plans
Just before the launch of Muse, Meta's AI agent which asks users to hand over access to everything from their bank accounts to their emails, Meta had to rush out fixes for vulnerabilities which could have let users break out of their virtual machine and into Meta's own databases with other people's data. Meta itself admits the stakes, and offers a $300,000 bounty to anyone who finds a way out. After a summer where we had AI agents breaking out of their sandboxes, asking people to trust one with their bank info feels like a bold move. 
Read