🏷️ AI content is getting labels.
Just like energy ratings or safety certifications help you make informed choices, the same logic now applies to AI.
From 2 August 2026, the AI Act will require clear labelling in key cases:
🔹 Deepfakes
🔹 AI-generated or manipulated content
🔹 Interactions with chatbots and AI systems
You have the right to know whether what you see, hear or read has been made or altered by AI 🤖
@EUCommission how is this enforced?
@jansteen @EUCommission by requiring back door to each messenger so that uncle dieter won’t share his ai images anymore.
@_holger
seems conspiracy nonsens.
this will probably be 'enforced' by reporting, checks, penalties.
@jansteen @EUCommission
@jansteen @EUCommission exactly! It needs to have teeth! This seems impossible to enforce.
@jansteen @EUCommission
they send you to the slop-gulag
@felipeB @jansteen @EUCommission I imagine the camps as a place where you have to do art and writing by hand. Where after turning in three pieces of art, you'll be set free again. Can you imagine the horror!
@jwrm22 @felipeB @jansteen @EUCommission
After three pieces of true art! 🎨
Jun 25, 2026, 3:45 PMIt would be great in general, if new regulation was built on top of existing solutions
(like the "do not track" setting in browsers)
instead of mandating new friction points
(like the cookie popups)
@satmd @EUCommission I think the best currently available are laws about intellectual property.
@EUCommission one of these labels is not like the others.
Jun 22, 2026, 4:25 PM@thesdev @EUCommission Because Leyen isso incompetent
@EUCommission Ok, a good start. From the top of my head I'd also like to see what were the main sources of training data, was it stolen, and how much energy was consumed in the training process.
Jun 22, 2026, 6:35 PM@ekari @EUCommission Ok, it's not explicit, but still, the label is right there. If it says "AI Generated", then you can be absolutely certain the training data was illicitly obtained.
@EUCommission
Good move, hope you can enforce it!
@EUCommission
Now make use of it illegal in all merchandice and adverticement unless the company can prove they trained their LLM with only their own data which theh fully own the copyright for.
Also ban public LLM's (also known as Generative AI) for its proven copyright infringement of unfathomable quantity that should not be in the hands of consumers of companies. Fight the erosion of information, ownership, and the very ability for humans to think for themselves.
Great move, but somehow that will not work for malignant toxic actors that will use AI to deceive us.
An electronic signature indicating the traceable source would be a start.
Jun 22, 2026, 6:42 PM@zer0unplanned @EUCommission Honestly, I'm happy to see forced disclosure of AI generated content. Streaming services are promoting AI content because it's much cheaper for them to stream than proper music with actual artists who want compensation. Right now these discount tracks are pushed to unsuspecting customers.
The same goes for posters. Finding a human made poster these days can be very difficult, because everything is infiltrated by vast amounts of AI slop.
In both of these cases, the wealthy earn more because they either get to use AI to trick you into listening to something they won't have to pay that much for, or because they sell the AI generation itself (which, granted, they lose unfathomable amounts of money on, which I cannot fault).
Jun 22, 2026, 4:23 PM@EUCommission this is very weak.
@EUCommission A self-enforced labelling system is the same as not doing anything: the ones who were transparent will use the tag, but the ones who weren't will move on without disclosing AI use.
Please stop beating around the bush and forbid GenAI that's been trained with stolen data and regulate datacenters already.
Jun 22, 2026, 4:24 PM@EUCommission You ain't get my passaport scan. Stop this crap. #NoToAgeVerifications #KeepRefugeesHere
@EUCommission Weak, bland, useless.
Jun 22, 2026, 4:26 PMthe CE label really isn't the good example you think it is
also energy labels? I'm all for those energy classes and normed labels… but then there was that A++++-Fuckup?
…and that was solved by making the previous A into a C and the previous A++ into A? And the label looked the same? Because making it distinct would be too obvious?
All I'm saying is: your idea might be okay, but the examples are stupid
Jun 22, 2026, 5:02 PMNo, it's not all scam.
Energy classes for refrigerators and light fixtures actually kinda work. Only the names are stupid.
Yes, building energy classes are total bullshit.
It sometimes works out and sometimes it doesn't. The way how the criteria for such labels designed is literally "design by committee". So obviously there's a lot of those things around that are just stupid bureaucracy and we have nobody going around to actually remove such things.
But claiming "it's all scam" doesn't help. That's just as useless.
@EUCommission And today, as heard in the actual AI-Podcast "KI-Update" from @heiseonline big companys like #ikea, #H&M, #zalando, #inditex wrote a letter to act against this and want to have an exeption. Because, AI-Models for clothing photos or fakes for living rooms are much cheaper than paying a model for a photoshooting or an interieur designer to put the newest Smörebrod-Furniture in a room. And, will they get that exeption? Of course they will. 🤨
@EUCommission @heiseonline Think of that, every photo on the #ikea website will have that label... They neeeeeever wanna do that...
@mawirai @EUCommission @heiseonline Could you be more specific why you believe that they will ge that exception?
@voxel @EUCommission @heiseonline Why do I believe that there are companies lobbying against something like this? Well, how can I put this neutrally? Let’s call it learning from past examples: companies are lobbying against #EUDR and the EU “#Digital Omnibus” to weaken the #GDPR and the #AI-Act, but even these measures aren’t enough for big companies. And even if they don’t get everything, in the end, nothing is implemented by the European Commission as “strictly” as was grandly announced.
@voxel @EUCommission @heiseonline Or as i said before, you will not see something like this in the future:
Jun 22, 2026, 4:32 PM@EUCommission how are you going to enforce it?
I don't want people labelling their deepfakes, I want people to stop creating them. Anyone trying to blackmail or hurt someone else's reputation will not be stoped by a stupid label.
@senda
This is obviously not aimed at criminals. This is supposed to be informative and I welcome the information. I of course hope there will be more to actually protect people, but lets say this is a start.
@EUCommission
No, but the label would make it easy to call out the deepfake as being fake.
Which, honestly, is probably better. Banning things rarely works and tends to hurt innocent people as a side effect (see also: social media age verification). Labels, on the other hand, hurt only those who are trying to deceive.
As for enforcement, I dunno. Malicious actors could post a malicious deepfake and crop the label off. But if they do, then they're broadcasting that they've done something illegal.
Jun 22, 2026, 4:41 PM@EUCommission I don’t want huge data centers and crazy water consumption and a label ain’t fixing that
@EUCommission “voluntary”….
How stupid do you think we are?
@CynAq @EUCommission Read further, it will become mandatory in August 2026.
@voxel @EUCommission it says “providers who sign”. It’s a voluntary certification program which doesn’t even cover individuals/independent parties using gen AI on their own hardware.
Read better.
@CynAq @EUCommission Not sure if you're trolling, but if you do what I suggested you would see that: «(...) to help providers and deployers of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems meet the AI Act transparency obligations that will apply from 2 August 2026.
From that date, the AI Act will require clear labelling in key cases. Deepfakes and AI-generated or AI-manipulated text published on matters of public interest must be clearly labelled.» (emphasis added).
@CynAq @EUCommission Also «Once the Commission and AI Board approve the Code as adequate, providers and deployers who sign will be able to demonstrate compliance with the relevant AI Act obligations that start to apply on 2 August 2026.» (emphasis added).
@voxel @EUCommission the same question back at you. It clearly says “…who sign”. Parties don’t sign anything are not obligated to do anything because they have nothing to lose without the compliance certificate they clearly rejected to begin with.
Second, I think you understand that this has nothing to do with protecting individuals from deep fakes, plagiarism etc from other individuals not using a commercially available service but running models on their own private hardware, and only addresses commercial services and publications that have some public facing official interface.
@CynAq @EUCommission I will no longer engage in this conversation as you seemingly do not seek to engage in a meaningful discussion and reject every clarification.
For anyone else, read the legal text of the AI Act.
In particular: Art. 3 (definitions) and Art. 50 (transparency obligations)
@voxel @EUCommission I am engaging in good faith. You are rejecting to acknowledge “who” is obligated “by what enforcement mechanism”.
Read the rest of the thread. This is corporate regulation theater, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. Good day.
@EUCommission
What happens when, let's say a political party, ignores this?
Or a company?
Will there be consequences upon violation?
How long are violations punishable?
And what are these?
@EUCommission Incorrect usage of the CE mark... You can download the mark here: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/goods/ce-marking_en
Jun 22, 2026, 6:16 PM@dunesec @EUCommission even the EU getsit wrong. R oui sure that this is not a Chinese imposter?
Yeah that's not going to work. Like American gun laws...
Law abiding people will abide by the law, others wont, which means the flood of deepfake political bullshit will continue.
@EUCommission
This sounds GREAT! Thank you! And let's hope that the fines from lying about it (which there will be.. right?) will go directly to projects that save the planet...
@EUCommission
Now we need the reverse label (maybe in green?) "AI free"
That is something companies and especially artists might want to brandish, especially to distinguish EU quality art and craftsmanship from cheap slop.
Jun 22, 2026, 5:47 PM
Er, no. Absolutely not. Get EU on the Fedi, please.
'W' can shove their id-checks up their collective hoop.
And you tried to get us all using Microsoft 'standards' for documents? Are you insane? I'll stick with LibreOffice myself, thanks.
Jun 22, 2026, 5:52 PM@bytebro @EUCommission agreed
@benroyce @EUCommission Totally unrelated.
Jun 23, 2026, 1:22 PMnobody cares
@benroyce I do.
Jun 23, 2026, 1:30 PMi'm very happy for you. you're very special
Jun 22, 2026, 6:17 PM@EUCommission This is shameful, but on par with the latest EU immigration and social network politics. Down the drain we go.
Jun 22, 2026, 6:18 PM@EUCommission As I'm quite sure of the many ones not complying, I'm looking forward to discover what will be of them. Will they be scolded until, cross their heart, promise to do it within three, four or fifty years?
@EUCommission AI content requires just one label: "🚮Trash"
Jun 22, 2026, 6:27 PM@EUCommission will this be enforced or be more like the GDPR where it's the thought that counts? Cause it sounds even hard to enforce.
