AI Editing Without Consent Raises Alarm Bells for Content Creators and Viewers

YouTube’s recent decision to implement AI-powered tools that “unblur, denoise and improve clarity” on uploaded content has ignited fresh concerns about disclosure, consent, and platform power in the digital landscape. What makes this move particularly contentious is that YouTube implemented these changes without informing or obtaining consent from the content creators or notifying viewers about the modifications.

This lack of transparency severely limits users’ ability to identify or respond to AI-edited content, though such manipulations have historical precedents that predate modern AI tools.

For decades, lifestyle magazines have “airbrushed” photos to enhance certain features while downplaying others. In 2003, actor Kate Winslet publicly condemned British GQ for narrowing her waist in a cover photo without her knowledge or consent. This practice of invisible editing has now evolved with technological advancements.

Social media platforms have increasingly integrated editing features, capitalizing on research that shows filtered photos receive more views and engagement. A 2021 study examining 7.6 million user-posted photos on Flickr confirmed this trend. However, YouTube’s latest action demonstrates how users are increasingly losing control over how their content appears online.

TikTok faced similar controversy in 2021 when Android users discovered an automatic “beauty filter” had been applied to their posts without disclosure or consent. This raises particular concerns as research has established links between appearance-enhancing filters and self-image issues among users.

These undisclosed alterations extend beyond social media platforms. In 2018, Apple’s iPhone models were found to be automatically applying a skin-smoothing effect through a feature called Smart HDR. Apple later described this as a “bug” and reversed the change.

The issue surfaced in Australian politics last year when Nine News published an AI-modified photo of Victorian MP Georgie Purcell that exposed her midriff, though it was covered in the original image. The news outlet failed to disclose that the image had been altered using AI.

Text-based content is not immune either. In 2023, author Jane Friedman discovered Amazon selling five AI-generated books falsely attributed to her, potentially causing significant reputational damage.

Disclosure represents one of the simplest tools available to navigate an increasingly AI-altered digital landscape. Research indicates that companies transparent about their AI usage tend to garner more user trust, with initial trust in both the company and its AI systems playing a significant role.

Paradoxically, despite global users showing diminishing trust in AI systems broadly, they demonstrate increasing trust in AI they’ve personally used, including a belief that such technology will inevitably improve over time.

Companies may avoid disclosing AI use because research has found that such disclosures consistently reduce trust in the relevant person or organization—though not as significantly as when users discover undisclosed AI use after the fact.

The impact of disclosures extends beyond trust issues. Studies show that disclosures on AI-generated misinformation may not make the content less persuasive to viewers, but they can discourage sharing, as users fear spreading false information.

As AI technology advances, identifying manipulated imagery will only become more challenging. Even sophisticated AI detection tools struggle to keep pace with the rapid evolution of generative technologies.

Confirmation bias compounds this problem, as users tend to be less critical of content—AI-generated or otherwise—that aligns with their existing beliefs.

Fortunately, some strategies can help counter misinformation. Younger media consumers have developed approaches like triangulation—seeking multiple reliable sources to verify information—and curated social media feeds that prioritize trustworthy sources while excluding questionable ones.

However, these efforts face resistance from platform designs that favor endless scrolling and passive consumption over thoughtful engagement.

While YouTube’s unilateral decision to alter creators’ videos without consent or disclosure likely falls within its legal rights as a platform, it places both users and contributors in a precarious position. Given the outsized power digital platforms wield and similar past incidents, this will likely not be the last time such concerns arise.