Panelists, including Jorge Cancio of the Swiss Government and David Fairchild of Canada, underscored the IGF’s central role as a multistakeholder platform for dialogue. However, concerns about its diminishing mandate and inadequate funding surfaced repeatedly. Fairchild warned of ‘a centralisation of digital governance processes,’ hinting at geopolitical forces that could undermine inclusive, global cooperation. Cancio urged an updated ‘Swiss Army knife’ approach to WSIS, where existing mechanisms, like the IGF, are strengthened rather than duplicated.
The session also highlighted emerging challenges since WSIS’s 2005 inception. Amrita Choudhury from MAG and Anita Gurumurthy of IT for Change emphasised that AI, data governance, and widening digital divides demand urgent attention. Gurumurthy lamented that ‘neo-illiberalism,’ characterised by corporate greed and authoritarian politics, threatens the vision of a people-centred information society. Meanwhile, Gitanjali Sah of ITU reaffirmed WSIS’s achievements, pointing to successes like digital inclusion through telecentres and distance learning.
Amid these reflections, the IGF emerged as an essential event for harmonising WSIS and GDC goals. Panellists, including Nigel Cassimire from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, proposed that the IGF develop performance targets to implement GDC commitments effectively. Yet, as Jason Pielemeier of the Global Network Initiative cautioned, the IGF faces threats of co-optation in settings hostile to open dialogue, which ‘weakens its strength.’
Despite these tensions, hope remained for creative solutions and renewed international solidarity. The session concluded with a call to refocus on WSIS’s original principles—ensuring no one is left behind in the digital future. As Anita Gurumurthy aptly summarised: ‘We reject bad politics and poor economics. What we need is a solidarity vision of interdependence and mutual reciprocity.’
Global digital policies and initiatives addressing gender equality were the focus of a recent forum on the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Participants examined strategies to close gender gaps in AI, digital access, and technology leadership, with an emphasis on mainstreaming gender perspectives into digital strategies. The conversation highlighted the urgency of tackling barriers faced by women in accessing and benefiting from technology.
Speakers pointed to the persistent digital gender divide, noting that 189 million more men than women use the internet globally. Papa Seck from UN Women stressed the importance of collecting gender-disaggregated data to guide policy decisions and track progress. Discussions also emphasised the need for safer online spaces for women and measures to combat technology-facilitated gender-based violence.
The role of digital public infrastructure (DPI) in fostering gender equality was also discussed. Hajjar El Haddaou of the Digital Cooperation Organization emphasised the importance of designing DPI solutions with a gender-responsive approach. Participants agreed that collaboration among governments, private sector actors, and civil society is essential to achieve these goals.
Looking forward, participants proposed integrating gender considerations into global initiatives such as the Beijing+30 review and establishing a dedicated gender action line within the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Caitlin Kraft-Buchman from Women at the Table urged sustained efforts across UN processes to ensure gender equality remains a central focus in digital policy-making.
The forum concluded with optimism about the potential of technology to empower women and drive progress. However, participants underscored the need for continued cooperation and investment to bridge the digital gender divide and build an inclusive digital future for all.
Serbia has been accused of using spyware to target journalists and activists, according to a new Amnesty International report. Investigations revealed that ‘NoviSpy,’ a homegrown spyware, extracted private data from devices and uploaded it to a government-controlled server. Some cases also involved the use of technology provided by Israeli firm Cellebrite to unlock phones before infecting them.
Activists reported unusual phone activity following meetings with Serbian authorities. Forensic experts confirmed NoviSpy exported contact lists and private photos to state-controlled servers. The Serbian government has yet to respond to requests for comment regarding these allegations.
Cellebrite, whose phone-cracking devices are widely used by law enforcement worldwide, stated it is investigating the claims. The company’s representative noted that misuse of their technology could violate end-user agreements, potentially leading to a suspension of use by Serbian officials.
Concerns over these practices are heightened due to Serbia’s EU integration programme, partially funded by Norway and administered by the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS). Norway expressed alarm over the findings and plans to meet with Serbian authorities and UNOPS for clarification.
The imminent adoption of a new UN cybercrime convention by the General Assembly has sparked significant concerns over its implications for global digital rights, particularly in the Arab region. Critics argue that the convention, as currently drafted, lacks sufficient human rights safeguards, potentially empowering authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent both domestically and internationally.
In the Arab region, existing cybercrime laws often serve as tools to curb freedom of expression, with vague terms criminalising online speech that might undermine state prestige or harm public morals. These restrictions contravene Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires limitations on expression to be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
Such ambiguity in legal language fosters an environment of self-censorship, as individuals remain uncertain about the legal interpretation of their online content. The convention’s broad scope further alarms international cooperation in cases potentially infringing human rights. It allows for the collection of electronic evidence for ‘serious crimes,’ which are vaguely defined and could include acts like defamation or expressions of sexual orientation—punishable by severe penalties in some countries.
That provision risks enabling extensive surveillance and data-sharing among nations with weak human rights records. In the Arab region, existing cybercrime laws already permit intrusive surveillance and mass data collection without adequate safeguards, threatening individuals’ privacy rights. Countries like Tunisia and Palestine lack mechanisms to notify individuals after surveillance, removing their ability to seek redress for legal violations and exacerbating privacy concerns.
In light of these issues, Access Now and civil society organisations are urging UN member states to critically evaluate the convention and resist voting for its adoption in its current form. They recommend thorough national discussions to assess its human rights impacts and call for stronger safeguards in future negotiations.
Why does it matter?
Arab states are encouraged to align their cybercrime laws with international standards and engage civil society in discussions to demonstrate a genuine commitment to human rights. The overarching message is clear: without comprehensive reforms, the convention risks further eroding digital rights and undermining freedom of expression worldwide. It is imperative to ensure that any international treaty robustly protects human rights rather than enabling their violation under the guise of combating cybercrime.
AI startup Perplexity has expanded its publisher partnerships, adding media outlets such as the Los Angeles Times and The Independent. These new partners will benefit from a program that shares ad revenue when their content is referenced on the platform. The initiative also provides publishers with access to Perplexity’s API and analytics tools, enabling them to track content performance and trends.
The program, launched in July, has attracted notable partners from Japan, Spain, and Latin America, including Prisa Media and Newspicks. Existing collaborators include TIME, Der Spiegel, and Fortune. Perplexity highlighted the importance of diverse media representation, stating that the partnerships enhance the accuracy and depth of its AI-powered responses.
Backed by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Nvidia, Perplexity aims to challenge Google’s dominance in the search engine market. The company has also begun testing advertising on its platform, seeking to monetise its AI search capabilities.
Perplexity’s growth has not been without challenges. It faces lawsuits from News Corp-owned publishers, including Dow Jones and New York Post, over alleged copyright violations. The New York Times has also issued a cease-and-desist notice, demanding the removal of its content from Perplexity’s generative AI tools.
Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia has announced it will stop posting on X, formerly known as Twitter, citing growing concerns over hate speech, disinformation, and toxic content. The paper, Spain’s fourth most-read publication, criticised the platform’s moderation failures under Elon Musk, claiming it has become an “echo chamber” for conspiracy theories and bots.
The decision follows similar moves by Britain’sThe Guardian and highlights growing alarm about X’s role in amplifying harmful narratives, especially amid sensitive events such as Spain’s recent floods. La Vanguardia editor Jordi Juan suspended his personal account, calling the platform’s content increasingly manipulative and profit-driven.
Since Musk’s acquisition of X in 2022, the platform has faced criticism for tolerating misinformation and hate, allegedly to boost ad revenue. The paper noted that X has left key European Union disinformation programs, further eroding trust. While journalists will retain personal accounts, the newspaper itself will suspend activity, preserving its 1.7M-follower archive for historical purposes.
A Moscow court has fined Apple 3.6 million roubles ($36,889) for refusing to remove two podcasts that were reportedly aimed at destabilising Russia’s political landscape, according to the RIA news agency. The court’s decision is part of a larger pattern of the Russian government targeting foreign technology companies for not complying with content removal requests. This action is seen as part of the Kremlin’s broader strategy to exert control over the digital space and reduce the influence of Western tech giants.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the government has intensified its crackdown on foreign tech companies, accusing them of spreading content that undermines Russian authority and sovereignty. The Kremlin has already imposed similar fines on companies like Google and Meta, demanding the removal of content deemed harmful to national security or political stability. Critics argue that these moves are part of an orchestrated effort to suppress dissenting voices and maintain control over information, particularly in the face of growing international scrutiny.
Apple, like other Western companies, has faced mounting pressure to comply with Russia’s increasingly stringent regulations. While the company has largely resisted political content restrictions in other regions, the fine highlights the challenges it faces in operating within Russia’s tightly controlled media environment. Apple has not yet publicly commented on the ruling, but the decision reflects the growing risks for tech firms doing business in Russia as the country tightens its grip on digital platforms.
Aravind Srinivas, CEO of AI search company Perplexity, offered to step in and support New York Times operations amid a looming strike by the newspaper’s tech workers. The NYT Tech Guild announced the planned strike for November 4 after months of seeking better pay and working conditions. Representing workers involved in software support and data analysis on the business side, the guild has requested a 2.5% annual wage increase and to secure a two-day in-office work policy.
As tensions escalated, New York Times publisher AG Sulzberger called the timing of the strike ‘troubling’, noting that the paper’s election coverage is a public service at a crucial time. Responding publicly, Srinivas offered to help ensure uninterrupted access to the Times’s election news, sparking controversy as critics accused him of ‘scabbing’, a term for working in place of striking employees.
Srinivas clarified that his intent was to provide infrastructure support, not replace journalists, as his company has recently launched its own election information platform. However, the New York Times and Perplexity have been at odds recently, with the Times issuing a cease-and-desist letter last month over Perplexity’s alleged scraping of its content for AI use.
Mozambique and Mauritius are facing criticism for recent social media shutdowns amid political crises, with many arguing these actions infringe on digital rights. In Mozambique, platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp were blocked following protests over disputed election results.
Meanwhile, in Mauritius, the government imposed a similar blackout until after the 10 November election, following a wiretapping scandal involving leaked conversations of high-profile figures. Furthermore, digital rights groups such as Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalition have condemned these actions, arguing that they violate international human rights standards, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) resolution 580 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as national constitutions.
In response, digital rights advocates are calling on telecommunications providers, including Emtel and Mauritius Telecom, to resist government orders to enforce the shutdowns. By maintaining internet connectivity, these companies could help preserve citizens’ access to information and uphold democratic principles in politically sensitive times.
Additionally, rights organisations argue that internet service providers have a unique role in supporting transparency and accountability, which are vital to democratic societies.
The Kremlin has called on Google to lift its restrictions on Russian broadcasters on YouTube, highlighting mounting legal claims against the tech giant as potential leverage. Google blocked more than a thousand Russian channels and over 5.5 million videos, including state-funded media, after halting ad services in Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Russia’s legal actions against Google, initiated by 17 Russian TV channels, have led to compound fines based on the company’s revenue in Russia, accumulating to a staggering figure reportedly in the “undecillions,” according to Russian media. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described this enormous number as symbolic but urged Google to take these legal pressures seriously and reconsider its restrictions.
In response, Google has not commented on these demands. Russian officials argue that such restrictions infringe on the country’s broadcasters and hope the significant financial claims will compel Google to restore access to Russian media content on YouTube.
