Human rights principles Archives | Page 133 of 151

Yoga in the age of AI: Digital spirituality or algorithmic escapism?

Since 2015, 21 June marks the International Day of Yoga, celebrating the ancient Indian practice that blends physical movement, breathing, and meditation. But as the world becomes increasingly digital, yoga itself is evolving.

No longer limited to ashrams or studios, yoga today exists on mobile apps, YouTube channels, and even in virtual reality. On the surface, this democratisation seems like a triumph. But what are the more profound implications of digitising a deeply spiritual and embodied tradition? And how do emerging technologies, particularly AI, reshape how we understand and experience yoga in a hyper-connected world?

Tech and wellness: The rise of AI-driven yoga tools

The wellness tech market has exploded, and yoga is a major beneficiary. Apps like Down Dog, YogaGo, and Glo offer personalised yoga sessions, while wearables such as the Apple Watch or Fitbit track heart rate and breathing.

Meanwhile, AI-powered platforms can generate tailored yoga routines based on user preferences, injury history, or biometric feedback. For example, AI motion tracking tools can evaluate your poses in real-time, offering corrections much like a human instructor.

While these tools increase accessibility, they also raise questions about data privacy, consent, and the commodification of spiritual practices. What happens when biometric data from yoga sessions is monetised? Who owns your breath and posture data? These questions sit at the intersection of AI ethics and digital rights.

Beyond the mat: Virtual reality and immersive yoga

The emergence of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) is pushing the boundaries of yoga practice. Platforms like TRIPP or Supernatural offer immersive wellness environments where users can perform guided meditation and yoga in surreal, digitally rendered landscapes.

These tools promise enhanced focus and escapism—but also risk detachment from embodied experience. Does VR yoga deepen the meditative state, or does it dilute the tradition by gamifying it? As these technologies grow in sophistication, we must question how presence, environment, and embodiment translate in virtual spaces.

Can AI be a guru? Empathy, authority, and the limits of automation

One provocative question is whether AI can serve as a spiritual guide. AI instructors—whether through chatbots or embodied in VR—may be able to correct your form or suggest breathing techniques. But can they foster the deep, transformative relationship that many associate with traditional yoga masters?

AI lacks emotional intuition, moral responsibility, and cultural embeddedness. While it can mimic the language and movements of yoga, it struggles to replicate the teacher-student connection that grounds authentic practice. As AI becomes more integrated into wellness platforms, we must ask: where do we draw the line between assistance and appropriation?

Community, loneliness, and digital yoga tribes

Yoga has always been more than individual practice—community is central. Yet, as yoga moves online, questions of connection and belonging arise. Can digital communities built on hashtags and video streams replicate the support and accountability of physical sanghas (spiritual communities)?

Paradoxically, while digital yoga connects millions, it may also contribute to isolation. A solitary practice in front of a screen lacks the energy, feedback, and spontaneity of group practice. For tech developers and wellness advocates, the challenge is to reimagine digital spaces that foster authentic community rather than algorithmic echo chambers.

Digital policy and the politics of platformised spirituality

Beyond the individual experience, there’s a broader question of how yoga operates within global digital ecosystems. Platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok have turned yoga into shareable content, often stripped of its philosophical and spiritual roots.

Meanwhile, Big Tech companies capitalise on wellness trends while contributing to stress-inducing algorithmic environments. There are also geopolitical and cultural considerations.

The export of yoga through Western tech platforms often sidesteps its South Asian origins, raising issues of cultural appropriation. From a policy perspective, regulators must grapple with how spiritual practices are commodified, surveilled, and reshaped by AI-driven infrastructures.

Toward inclusive and ethical design in wellness tech

As AI and digital tools become more deeply embedded in yoga practice, there is a pressing need for ethical design. Developers should consider how their platforms accommodate different bodies, abilities, cultures, and languages. For example, how can AI be trained to recognise non-normative movement patterns? Are apps accessible to users with disabilities?

Inclusive design is not only a matter of social justice—it also aligns with yogic principles of compassion, awareness, and non-harm. Embedding these values into AI development can help ensure that the future of yoga tech is as mindful as the practice it seeks to support.

Toward a mindful tech future

As we celebrate International Day of Yoga, we are called to reflect not only on the practice itself but also on its evolving digital context. Emerging technologies offer powerful tools for access and personalisation, but they also risk diluting the depth and ethics of yoga.

For policymakers, technologists, and practitioners alike, the challenge is to ensure that yoga in the digital age remains a practice of liberation rather than a product of algorithmic control. Yoga teaches awareness, balance, and presence. These are the very qualities we need to shape responsible digital policies in an AI-driven world.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

NATO summit overshadowed by cyber threats

NATO’s 76th summit opened in The Hague amid rising tensions in Europe and the Middle East, overshadowed by conflict and cyber threats. Leaders gathered as rushers in Ukraine dragged on, and Israel’s strikes on Iran further strained global stability.

European NATO members pledged greater defence spending, but divisions with the US over security commitments and strategy persisted. The summit also highlighted concerns about hybrid threats, with cyberespionage and sabotage by Russia-linked groups remaining a pressing issue.

According to European intelligence agencies, Russian cyber operations targeting critical infrastructure and government networks have intensified. NATO leaders face pressure to enhance collective cyber deterrence, with pro-Russian hacktivists expected to exploit summit declarations in future campaigns.

While Europe pushes to reduce reliance on the US security umbrella, uncertainty over Washington’s focus and support continues. Many fear the summit may end without concrete decisions as the alliance grapples with external threats and internal discord.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Rethinking AI in journalism with global cooperation

At the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Lillestrøm, Norway, a vibrant multistakeholder session spotlighted the ethical dilemmas of AI in journalism and digital content. The event was hosted by R&W Media and introduced the Haarlem Declaration, a global initiative to promote responsible AI practices in digital media.

Central to the discussion was unveiling an ‘ethical AI checklist,’ designed to help organisations uphold human rights, transparency, and environmental responsibility while navigating AI’s expanding role in content creation. Speakers emphasised a people-centred approach to AI, advocating for tools that support rather than replace human decision-making.

Ernst Noorman, the Dutch Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, called for AI policies rooted in international human rights law, highlighting Europe’s Digital Services and AI Acts as potential models. Meanwhile, grassroots organisations from the Global South shared real-world challenges, including algorithmic bias, language exclusions, and environmental impacts.

Taysir Mathlouthi of Hamleh detailed efforts to build localised AI models in Arabic and Hebrew, while Nepal’s Yuva organisation, represented by Sanskriti Panday, explained how small NGOs balance ethical use of generative tools like ChatGPT with limited resources. The Global Forum for Media Development’s Laura Becana Ball introduced the Journalism Cloud Alliance, a collective aimed at making AI tools more accessible and affordable for newsrooms.

Despite enthusiasm, participants acknowledged hurdles such as checklist fatigue, lack of capacity, and the need for AI literacy training. Still, there was a shared sense of urgency and optimism, with the consensus that ethical frameworks must be embedded from the outset of AI development and not bolted on as an afterthought.

In closing, organisers invited civil society and media groups to endorse the Harlem Declaration and co-create practical tools for ethical AI governance. While challenges remain, the forum set a clear agenda: ethical AI in media must be inclusive, accountable, and co-designed by those most affected by its implementation.

Track all key moments from the Internet Governance Forum 2025 on our dedicated IGF page.

A unified call for a stronger digital future at IGF 2025

At the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Lillestrøm, Norway, global stakeholders converged to shape the future of digital governance by aligning the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) with the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) follow-up. Moderated by Yoichi Iida, former Vice Minister at Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the session featured high-level representatives from governments, international organisations, the business sector, and youth networks, all calling for a stronger, more inclusive, better-resourced IGF.

William Lee, WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government, emphasised the need for sustainable funding, tighter integration between global and national IGF processes, and the creation of ‘communities of practice.’ Philipp Schulte from Germany’s Ministry of Education, Digital Transformation and Government Modernisation echoed these goals, adding proposals such as appointing an IGF director and establishing an informal multistakeholder sounding board.

The European Union’s unified stance also prioritised long-term mandate renewal and structural support for inclusive participation. Speaking online, Gitanjali Sah, Strategy and Policy Coordinator at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), argued that WSIS frameworks already offer the tools to implement GDC goals, while stressing the urgency of addressing global connectivity gaps.

Maarit Palovirta, Deputy Director General at Connect Europe, represented the business sector, lauding the IGF as an accessible forum for private sector engagement and advocating for continuity and simplicity in governance processes. Representing over 40 youth IGFs globally, Murillo Salvador emphasised youth inclusion, digital literacy, online well-being, and co-ownership in policymaking as core pillars for future success.

Across all groups, there was strong agreement on the urgency of bridging digital divides, supporting grassroots voices, and building a resilient, inclusive, and forward-looking IGF. The shared sentiment was clear: to ensure digital governance reflects the needs of all, the IGF must evolve boldly, inclusively, and collaboratively.

Track all key moments from the Internet Governance Forum 2025 on our dedicated IGF page.

Civil society pushes for digital rights and justice in WSIS+20 review at IGF 2025

At a packed session during Day 0 of the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Lillestrøm, Norway, civil society leaders gathered to strategise how the upcoming WSIS+20 review can deliver on the promise of digital rights and justice. Organised by the Global Digital Justice Forum and the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS, the brainstorming session brought together voices from across the globe to assess the ‘elements paper’ recently issued by review co-facilitators from Albania and Kenya.

Anna Oosterlinck of ARTICLE 19 opened the session by noting significant gaps in the current draft, especially in its treatment of human rights and multistakeholder governance.

Ellie McDonald of Global Partners Digital, speaking on behalf of the Global Digital Rights Coalition, presented the group’s three strategic pillars: anchoring digital policy in international human rights law, reinforcing multistakeholder governance based on São Paulo guidance, and strengthening WSIS institutions like the Internet Governance Forum. She warned that current policy language risks drifting away from established human rights commitments and fails to propose concrete steps for institutional resilience.

Nandini Chami of the Global Digital Justice Forum outlined their campaign’s broader structural agenda, including a call for an integrated human rights framework fit for the digital age, safeguarding the internet as a global commons, ensuring sustainable digital transitions, and creating a fair international digital economy that combats digital colonialism. She stressed the importance of expanding rights protections to include people affected by AI and data practices, even those not directly online.

Zach Lampell from the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law closed the session with a stark reminder: those who control internet infrastructure hold immense power over how digital rights are exercised. He and others urged participants to provide feedback by 15 July through an open consultation process, emphasising the need for strong, unified civil society input. The organising coalitions committed to publishing a summary paper to advance advocacy ahead of the final WSIS+20 outcome document.

Track all key moments from the Internet Governance Forum 2025 on our dedicated IGF page.

Grassroots internet governance faces crossroads at IGF 2025

At the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Lillestrøm, Norway, the IGF Support Association convened a critical session addressing the long-term sustainability of National and Regional Internet Initiatives (NRIs). With over 170 NRIs worldwide playing a key role in connecting local voices to global internet policy, participants discussed how a potential renewal of the IGF’s UN mandate might influence their operations.

While many, including internet pioneer Vint Cerf, welcomed the idea of institutional stability through UN backing, most agreed it wouldn’t automatically resolve the chronic funding and legitimacy challenges NRIs face on the ground. A recurring concern was the disconnect between expectations and resources.

After nearly two decades, most NRIs still operate on volunteer labour despite being expected to deliver professional-level outcomes. Sandra Hoferichter of EuroDIG warned that this grassroots model is reaching a breaking point, echoing others who called for more stable secretariats and professional staffing.

Joyce Chen and Fiona Asonga emphasised the importance of formalising multistakeholder teams to prevent initiatives from collapsing when key individuals depart. Funding strategies were a central theme, with diverse models discussed—from partnerships with ccTLD managers and technical communities to modest support from national governments.

Yet securing sustainable private sector investment remains difficult, partly because the IGF’s non-decisional format makes it a harder sell to business. Several speakers stressed the need to articulate clear value propositions, especially for big tech companies that benefit from an open and stable internet but often contribute little to maintaining its governance structures.

The session closed with a consensus that real sustainability demands more than money: NRIs need legitimacy, inclusivity, and a deeper integration with national policymaking. Proposals ranged from establishing parliamentary tracks to expanding sub-national IGFs, all with the aim of grounding internet governance in local realities while keeping it globally connected.

Why does it matter?

Despite unresolved questions, the mood remained constructive, with calls to continue the conversation and co-develop innovative models for the next chapter of grassroots digital governance.

Track all key moments from the Internet Governance Forum 2025 on our dedicated IGF page.

Parliamentarians at IGF 2025 call for action on information integrity

At the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Lillestrøm, Norway, global lawmakers and experts gathered to confront one of the most pressing challenges of our digital era: the societal impact of misinformation and disinformation, especially amid the rapid advance of AI. Framed by the UN Global Principles for Information Integrity, the session spotlighted the urgent need for resilient, democratic responses to online erosion of public trust.

AI’s disruptive power took centre stage, with speakers citing alarming trends—deepfakes manipulated global election narratives in over a third of national polls in 2024 alone. Experts like Lindsay Gorman from the German Marshall Fund warned of a polluted digital ecosystem where fabricated video and audio now threaten core democratic processes.

UNESCO’s Marjorie Buchser expanded the concern, noting that generative AI enables manipulation and redefines how people access information, often diverting users from traditional journalism toward context-stripped AI outputs. However, regulation alone was not touted as a panacea.

Instead, panellists promoted ‘democracy-affirming technologies’ that embed transparency, accountability, and human rights at their foundation. The conversation urged greater investment in open, diverse digital ecosystems, particularly those supporting low-resource languages and underrepresented cultures. At the same time, multiple voices called for more equitable research, warning that Western-centric data and governance models skew current efforts.

In the end, a recurring theme echoed across the room: tackling information manipulation is a collective endeavour that demands multistakeholder cooperation. From enforcing technical standards to amplifying independent journalism and bolstering AI literacy, participants called for governments, civil society, and the tech industry to build unified, future-proof solutions that protect democratic integrity while preserving the fundamental right to free expression.

Track all key moments from the Internet Governance Forum 2025 on our dedicated IGF page.

WGIG reunion sparks calls for reform at IGF 2025 in Norway

At the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2025 in Lillestrøm, Norway, a reunion of the original Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) marked a significant reflection and reckoning moment for global digital governance. Commemorating the 20th anniversary of WGIG’s formation, the session brought together pioneers of the multistakeholder model that reshaped internet policy discussions during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).

Moderated by Markus Kummer and organised by William J. Drake, the panel featured original WGIG members, including Ayesha Hassan, Raul Echeberria, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Avri Doria, Juan Fernandez, and Jovan Kurbalija, with remote contributions from Alejandro Pisanty, Carlos Afonso, Vittorio Bertola, Baher Esmat, and others. While celebrating their achievements, speakers did not shy away from blunt assessments of the IGF’s present state and future direction.

Speakers universally praised WGIG’s groundbreaking work in legitimising multi-stakeholderism within the UN system. The group’s broad, inclusive definition of internet governance—encompassing technical infrastructure and social and economic policies—was credited for transforming how global internet issues are addressed.

Participants emphasised the group’s unique working methodology, prioritising transparency, pluralism, and consensus-building without erasing legitimate disagreements. Many argue that these practices remain instructive amid today’s fragmented digital governance landscape.

However, as the conversation shifted from legacy to present-day performance, participants voiced deep concerns about the IGF’s limitations. Despite successes in capacity-building and agenda-setting, the forum was criticised for its failure to tackle controversial issues like surveillance, monopolies, and platform accountability.

Crowd, Person, People, Press Conference, Adult, Male, Man, Face, Head, Electrical Device, Microphone, Clothing, Formal Wear, Suit, Audience — Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director of Diplo

Speakers such as Vittorio Bertola and Avri Doria lamented its increasingly top-down character. At the same time, Nandini Chami and Ariette Esterhuizen raised questions about the IGF’s relevance and inclusiveness in the face of growing power imbalances. Some, including Bertrand de la Chapelle and Jovan Kurbalija, proposed bold reforms, including establishing a new working group to address the interlinked challenges of AI, data governance, and digital justice.

The session closed on a forward-looking note, urging the IGF community to recapture WGIG’s original spirit of collaborative innovation. As emerging technologies raise the stakes for global cooperation, participants agreed that internet governance must evolve—not only to reflect new realities but to stay true to the inclusive, democratic ideals that defined its founding two decades ago.

Track all key moments from the Internet Governance Forum 2025 on our dedicated IGF page.

Publishers lose traffic as readers trust AI more

Online publishers are facing an existential threat as AI increasingly becomes the primary source of information for users, warned Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince during an Axios event in Cannes.

As AI-generated summaries dominate user queries, search engine referrals have plunged, urgently pushing media outlets to reconsider how they sustain revenue from their content.

Traffic patterns have dramatically shifted. A decade ago, Google sent a visitor to publishers for every two pages it crawled.

Today, that ratio has ballooned to 18:1. The picture is more extreme for AI firms: OpenAI’s ratio has jumped from 250:1 to 1,500:1 in just six months, while Anthropic’s has exploded from 6,000:1 to a staggering 60,000:1.

Although AI systems typically include links to sources, Prince noted that ‘people aren’t following the footnotes,’ meaning fewer clicks and less ad revenue.

Prince argued that audiences are beginning to trust AI summaries more than the original articles, reducing publishers’ visibility and direct engagement.

As the web becomes increasingly AI-mediated, fewer people read full articles, raising urgent questions about how creators and publishers can be fairly compensated.

To tackle the issue, Cloudflare is preparing to launch a new anti-scraping tool to block unauthorised data harvesting. Prince hinted that the tool has broad industry support and will be rolled out soon.

He remains confident in Cloudflare’s capacity to fight against such threats, noting the company’s daily battles against sophisticated global cyber actors.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI pioneer warns of mass job losses

Geoffrey Hinton, often called the godfather of AI, has warned that the technology could soon trigger mass unemployment, particularly in white-collar roles. In a recent podcast interview, he said AI will eventually replace most forms of intellectual labour.

According to Hinton, jobs requiring basic reasoning or clerical tasks will be the first to go, with AI performing the work of multiple people. He expressed concern that call centre workers may already be vulnerable, while roles requiring physical skills, like plumbing, remain safer for now.

Hinton challenged the common belief that AI will create more jobs than it eliminates. He argued that unless someone has highly specialised expertise, they may find themselves outpaced by machines capable of learning and performing cognitive tasks.

He also criticised OpenAI’s recent corporate restructuring, saying the shift towards a profit-driven model risks sidelining the public interest. Hinton, alongside other critics including Elon Musk, warned that the changes could divert AI development from its original mission of serving humanity.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!