The OECD has published a report examining how AI could support citizen participation and democratic innovation while highlighting the safeguards needed for its responsible use.
The report, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Citizen Participation, was approved and declassified by the OECD Public Governance Committee on 22 June 2026. It was produced as part of the OECD Public Governance Reviews series in collaboration with the Bertelsmann Stiftung.
The report says public participation can help governments design better policies and strengthen trust. It cites OECD trust findings showing that people who feel they have a say in government decisions are far more likely to report high trust in government.
The OECD notes that governments have long relied on digital technologies, including online platforms and civic tech tools, to expand public participation. AI represents the next stage of this evolution, with governments increasingly experimenting with tools for consultation, deliberation, communication and policy analysis.
The report is based on desk research and analysis of 50 AI use cases in participation processes from 22 OECD member and partner countries. It proposes a typology to help public officials and practitioners understand where AI tools may be useful and what challenges they may address.
Based on an analysis of 50 AI use cases from 22 OECD member and partner countries, the report proposes a typology covering nine categories of AI applications, including information development, sense-making, translation, transcription, virtual assistance, moderation, facilitation, simulation and participation architecture.
These tools can support both front-office activities, where citizens interact directly with government, and back-office activities, where public administrations design, analyse and manage processes internally.
According to the OECD, AI could make participation processes more accessible and efficient by helping governments analyse large volumes of public input, improve communication, reduce administrative costs and broaden participation.
Sense-making tools can help analyse large amounts of text submitted during consultations. Translation and transcription tools can make processes more accessible across languages and formats, while virtual assistants can help people navigate information about citizen participation opportunities.
AI can also support moderation and facilitation. The report says such tools may help prevent spam, hate speech or manipulation in online discussions, and could support live deliberation by identifying common ground or structuring debate.
However, the OECD cautions against treating AI as a simple fix for democratic challenges. It says technology alone cannot solve problems such as weak links between participation processes and actual policy decisions.
The report also highlights ethical, operational and societal risks, including algorithmic bias, opaque decision-making, hallucinations, cybersecurity threats, digital exclusion and declining public trust if AI systems are poorly designed or deployed.
The OECD also highlights the risks of inaction, noting that governments may miss valuable opportunities if they avoid AI tools even when they could be applied responsibly.
The report says governments should establish guardrails for AI use in citizen participation, including transparency, compliance with democratic values, protection of civic space, attention to data divides and low-tech alternatives for citizens with limited digital access.
It also calls for stronger enablers, including AI literacy, skills development, citizen engagement in the design and governance of AI systems, open standards where appropriate, and support for scaling successful pilots.
The OECD concludes that most public-sector use of AI in citizen participation remains experimental. It argues that lasting benefits will depend on transparent governance, human oversight and continued efforts to strengthen democratic participation beyond technology alone.
Why does it matter?
Governments are increasingly exploring AI as a way to make public participation more accessible, scalable and responsive. The OECD’s report shows that AI can support consultation, deliberation and policy analysis, but only when accompanied by safeguards that protect transparency, inclusion and democratic accountability.
The report also reinforces a broader shift in AI governance from technical capability to institutional design. By emphasising human oversight, civic participation, digital inclusion and democratic values, the OECD argues that AI should enhance, not replace, the processes that underpin public trust and democratic decision-making.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Three more AI-powered ‘nudify’ services have withdrawn access for Australian users after enforcement action by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner under the country’s Age-Restricted Material codes.
The codes require AI services that allow users to access or generate age-restricted material, including sexually explicit material, to put appropriate age-assurance measures in place to prevent access by children under 18.
The latest action followed a formal Direction to Comply issued to one of the most widely used nudify services in Australia, requiring the provider to implement stronger protections within 14 days. Instead, the company disabled access for Australian users, while two associated services also withdrew.
eSafety said users in Australia will no longer be able to log in or use the service’s features, although landing pages may remain visible with content blurred.
The regulator said AI nudification tools pose serious risks because they can be used to create non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes and child sexual exploitation material. It has also warned that such tools are increasingly being misused in school settings.
The action is part of eSafety’s broader enforcement focus on generative AI and nudify services now that Australia’s online safety codes and standards are in force. The regulator said seven of the most frequently accessed nudify services in Australia have either withdrawn from the market or introduced age-assurance measures following intervention.
Australia is also preparing further legislation to prohibit nudify services used to generate non-consensual sexually explicit material.
Why does it matter?
Australia’s approach shows how regulators can use age-assurance and online safety rules to restrict children’s access to high-risk generative AI tools before new AI-specific laws are fully in place. The case is also important because nudify services sit at the intersection of AI-generated abuse, child protection, image-based harm and platform accountability. By forcing services to either introduce safeguards or withdraw access, eSafety is creating a practical enforcement model that other jurisdictions may closely watch.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The company’s Digital Crimes Unit said the action targeted the shared infrastructure behind the two tools rather than treating them as separate threats. In the first two weeks of May, Amadey and StealC were linked to more than 140,000 infected computers worldwide.
Amadey is often used to gain access to devices, while StealC is used to steal passwords and sensitive information. Microsoft said the tools form part of a wider cybercrime supply chain in which specialised malware services help attackers turn initial access into fraud, ransomware, espionage or other operations.
Microsoft said investigators used AI, including Copilot, to analyse malware and identify connections between the two tools more quickly. The company said the analysis helped its legal team treat both malware families as part of a single conspiracy under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The action was carried out with Europol and industry partners, including ESET, BitSight, Lumen and Mitsui Bussan Secure Directions. Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre also investigated StealC as part of Operation Endgame, alongside European law enforcement partners and cybersecurity companies, including IBM X-Force and Proofpoint.
Microsoft said it has identified more than 18,000 victim computers since the start of the operation and is working with telecommunications providers to help protect affected users.
The company said findings from the case will feed into its Statutory Automated Disruption programme, which accelerates the removal of malicious domains and infrastructure.
Why does it matter?
The operation reflects a shift in cybercrime disruption strategy. Instead of targeting one malware family or service at a time, Microsoft and its partners focused on the shared infrastructure that allows criminal tools to work together. That matters because modern cybercrime increasingly operates as a modular supply chain: one tool gains access, another steals credentials, and other actors monetise that access through fraud, ransomware or espionage. The use of AI to accelerate malware analysis also points to how defenders are trying to match the speed and scale of cybercriminal operations.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
UN human rights experts have warned that AI and related digital technologies could deepen gender inequalities if they are developed and deployed without meaningful regulation.
The Working Group on discrimination against women and girls said AI is reshaping the conditions in which women and girls exercise their rights. In a report to the Human Rights Council, the experts said the absence of gender-responsive AI governance could amplify exclusion, reinforce harmful stereotypes and worsen structural inequalities.
The report says AI and digital technologies can support gender equality when designed responsibly, including by expanding access to education, healthcare, financial services and justice. However, the experts warned that poorly governed systems can also create new forms of exclusion across political, civic and economic life.
The Working Group identified three urgent preconditions for substantive gender equality in the digital age: closing the digital divide, ensuring that AI and digital technologies support rather than undermine women’s and girls’ human rights, and promoting their meaningful participation and leadership in public and political life.
The experts also raised concern over gendered harms linked to AI and digital technologies, including technology-facilitated gender-based violence, mass surveillance, armed conflict, lethal autonomous weapons and climate-related impacts.
They called on states to adopt human rights-based and feminist approaches to AI governance, strengthen regulation and accountability, and ensure that women and girls can participate meaningfully in technological development and decision-making.
The Working Group said technology must serve equality, human rights and human dignity, framing gender-responsive AI governance as an obligation rather than an optional policy choice.
Why does it matter?
The report frames AI governance as a gender equality and human rights issue, not only a technical or innovation challenge. Without gender-responsive rules, AI systems can reproduce discrimination through biassed data, unequal access, surveillance, online violence and exclusion from decision-making. The report also matters because it connects AI policy with digital inclusion and political participation, areas where women and girls are often affected by overlapping forms of discrimination.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) will honour 12 public sector initiatives at the 2026 UN Public Service Awards for advancing the Sustainable Development Goals through more inclusive, transparent and participatory public services.
The awards attracted more than 700 applications from 62 countries and recognise projects ranging from digital document verification and public procurement monitoring to improving education access and supporting coastal women.
According to UN DESA, several winning initiatives leverage digital government tools, information and communication technologies (ICTs) and AI to improve service delivery and strengthen public administration capacity.
The awards ceremony will be held during the UN Public Service Forum in Tbilisi, Georgia, following the commemoration of UN Public Service Day.
Why does it matter?
The awards highlight how governments are increasingly using digital technologies and AI to improve public service delivery, strengthen administrative capacity and advance sustainable development objectives. From digital verification systems to more transparent procurement processes, technology is becoming an important tool for making public institutions more efficient, accountable and accessible.
The initiative also demonstrates the growing role of digital transformation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. By recognising successful public-sector innovations from around the world, the awards provide examples of how governments can use technology to address social, economic and governance challenges while promoting inclusion, transparency and citizen participation.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission has proposed new measures to strengthen EU cooperation against cross-border crime, organised criminal networks, terrorism and hostile actors.
The Commission said crime is becoming more sophisticated, international and digital, requiring closer cooperation between police, customs authorities, prosecutors and courts from the start of investigations through to final judgments.
The package would strengthen the roles of Europol and Eurojust, the EU agencies that support national authorities in cross-border criminal investigations and judicial cooperation.
For Europol, the proposal would enable faster and more automated information sharing to support real-time collaboration during investigations. It would also create Europol Support Offices, staffed by former Europol officers, to provide operational assistance to the EU countries.
The Commission also wants to establish a technology and innovation hub within Europol to map law enforcement capability needs across the EU and support the use of new tools against cross-border crime.
Eurojust would receive stronger operational powers, including the ability to act on its own initiative to identify links between cases. Its mandate would also expand into emerging areas of crime, including cybercrime and gender-based violence.
The package would strengthen cooperation between Europol, Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, while also expanding international cooperation with third countries.
The Commission is also proposing to update the European Investigation Order, the EU procedure for gathering evidence across borders in criminal cases. A new European Remote Participation Order would allow suspects, accused persons and victims to take part remotely in criminal court hearings from another EU country.
Why does it matter?
Cross-border crime is increasingly digital and difficult for national authorities to tackle on their own. The Commission’s proposal aims to make EU investigations faster and more coordinated by improving data sharing, evidence gathering and cooperation between police, prosecutors and courts. The cybercrime and technology-hub elements are especially relevant because law enforcement agencies need technical capacity, legal tools and cross-border coordination to respond to digital criminal networks.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission had proposed replacing cookie banners with an automated browser-based privacy signal as part of its ‘Digital Omnibus’ package, a move that would have allowed devices to communicate users’ tracking preferences directly to websites. The plan, outlined in Article 88b of the GDPR, was intended to cut red tape and reduce the burden on consumers navigating consent requests across the web.
According to digital rights organisation noyb, cookie banners were not created by data protection law but emerged as a mechanism for the online advertising industry to obtain users’ consent for data sharing with third parties. Studies suggest only 3 to 10 per cent of users actually wish to be tracked, yet so-called dark patterns, such as hidden ‘no’ buttons and pre-ticked boxes, allow the industry to achieve consent rates of up to 90 per cent. Across more than 450 million EU citizens, this results in billions of unnecessary clicks each year.
According to noyb, a lobbying document submitted by Google argued that removing cookie banners would effectively halt all online advertising, citing figures that the European Commission has since described as highly exaggerated. The Commission had made clear that consent would still be possible on a per-website and per-purpose basis, meaning users could grant access to specific outlets while withholding it from others. Google’s paper also claimed that media outlets would be harmed, despite the fact that they are explicitly exempt from the proposed provision.
According to noyb, the lobbying campaign appears to have influenced the legislative process. In the Council’s position paper of 18 June 2026, Article 88b was removed entirely from the Digital Omnibus. Noyb added that Germany, France, and Poland were among the member states supporting the article’s removal following lobbying by the online advertising industry.
The outcome is particularly striking given that many of the same member states have long called on the EU to simplify regulation and cut red tape. noyb, the European digital rights organisation, has described the result as a victory for lobbying over public interest, noting that the majority of EU citizens have consistently expressed frustration with cookie banners.
The European Parliament has not yet taken a position on Article 88b, and negotiations between the Parliament and the Council are ongoing. Noyb has urged the European Parliament to support reinstating Article 88b during the next stage of negotiations.
Why does it matter?
The debate highlights the growing tension between digital simplification efforts, privacy protection and the economic interests of the online advertising ecosystem. Browser-based privacy signals have long been discussed as a way to reduce repetitive consent requests while preserving users’ ability to decide when and how their personal data may be used.
The proposal’s removal also illustrates the influence that industry stakeholders can have during the EU legislative process. Whether Article 88b is reinstated during negotiations with the European Parliament could shape the future of online consent management in Europe, affecting digital advertising, user experience and the practical implementation of data protection rules.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
As AI reshapes economies, societies, and governance systems worldwide, Geneva is increasingly emerging as one of the most important global centres for discussions on the future of digital technologies.
In a recent interview, Diplo Executive Director Jovan Kurbalija described Geneva as a place where multiple dimensions of AI governance intersect. From technical standards and international trade to human rights, humanitarian action, and diplomacy, the city hosts institutions and processes that shape how digital technologies are developed, governed, and used worldwide.
According to Kurbalija, a significant share of global discussions on AI and digital governance takes place within a relatively small area surrounding Geneva’s international district. The concentration of international organisations, diplomatic missions, standards-setting bodies, and expert communities has positioned the city as a unique meeting point for addressing the opportunities and challenges associated with AI.
A hub for global digital governance
Geneva’s importance in digital governance stems largely from the presence of international organisations whose work directly affects the digital ecosystem.
Among them is the World Trade Organization (WTO), which plays a role in shaping the global rules governing trade, supply chains, e-commerce, and the international movement of goods and services that underpin the digital economy. Decisions and discussions within the WTO influence the broader environment in which digital technologies are produced, exchanged, and deployed.
Another key institution is the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN specialised agency for information and communication technologies. ITU has long served as a forum for international cooperation on telecommunications and digital technologies, and today plays an increasingly prominent role in discussions related to AI and digital governance.
Although often invisible to users, technical standards play a fundamental role in ensuring interoperability, connectivity, and trust in digital systems. As AI technologies become more integrated into everyday life, standards are expected to play an increasingly important role in areas such as safety, transparency, and accountability.
From Frankenstein to AI: Geneva’s intellectual legacy
Kurbalija also highlighted a less visible but equally important dimension of Geneva’s role in AI governance, its intellectual and historical heritage.
He referred to what Diplo describes as the EspriTech de Genève, the intersection between technological developments and ideas that have emerged from thinkers associated with Geneva throughout history.
One of the most notable examples is Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein near Lake Geneva in 1816. Often regarded as one of the earliest works of science fiction, the novel explores the relationship between creators and their creations, raising questions about responsibility, unintended consequences, and the limits of human control.
More than two centuries later, similar questions continue to shape contemporary debates on AI governance. Discussions surrounding increasingly capable AI systems frequently return to concerns about human oversight, accountability, and the potential consequences of technologies that may act in ways not fully anticipated by their creators.
Kurbalija also pointed to the work of Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, whose reflections on knowledge, information, and human cognition continue to resonate in an era characterised by large-scale data processing and machine-generated content.
The intellectual traditions associated with Geneva provide a broader context for understanding contemporary AI debates, linking present-day governance questions to longer-standing discussions about technology, knowledge, and humanity.
Geneva as a centre for AI diplomacy
Beyond its historical and institutional significance, Geneva has become an increasingly active venue for international discussions on AI governance.
The city hosts a growing number of meetings, conferences, and policy dialogues dedicated to the governance of AI and other emerging technologies. Among the most prominent is the annual AI for Good Summit, organised by ITU in partnership with other UN agencies and stakeholders. The event brings together governments, international organisations, researchers, private sector representatives, and civil society to explore the societal implications of AI and identify opportunities for international cooperation.
Geneva also hosts a range of other initiatives focused on AI governance, including policy dialogues, expert consultations, and multistakeholder discussions addressing issues such as human rights, health, humanitarian action, sustainable development, trade, and technical standards.
Image via freepik
According to Kurbalija, AI is now on the agenda of many international organisations based in Geneva. Whether addressing healthcare, humanitarian assistance, trade, education, telecommunications, or development, institutions increasingly examine how AI affects their respective mandates and policy objectives.
This growing presence reflects the recognition that AI is not solely a technological issue. Instead, it spans multiple policy domains, requiring coordination among technical experts, policymakers, diplomats, regulators, and affected communities.
Reducing ‘lost in translation’ in AI governance
As AI discussions become more widespread, one challenge frequently identified by policymakers and international organisations is the gap between technological developments and policy understanding.
Kurbalija argues that many stakeholders remain ‘lost in translation’ when trying to understand the implications of AI. Technical terminology, rapidly evolving technologies, and complex governance debates often create barriers for diplomats, policymakers, and officials who are expected to make decisions about AI despite not having technical backgrounds.
To address this challenge, Diplo combines research, capacity development, and practical experimentation.
The organisation conducts research on both the historical roots of AI-related thinking and contemporary governance challenges. At the same time, it develops tools and educational programmes designed to help policymakers better understand the technology and its implications.
A central component of this effort is Diplo’s AI Apprenticeship programme.
Rather than teaching AI solely through theory, the programme encourages participants to learn by building AI applications themselves. Diplomats and officials from different countries work directly with AI tools, gaining practical experience with concepts such as neural networks, large language models (LLMs), and AI systems development.
According to Kurbalija, direct engagement with AI technologies allows participants to move beyond abstract discussions and develop a more practical understanding of how these systems function and where their limitations lie.
Where technology meets humanity
Kurbalija described Geneva as a place where several distinct but interconnected forces converge.
The first is the technological dimension, represented by organisations working on telecommunications, standards, digital infrastructure, and emerging technologies.
The second is the historical and intellectual dimension, reflected in the ideas of thinkers associated with Geneva and the broader region, whose work continues to inform contemporary discussions about technology and society.
Image via Freepik
The third is the diplomatic dimension. Geneva remains one of the world’s most active centres of multilateral diplomacy, hosting permanent missions and representatives from nearly every country. Discussions in Geneva frequently shape global approaches to issues ranging from trade and humanitarian affairs to digital governance and AI.
The fourth is what Kurbalija describes as the human dimension. Many Geneva-based institutions focus on protecting and advancing human welfare through work on human rights, humanitarian action, health, labour, migration, and development.
Together, these dimensions create an environment in which technological innovation can be discussed alongside its social, ethical, economic, and political implications.
Looking ahead
As governments, international organisations, and societies continue to grapple with the opportunities and risks associated with AI, Geneva’s role as a centre for digital governance is likely to become increasingly significant.
The city’s unique combination of technical expertise, standards-setting institutions, diplomatic networks, and human-centred governance traditions provides a platform for addressing complex questions that no single actor or sector can solve alone.
For Kurbalija, this convergence of technology, diplomacy, and humanity represents one of Geneva’s defining characteristics. In a period marked by rapid technological change and growing uncertainty, the city continues to serve as a place where different perspectives can meet to shape the future of AI governance.
As debates around AI evolve, Geneva is likely to remain one of the key venues where those discussions are translated into international cooperation, governance frameworks, and practical solutions with global impact.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has warned that unauthorised access to patient records is a serious breach of trust and an ongoing concern across the healthcare sector. In a new blog, the regulator said medical records contain some of the most sensitive personal information and must only be accessed for legitimate reasons.
The ICO said inappropriate access remains rare and does not reflect the behaviour of most healthcare professionals. However, recent high-profile incidents suggest the problem is not confined to isolated cases and requires a stronger organisational response.
According to the regulator, personal curiosity is never a legitimate basis for accessing patient records. Deliberate or reckless access to personal data without authorisation is unlawful and may result in disciplinary measures, loss of professional registration and, in some cases, criminal prosecution.
The ICO called on healthcare leaders to strengthen organisational culture through clear communication, role-specific data protection training and technical safeguards, including role-based access controls and audit logging. Protecting patient privacy is fundamental to maintaining trust in the healthcare system in the UK.
Why does it matter?
Healthcare records contain some of the most sensitive categories of personal information, including medical histories, diagnoses and treatment details. Even isolated cases of unauthorised access can undermine public trust in healthcare institutions and raise concerns about privacy, confidentiality and professional accountability.
The warning also highlights the growing importance of data governance in healthcare. As health systems become increasingly digital and interconnected, organisations must combine technical safeguards, staff training and strong organisational culture to ensure sensitive information is accessed only when necessary and for legitimate purposes. Maintaining patient trust remains essential to the effective delivery of healthcare services.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
UN Women has warned that AI systems continue to reinforce long-standing gender stereotypes, even as they become increasingly embedded in everyday life. The organisation says many AI models still associate women with domestic roles while linking men to leadership, business, and career success.
Recent studies highlighted the scale of the issue. Research examining 133 AI systems found that 44% displayed gender bias, while more than a quarter showed both gender and racial bias. According to UN Women, these outcomes reflect biases embedded in training data and broader social patterns rather than isolated technical flaws.
Concerns extend beyond stereotyping and representation. AI-generated content is contributing to the spread of online abuse, with women human rights defenders, activists, and journalists reporting experiences ranging from manipulated images to deepfake content. At the same time, women remain underrepresented in the AI sector, accounting for only around 30% of the global workforce.
Ahead of international discussions on AI governance in Geneva, UN Women is urging governments, technology companies, and developers to place gender equality at the centre of AI policymaking. The organisation argues that inclusive AI development can help ensure the technology expands opportunities and participation rather than reproducing existing inequalities.
Why does it matter?
As AI systems become increasingly influential in hiring, education, healthcare, public services and online platforms, biased outputs can amplify existing inequalities at scale. Gender stereotypes embedded in AI models may affect how people are represented, evaluated and treated, making fairness and inclusivity important considerations in AI development and deployment.
The issue also highlights the relationship between technical design and social outcomes. Diverse datasets, inclusive development teams and robust governance mechanisms are increasingly viewed as necessary to reduce harmful biases and improve trust in AI systems. As governments develop AI regulations and standards, questions of gender equality, representation and accountability are likely to play a growing role in shaping future AI governance frameworks.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
