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!
The Aikyn Sanarip coalition was launched in Bishkek on 17 June, ahead of the UN International Day for Countering Hate Speech. It brings together civil society, media representatives, government bodies, academics, international organisations and bloggers.
UNESCO said the coalition will provide a platform for dialogue on freedom of expression, digital rights, online safety and greater accountability from digital platforms.
The launch also featured the first national study on freedom of expression and content moderation in Kyrgyzstan. The research examines how hate speech spreads across digital platforms, how content is moderated in Kyrgyz-language digital spaces, and where legal and institutional gaps remain.
UNESCO said users in Kyrgyzstan increasingly encounter hate speech, disinformation and online harassment. At the same time, the country lacks a clear legal definition of hate speech, and mechanisms for addressing harmful content remain fragmented.
The launch shows how online hate speech and harmful content are becoming governance issues beyond major platform markets. Kyrgyzstan’s new coalition links digital rights, online safety and platform accountability, while also highlighting a difficult balance: tackling hate speech and disinformation without undermining freedom of expression. The initiative may offer a model for multistakeholder responses in countries where legal frameworks and platform moderation practices remain underdeveloped.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified the conditions under which EU Member States may require age verification for users of pornographic websites and restrict the rebroadcasting of information about certain roadside checks.
The ruling concerns joined cases involving WebGroup Czech Republic, NKL Associates and Coyote System. The cases were referred by France’s Council of State and concerned French measures requiring pornographic websites to verify users’ ages and allowing restrictions on geolocation driving assistance services that rebroadcast information about certain roadside checks.
The companies argued that the measures breached the country-of-origin principle under the Directive on electronic commerce. Under that principle, information society services are generally governed by the laws of the Member State in which the provider is established.
The Court found that the contested measures, including age verification requirements, fall within the directive’s coordinated field and that applying them to providers established in other Member States constitutes a restriction on the free movement of the services concerned. However, it said the directive allows such restrictions under certain conditions.
The CJEU said Member States may impose measures on providers established elsewhere in the EU where necessary for recognised objectives such as public policy, public security, or public safety. According to the Court, protecting minors through age verification may constitute a public policy objective, while restrictions on rebroadcasting information about certain roadside checks may be justified on public security grounds.
The Court said such measures must be proportionate and targeted at specific information society services that actually prejudice those objectives. Except in urgent cases, the Member State taking the measure must first ask the provider’s Member State of establishment to act and must notify the European Commission and that Member State before adopting the measure.
The ruling means an EU Member State may require providers established in another Member State to introduce age verification systems to prevent minors from accessing pornographic websites, provided the directive’s conditions are met. The referring French court must determine whether the national age verification measures satisfy those conditions.
The Court also addressed liability for information stored and rebroadcast by online services. It said a provider cannot rely on the hosting liability exemption if it has knowledge of or control over the information. Control can exist when a provider uses an algorithm to determine the conditions, methods and priority according to which information is rebroadcast.
The decision therefore clarifies both the limits of the e-commerce country-of-origin principle and the circumstances in which algorithmic control over content distribution may affect platform liability.
Why does it matter?
The ruling provides important guidance on how EU Member States can pursue online safety objectives while respecting the Digital Single Market’s country-of-origin principle. In particular, it confirms that age verification requirements aimed at protecting minors may be applied to providers established in other Member States, provided procedural safeguards and proportionality requirements are met.
The judgement also has broader implications for platform governance and intermediary liability. By highlighting the relevance of algorithmic control in determining whether a provider can benefit from hosting liability exemptions, the Court contributes to ongoing debates about platform responsibility, content moderation and the legal consequences of algorithm-driven content distribution.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
According to UKAuthority, the UK government is investing nearly £30 million to expand the use of AI-powered diagnostic technologies across England’s National Health Service (NHS). The funding aims to accelerate diagnoses and improve patient care for millions of people.
Under the programme, £20 million will be allocated to deploy AI-powered chest X-ray tools across every NHS trust in England by 2029. The technology is already used by around half of NHS trusts and has supported more than four million patients through faster lung cancer diagnosis or clearance.
A further £8.1 million from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) will support trials of six AI and digital technologies across 13 NHS sites. The technologies will assess scans and cardiac tests, prioritise urgent cases and provide digital therapies for a range of health conditions.
The investment forms part of the AI Diagnostic Fund under the Prime Minister’s AI Exemplars programme. Healthcare organisations and charities welcomed the initiative while noting that successful implementation will also depend on workforce capacity, digital infrastruture and operational readiness across the NHS.
Why does it matter?
The investment reflects the growing role of AI in healthcare, particularly in diagnostic imaging and clinical decision support. By helping clinicians identify urgent cases more quickly and process growing volumes of medical data, AI tools have the potential to improve efficiency and reduce delays in patient care.
The initiative also highlights a broader challenge facing health systems: scaling AI successfully requires more than access to technology. Workforce skills, digital infrastructure, clinical integration and governance frameworks will play a key role in determining whether AI delivers measurable improvements in healthcare outcomes.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The International Labour Conference adopted the Convention at its 114th session in Geneva. It addresses working conditions in the platform economy, including ride-hailing, delivery, online freelancing, data work and other forms of digitally mediated labour.
The new standard covers several long-standing concerns in platform work, including worker classification, fair remuneration, occupational safety and health, social protection, algorithmic management, data protection and protection against unfair account suspension or deactivation.
The Convention requires governments to take measures to ensure that platform workers are correctly classified according to the way their work is performed, rather than relying solely on contractual labels. It also includes protections linked to automated systems used to monitor, evaluate or make decisions about workers.
Workers should be informed about automated systems affecting their work and have access to explanations and human review of significant automated decisions, including those related to non-payment, suspension, or deactivation.
Labour organisations welcomed the adoption as a milestone for platform workers’ rights, while attention now turns to ratification and national implementation. The Convention will only translate into enforceable protections where governments incorporate its standards into domestic law and practice.
Why does it matter?
The Convention is a major development in global digital labour governance. Platform work has often grown faster than labour law, leaving workers exposed to income instability, opaque algorithmic management, sudden account deactivation and uncertain employment status. By setting an international baseline, the ILO standard gives governments, unions and regulators a reference point for bringing digital platform work within decent work protections. Its impact, however, will depend on ratification, enforcement and how countries translate the standard into national law.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
Humanists UK has urged the UK government to place human dignity, democratic oversight and human flourishing at the centre of AI governance.
The call followed a House of Lords debate on the impact of AI on human relationships and society, during which peers discussed the ethical, social and regulatory challenges raised by rapidly advancing AI systems.
Humanists UK pointed out to the government the Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values, adopted by Humanists International in 2025. The declaration argues that AI should support human judgement, the common good, democratic governance, transparency, autonomy and protection from harm.
Lord Michael Cashman, a patron of Humanists UK and member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, urged the government not to ‘reinvent the wheel’ and said the declaration already sets out principles relevant to AI governance.
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones said the debate showed a convergence of values across different traditions, including the need for democratic oversight, transparency and safeguards to ensure AI serves human beings rather than replacing them.
Responding for the government, Digital Economy Minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra said AI is already changing the economy, public services and human relationships. She said the government’s responsibility is to ensure that the transformation strengthens rather than diminishes the fabric of society.
Humanists UK said it has written to Baroness Lloyd and shared a copy of the Luxembourg Declaration.
Why does it matter?
The story reflects the growing role of civil society, religious groups and ethical movements in AI governance debates. While it does not signal a new UK policy, it shows how discussions on AI safety are broadening beyond technical risk to include human dignity, democratic accountability, transparency, autonomy and the public interest. Such value-based frameworks may influence how governments frame future AI regulation, assurance and safeguards.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to prevent the country’s permanent resident population from exceeding 10 million people before 2050.
Provisional official results from the 14 June vote show that 54.79% of voters opposed the ‘No to a Switzerland with 10 million! (Sustainability Initiative) while 45.21% supported it. Turnout was 58.86%.
The initiative sought to introduce a population cap as Switzerland’s resident population reached around 9.1 million at the end of 2025. Supporters argued that population growth was increasing pressure on housing, infrastructure and public services.
If the permanent resident population had exceeded 9.5 million before 2050, the Federal Council and Parliament would have been required to take measures, particularly in areas such as asylum and family reunification. If the population had exceeded 10 million, Switzerland could have been required to terminate international agreements contributing to population growth, including the agreement with the EU on the free movement of persons.
Swiss federal authorities warned that ending the free movement agreement would also have affected other agreements under Bilateral Agreements I and could have called into question Switzerland’s participation in the Schengen and Dublin arrangements.
By rejecting the proposal, voters avoided a measure that could have placed major pressure on Switzerland’s labour market, its relations with the EU, and cross-border cooperation.
Why does it matter?
The vote matters beyond Swiss population policy because the initiative could have affected the country’s relationship with the EU. Switzerland relies on bilateral agreements for labour mobility, market access and cooperation on security and asylum. A population cap tied to termination of the free movement agreement would have created uncertainty for businesses, public services and sectors that depend on foreign workers, including healthcare.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
