Italy’s antitrust watchdog has investigated Meta Platforms over allegations that the company may have abused its dominant position by integrating its AI assistant directly into WhatsApp.
The Rome-based authority, formally known as the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), announced the probe on Wednesday, stating that Meta may have breached European Union competition regulations.
The regulator claims that the introduction of the Meta AI assistant into WhatsApp was carried out without obtaining prior user consent, potentially distorting market competition.
Meta AI, the company’s virtual assistant designed to provide chatbot-style responses and other generative AI functions, has been embedded in WhatsApp since March 2025. It is accessible through the app’s search bar and is intended to offer users conversational AI services directly within the messaging interface.
The AGCM is concerned that this integration may unfairly favour Meta’s AI services by leveraging the company’s dominant position in the messaging market. It warned that such a move could steer users toward Meta’s products, limit consumer choice, and disadvantage competing AI providers.
‘By pairing Meta AI with WhatsApp, Meta appears to be able to steer its user base into the new market not through merit-based competition, but by ‘forcing’ users to accept the availability of two distinct services,’ the authority said.
It argued that this strategy may undermine rival offerings and entrench Meta’s position across adjacent digital services. In a statement, Meta confirmed cooperating fully with the Italian authorities.
The company defended the rollout of its AI features, stating that their inclusion in WhatsApp aimed to improve the user experience. ‘Offering free access to our AI features in WhatsApp gives millions of Italians the choice to use AI in a place they already know, trust and understand,’ a Meta spokesperson said via email.
The company maintains its approach, which benefits users by making advanced technology widely available through familiar platforms. The AGCM clarified that its inquiry is conducted in close cooperation with the European Commission’s relevant offices.
The cross-border collaboration reflects the growing scrutiny Meta faces from regulators across the EU over its market practices and the use of its extensive user base to promote new services.
If the authority finds Meta in breach of EU competition law, the company could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global annual turnover. Under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, abusing a dominant market position is prohibited, particularly if it affects trade between member states or restricts competition.
To gather evidence, AGCM officials inspected the premises of Meta’s Italian subsidiary, accompanied by Guardia di Finanza, the tax police’s special antitrust unit in Italy.
The inspections were part of preliminary investigative steps to assess the impact of Meta AI’s deployment within WhatsApp. Regulators fear that embedding AI assistants into dominant platforms could lead to unfair advantages in emerging AI markets.
By relying on its established user base and platform integration, Meta may effectively foreclose competition by making alternative AI services harder to access or less visible to consumers. Such a case would not be the first time Meta has faced regulatory scrutiny in Europe.
The company has been the subject of multiple investigations across the EU concerning data protection, content moderation, advertising practices, and market dominance. The current probe adds to a growing list of regulatory pressures facing the tech giant as it expands its AI capabilities.
The AGCM’s investigation comes amid broader EU efforts to ensure fair competition in digital markets. With the Digital Markets Act and AI Act emerging, regulators are becoming more proactive in addressing potential risks associated with integrating advanced technologies into consumer platforms.
As the investigation continues, Meta’s use of AI within WhatsApp will remain under close watch. The outcome could set an essential precedent for how dominant tech firms can release AI products within widely used communication tools.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A major cyberattack on Russia’s flagship airline Aeroflot has caused severe disruptions to flights, with hundreds of passengers stranded at airports. Responsibility was claimed by two hacker groups: Ukraine’s Silent Crow and the Belarusian hacktivist collective Belarus Cyber-Partisans.
The attack is among the most damaging cyber incidents Russia has faced since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Past attacks disrupted government portals and large state-run firms such as Russian Railways, but most resumed operations quickly. This time, the effects were longer-lasting.
Social media showed crowds of delayed passengers packed into Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, Aeroflot’s main hub. The outage affected not only Aeroflot but also its subsidiaries, Rossiya and Pobeda.
Most of the grounded flights were domestic. However, international services to Belarus, Armenia, and Uzbekistan were also cancelled or postponed due to the IT failure.
Early on Monday, Aeroflot issued a statement warning of unspecified problems with its IT infrastructure. The company alerted passengers that delays and disruptions were likely as a result.
Later, Russia’s Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the outage was the result of a cyberattack. It announced the opening of a criminal case and launched an investigation into the breach.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described the incident as ‘quite alarming’, admitting that cyber threats remain a serious risk for all major service providers operating at scale.
In a Telegram post, Silent Crow claimed it had maintained access to Aeroflot’s internal systems for over a year. The group stated it had copied sensitive customer data, internal communications, audio recordings, and surveillance footage collected on Aeroflot employees.
The hackers claimed that all of these resources had now either been destroyed or made inaccessible. ‘Restoring them will possibly require tens of millions of dollars. The damage is strategic,’ the group wrote.
Screenshots allegedly showing Aeroflot’s compromised IT dashboards were shared via the same Telegram channel. Silent Crow hinted it may begin publishing the stolen data in the coming days.
It added: ‘The personal data of all Russians who have ever flown with Aeroflot have now also gone on a trip — albeit without luggage and to the same destination.’
The Belarus Cyber-Partisans, who have opposed Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko’s authoritarian regime for years, said the attack was carefully planned and intended to cause maximum disruption.
‘This is a very large-scale attack and one of the most painful in terms of consequences,’ said group coordinator Yuliana Shametavets. She told The Associated Press that the group spent months preparing the strike and accessed Aeroflot’s systems by exploiting several vulnerabilities.
The Cyber-Partisans have previously claimed responsibility for other high-profile hacks. In April 2024, they said they had breached the internal network of Belarus’s state security agency, the KGB.
Belarus remains a close ally of Russia. Lukashenko, in power for over three decades, has permitted Russia to use Belarusian territory as a staging ground for the invasion of Ukraine and to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian soil.
Russia’s aviation sector has already faced repeated interruptions this summer, often caused by Ukrainian drone attacks on military or dual-use airports. Flights have been grounded multiple times as a precaution, disrupting passenger travel.
The latest cyberattack adds a new layer of difficulty, exposing the vulnerability of even the most protected elements of Russia’s transportation infrastructure. While the full extent of the data breach is yet to be independently verified, the implications could be long-lasting.
For now, it remains unclear how long it will take Aeroflot to fully restore services or what specific data may have been leaked. Both hacker groups appear determined to continue using cyber tools as a weapon of resistance — targeting Russia’s most symbolic assets.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Google has confirmed it will sign the European Union’s General Purpose AI Code of Practice, joining other companies, including major US model developers.
The tech giant hopes the Code will support access to safe and advanced AI tools across Europe, where rapid adoption could add up to €1.4 trillion annually to the continent’s economy by 2034.
Kent Walker, Google and Alphabet’s President of Global Affairs, said the final Code better aligns with Europe’s economic ambitions than earlier drafts, noting that Google had submitted feedback during its development.
However, he warned that parts of the Code and the broader AI Act might hinder innovation by introducing rules that stray from EU copyright law, slow product approvals or risk revealing trade secrets.
Walker explained that such requirements could restrict Europe’s ability to compete globally in AI. He highlighted the need to balance regulation with the flexibility required to keep pace with technological advances.
Google stated it will work closely with the EU’s new AI Office to help shape a proportionate, future-facing approach.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The UK’s new Online Safety Act has increased VPN use, as websites introduce stricter age restrictions to comply with the law. Popular platforms such as Reddit and Pornhub are either blocking minors or adding age verification, pushing many young users to turn to free VPNs to bypass the rules.
In the days following the Act’s enforcement on 25 July, five of the ten most-downloaded free apps in the UK were VPNs.
However, cybersecurity experts warn that unvetted free VPNs can pose serious risks, with some selling user data or containing malware.
Using a VPN means routing all your internet traffic through an external server, effectively handing over access to your browsing data.
While reputable providers like Proton VPN offer safe free tiers supported by paid plans, lesser-known services often lack transparency and may exploit users for profit.
Consumers are urged to check for clear privacy policies, audited security practices and credible business information before using a VPN. Trusted options for safer browsing include Proton VPN, TunnelBear, Windscribe, and hide.me.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Europe’s AI crackdown officially begins soon, as the EU enforces the first rules targeting developers of generative AI models like ChatGPT.
Under the AI Act, firms must now assess systemic risks, conduct adversarial testing, ensure cybersecurity, report serious incidents, and even disclose energy usage. The goal is to prevent harms related to bias, misinformation, manipulation, and lack of transparency in AI systems.
Although the legislation was passed last year, the EU only released developer guidance on 10 July, leaving tech giants with little time to adapt.
Meta, which developed the Llama AI model, has refused to sign the voluntary code of practice, arguing that it introduces legal uncertainty. Other developers have expressed concerns over how vague and generic the guidance remains, especially around copyright and practical compliance.
The EU also distinguishes itself from the US, where a re-elected Trump administration has launched a far looser AI Action Plan. While Washington supports minimal restrictions to encourage innovation, Brussels is focused on safety and transparency.
Trade tensions may grow, but experts warn that developers should not rely on future political deals instead of taking immediate steps toward compliance.
The AI Act’s rollout will continue into 2026, with the next phase focusing on high-risk AI systems in healthcare, law enforcement, and critical infrastructure.
Meanwhile, questions remain over whether AI-generated content qualifies for copyright protection and how companies should handle AI in marketing or supply chains. For now, Europe’s push for safer AI is accelerating—whether Big Tech likes it or not.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Australia has announced that YouTube will be banned for children under 16 starting in December, reversing its earlier exemption from strict new social media age rules. The decision follows growing concerns about online harm to young users.
Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and X are already subject to the upcoming restrictions, and YouTube will now join the list of ‘age-restricted social media platforms’.
From 10 December, all such platforms will be required to ensure users are aged 16 or older or face fines of up to AU$50 million (£26 million) for not taking adequate steps to verify age. Although those steps remain undefined, users will not need to upload official documents like passports or licences.
The government has said platforms must find alternatives instead of relying on intrusive ID checks.
Communications Minister Anika Wells defended the policy, stating that four in ten Australian children reported recent harm on YouTube. She insisted the government would not back down under legal pressure from Alphabet Inc., YouTube’s US-based parent company.
Children can still view videos, but won’t be allowed to hold personal YouTube accounts.
YouTube criticised the move, claiming the platform is not social media but a video library often accessed through TVs. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia would campaign at a UN forum in September to promote global backing for social media age restrictions.
Exemptions will apply to apps used mainly for education, health, messaging, or gaming, which are considered less harmful.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
In the digital world, tracking occurs through digital signals sent from one computer to a server, and from a server to an organisation. Almost immediately, a profile of a user can be created. The information can be leveraged to send personalised advertisements for products and services consumers are interested in, but it can also classify people into categories to send them advertisements to steer them in a certain direction, for example, politically (2024 Romanian election, Cambridge Analytica Scandal skewing the 2016 Brexit referendum and 2016 US Elections).
Digital tracking can be carried out with minimal costs, rapid execution and the capacity to reach hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously. These methods require either technical skills (such as coding) or access to platforms that automate tracking.
This phenomenon has been well documented and likened to George Orwell’s 1984, in which the people of Oceania are subject to constant surveillance by ‘Big Brother’ and institutions of control; the Ministry of Truth (propaganda), Peace (military control), Love (torture and forced loyalty) and Plenty (manufactured prosperity).
A related concept is the Panopticon, developed by the French philosopher Michel Foucault’s social theory based on the architecture of a prison, enabling constant observation from a central point. Prisoners never know if they are being watched and thus self-regulate their behaviour. In today’s tech-driven society, our digital behaviour is similarly regulated through the persistent possibility of surveillance.
How are we tracked? The case of cookies and device fingerprinting
Cookies
Cookies are small, unique text files placed on a user’s device by their web browser at the request of a website. When a user visits a website, the server can instruct the browser to create or update a cookie. These cookies are then sent back to the server with each subsequent request to the same website, allowing the server to recognise and remember certain information (login status, preferences, or tracking data).
If a user visits multiple websites about a specific topic, that pattern can be collected and sold to advertisers targeting that interest. This applies to all forms of advertising, not just commercial but also political and ideological influence.
Device fingerprinting
Device fingerprinting involves generating a unique identifier using a device’s hardware and software characteristics. Types include browser fingerprinting, mobile fingerprinting, desktop fingerprinting, and cross-device tracking. To assess how unique a browser is, users can test their setup via the Cover Your Tracks tool by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Different information will be collected, such as your operating system, language version, keyboard settings, screen resolution, font used, device make and model and more. The more data points collected, the more unique an individual’s device will be.
A common reason to use device fingerprinting is for advertising. Since each individual has a unique identifier, advertisers can distinguish individuals from one another and see which websites they visit based on past collected data.
Similar to cookies, device fingerprinting is not purely about advertising, as it has some legitimate security purposes. Device fingerprinting, as it creates a unique ID of a device, allows websites to recognise a user’s device. This is useful to combat fraud. For instance, if a known device suddenly logs in from an unknown fingerprint, fraud detection mechanisms may flag and block the login attempt.
Legal considerations
Apart from societal impacts, there are legal considerations to be made, specifically concerning fundamental rights. In the EU and Europe, Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are what give rise to the protection of personal data in the first place. They form the legal bedrock of digital privacy legislation, such as the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive. Stemming from the GDPR, there is a protection against unlawful, unfair and opaque processing of personal data.
Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
For tracking to be carried out lawfully, one of the six legal bases of the GDPR must be relied upon. In this case, tracking is usually only lawful if the legal basis of consent is relied upon (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, which stems from Article 5(1) of the ePrivacy Directive).
Other legal bases, such as the legitimate interest of a business, may allow for limited analytical cookies to be placed, of which the cookies referred to in this analysis are not.
Regardless of this, to obtain consent, website visitors must ensure that consent is collected prior to processing occurring, freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. In most cases of website tracking, consent is not collected prior to processing.
In practice, this means that before a consent request is fulfilled by a website visitor, cookies are placed on the user’s device. There are additional concerns about consent not being informed, as users do not know what processing personal data to enable tracking entails.
Moreover, consent is not specific to what is necessary to the processing, given that processing occurs for broad and unspecified reasons, such as improving visitor experience and understanding the website better, and those explanations are generic and broad.
Further, tracking is typically unfair as users do not expect to be tracked across sites or have digital profiles made about themselves based on website visits. Tracking is also opaque, as users do not understand how tracking occurs. Website owners state that tracking occurs with a lack of explanation on how it occurs in the first place. Users do not know for how long it occurs, what personal data is being used to track or how it benefits website owners.
Can we refuse tracking
In theory, it is possible to prevent tracking from the get-go. This can be done by refusing to give consent when tracking occurs. However, in practice, refusing consent can still lead to tracking. Outlined below are two concrete examples of this happening daily.
Cookies
Regarding cookies, simply put, the refusal of all requests is not honoured, it is ignored. Studies have found that when a user visits a website and refuses to give consent, their request is not honoured. Cookies and similar tracking technologies are placed on the user’s device as if they had accepted cookies.
This increases user frustration as they are given a choice that is non-existent. This occurs as non-essential cookies, which can be refused, are lumped together with essential cookies, which cannot be refused. Therefore, when refusing consent to non-essential cookies, not all are refused, as some are mislabelled.
Another reason for this occurrence is that cookies are placed before consent is sought. Often, website owners outsource cookie banner compliance to more experienced companies. These websites use consent management platforms (CMPs) such as Cookiebot by Usercentrics or One Trust.
When verifying when cookies are placed via these CMPs, the option to load cookies after consent is sought needs to be manually selected. Therefore, website owners need to have knowledge about consent requirements to understand that cookies are not to be placed prior to consent being sought.
Another example is related to Google Consent Mode (GCM). GCM is relevant to mention here as Google is the most common third-party tracker on the web, thus the most likely tracker users will encounter. They have a vast array of trackers ranging from statistics, analytics, preferences, marketing and more. GCM essentially creates a path for website analytics to occur despite consent being refused. This occurs as GCM claims that it can send cookieless ping signals to user devices to know how many users have viewed a website, clicked on a page, searched a term, etc.
This is a novel solution Google is presenting, and it claims to be privacy-friendly, as no cookies are required for this to occur. However, a study on tags, specifically GCM tags, found that GCM is not privacy-friendly and infringes the GDPR. The study found that Google still collects personal data in these ‘cookieless ping signals’ such as user language, screen resolution, computer architecture, user agent string, operating system and its version, complete web page URL and search keywords. Since this data is collected and processed despite the user refusing consent, there are undoubtedly legal issues.
The first reason comes from the lawfulness general principle whereby Google has no lawful basis to process this personal data as the user refused consent, and no other legal basis is used. The second reason stems from the general principle of fairness, as users do not expect that, after refusing trackers and choosing the more privacy-friendly option, their data is still processed as if their consent choice did not matter.
Therefore, from Google’s perspective, GCM is privacy-friendly as no cookies are placed, thus no consent is required to be sought. However, a recent study revealed that personal data is still being processed without any permission or legal basis.
What next?
On an individual level:
Many solutions have been developed for individuals to reduce the tracking they are subject to. From browser extensions to using devices that are more privacy-friendly and using ad blockers. One notable company tackling this issue is Duck Duck Go, which by default rejects trackers, allows for email protection, and overall reduces trackers when using their browser. Duck Duck Go is not the only company to allow this, many more, such as uBlock Origin and Ghostery, offer similar services.
Specifically, regarding fingerprint ID, researchers have developed ways to prevent device fingerprinting. In 2023, researchers proposed ShieldF, which is a Chromium add-on that reduces fingerprinting for mobile apps and browsers. Other measures include using an IP address that many people use, which is not ideal for home Wi-Fi. Using a combination of a browser extension and a VPN is also unsuitable for every individual, as this demands a substantial amount of effort and sometimes financial costs.
On a systemic level:
CMPs and GCM are active tracking stakeholders in the tracking ecosystem, and their actions are subject to enforcement bodies. In this case, predominantly data protection authorities (DPA). One prominent DPA working on cookie enforcement is the Dutch DPA, the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP). In the early months of 2025, the AP has publicly stated that its focus for this upcoming year will be to check cookie compliance. They announced that they would be investigating 10,000 websites in the Netherlands. This has led to investigations into companies with unlawful cookie banners, concluding with warnings and sanctions.
However, these investigations require extensive time and effort. DPAs have already stated that they are overworked and do not have enough personnel or financial resources to cope with the increase in responsibility. Coupled with the fact that sanctioned companies set aside financial pots for these sanctions, or that non-EU businesses do not comply with DPA sanction decisions (the case of Clearview AI). Different ways to tackle non-compliance should be investigated.
For example, in light of the GDPR simplification package, whilst simplifying some measures, other liability measures could be introduced to ensure that enforcement is as vigorous as the legislation itself. The EU has not shied away from holding management boards liable for non-compliance. In a separate legislation on cybersecurity, NIS II Article 20(1) states that ‘management bodies of essential and important entities approve the cybersecurity risk-management measures (…) can be held liable for infringements (…)’. That article allows for board member liability for specific cybersecurity risk-management measures in Article 21. If similar measures cannot be introduced during this time, other moments of amendment can be consulted for this.
Conclusion
Cookies and device fingerprinting are two common ways in which tracking occurs. The potential larger societal and legal consequences of tracking demand that existing robust legislation is enforced to ensure that past politically related historical mistakes are not repeated.
Ultimately, there is no way to completely prevent fingerprinting and cookie-based tracking without significantly compromising the user’s browsing experience. For this reason, the burden of responsibility must shift toward CMPs. This shift should begin with the implementation of privacy-by-design and privacy-by-default principles in the development of their tools (preventing cookie placement prior to consent seeking).
Accountability should occur through tangible consequences, such as liability for board members in cases of negligence. By attributing responsibility to the companies which develop cookie banners and facilitate trackers, the source of the problem can be addressed and held accountable for their human rights violations.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The women’s dating safety app Tea has suspended its messaging feature following a cyberattack that exposed thousands of private messages, posts and images.
The app, which helps women run background checks on men, confirmed that direct messages were accessed during the initial breach disclosed in late July.
Tea has 1.6 million users, primarily in the US. Affected users will be contacted directly and offered free identity protection services, including credit monitoring and fraud alerts.
The company said it is working to strengthen its security and will provide updates as the investigation continues. Some of the leaked conversations reportedly contain sensitive discussions about infidelity and abortion.
Experts have warned that the leak of both images and messages raises the risk of emotional harm, blackmail or identity theft. Cybersecurity specialists recommend that users accept the free protection services as soon as possible.
The breach affected those who joined the app before February 2024, including users who submitted ID photos that Tea had promised would be deleted after verification.
Tea is known for allowing women to check if a potential partner is married or has a criminal record, as well as share personal experiences to flag abusive or trustworthy behaviour.
The app’s recent popularity surge has also sparked criticism, with some claiming it unfairly targets men. As users await more information, experts urge caution and vigilance.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Altman also expressed concerns about the potential misuse of AI, such as using voice cloning for fraud and identity theft. He emphasised the need for stronger privacy protections for sensitive conversations with AI tools like ChatGPT, noting that current standards are inadequate and should align with those for therapists.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
ChatGPT has become an everyday tool for many, serving as a homework partner, a research aid, and even a comforting listener. But questions are beginning to emerge about the emotional bonds users form with it. A recent LinkedIn post has reignited the debate around AI overuse.
Simrann M Bhambani, a marketing professional at Flipkart, publicly shared her decision to delete ChatGPT from her devices. In a post titled ‘ChatGPT is TOXIC! (for me)’, she described how casual interaction escalated into emotional dependence. The platform began to resemble a digital therapist.
Bhambani admitted to confiding every minor frustration and emotional spiral to the chatbot. Its constant availability and non-judgemental replies gave her a false sense of security. Even with supportive friends, she felt drawn to the machine’s quiet reliability.
What began as curiosity turned into compulsion. She found herself spending hours feeding the bot intrusive thoughts and endless questions. ‘I gave my energy to something that wasn’t even real,’ she wrote. The experience led to more confusion instead of clarity.
Rather than offering mental relief, the chatbot fuelled her overthinking. The emotional noise grew louder, eventually becoming overwhelming. She realised that the problem wasn’t the technology itself, but how it quietly replaced self-reflection.
Deleting the app marked a turning point. Bhambani described the decision as a way to reclaim mental space and reduce digital clutter. She warned others that AI tools, while useful, can easily replace human habits and emotional processing if left unchecked.
Many users may not notice such patterns until they are deeply entrenched. AI chatbots are designed to be helpful and responsive, but they lack the nuance and care of human conversation. Their steady presence can foster a deceptive sense of intimacy.
People increasingly rely on digital tools to navigate their daily emotions, often without understanding the consequences. Some may find themselves withdrawing from human relationships or journalling less often. Emotional outsourcing to machines can significantly change how people process personal experiences.
Industry experts have warned about the risks of emotional reliance on generative AI. Chatbots are known to produce inaccurate or hallucinated responses, especially when asked to provide personal advice. Sole dependence on such tools can lead to misinformation or emotional confusion.
Companies like OpenAI have stressed that ChatGPT is not a substitute for professional mental health support. While the bot is trained to provide helpful and empathetic responses, it cannot replace human judgement or real-world relationships. Boundaries are essential.
Mental health professionals also caution against using AI as an emotional crutch. Reflection and self-awareness take time and require discomfort, which AI often smooths over. The convenience can dull long-term growth and self-understanding.
Bhambani’s story has resonated with many who have quietly developed similar habits. Her openness has sparked important discussions on emotional hygiene in the age of AI. More users are starting to reflect on their relationship with digital tools.
Social media platforms are also witnessing an increased number of posts about AI fatigue and cognitive overload. People are beginning to question how constant access to information and feedback affects emotional well-being. There is growing awareness around the need for balance.
AI is expected to become even more integrated into daily life, from virtual assistants to therapy bots. Recognising the line between convenience and dependency will be key. Tools are meant to serve, not dominate, personal reflection.
Developers and users alike must remain mindful of how often and why they turn to AI. Chatbots can complement human support systems, but they are not replacements. Bhambani’s experience serves as a cautionary tale in the age of machine intimacy.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
