Uncategorized

Summary

This Internet Governance Forum session focused on identifying allies and challenges in combating disinformation while protecting freedom of expression. The discussion brought together representatives from European institutions, fact-checking organizations, and civil society to examine the complex landscape of information integrity.

Paola Gori from EDMO (European Digital Media Observatory) opened by highlighting the dual challenge facing democracies: the spread of disinformation through various channels including AI-generated content, and the growing rhetoric against policy frameworks designed to address disinformation. She emphasized that effective responses must be grounded in fundamental rights while focusing on algorithmic transparency and multi-stakeholder approaches rather than content deletion.

Benjamin Schultz from the American Sunlight Project described the deteriorating situation in the United States, where democracy is backsliding and platforms are moving closer to the administration. However, he offered hope through recent bipartisan success in banning non-consensual deepfake pornography, suggesting that collaboration on specific issues with broad support could maintain transatlantic cooperation.

Nordic representatives Mikko Salo from Finland and Morten Langfeldt Dahlback from Norway provided regional perspectives on the challenges. Salo emphasized the urgent need for AI literacy and teacher training, particularly in trust-based Nordic societies. Dahlback raised three critical concerns: deteriorating access to platform data for research, the delicate balance between independence and government cooperation for fact-checkers, and the shift from observable public disinformation to private AI chatbot interactions that fact-checkers cannot monitor.

Alberto Rabbachin from the European Commission outlined the EU’s comprehensive framework, including the Digital Services Act and the Code of Practice on Disinformation, which now covers 42 signatories with 128 specific measures. He stressed that the EU supports independent fact-checking organizations rather than determining what constitutes disinformation itself.

The discussion concluded with recognition that the battle against disinformation is evolving from reactive fact-checking toward proactive media literacy and user empowerment, as AI makes the information landscape increasingly complex and personalized.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **The complexity of disinformation as a global phenomenon**: Speakers emphasized that disinformation is not a simple problem with easy solutions, involving state and non-state actors, AI-generated content, and targeting various issues like elections, health, climate change, and migration. The phenomenon creates doubt and division in society while eroding information integrity essential for democratic processes.

– **Regulatory approaches and the tension between content moderation and freedom of expression**: The discussion covered various policy frameworks including the EU’s Digital Services Act, UNESCO guidelines, and the Global Digital Compact. There’s ongoing debate about balancing disinformation countermeasures with protecting fundamental rights and free speech, with speakers noting that emotional rhetoric often overshadows factual assessment of these policies.

– **Transatlantic divergence and changing political landscape**: Speakers highlighted growing differences between US and European approaches to platform regulation and content moderation, particularly following recent political changes in the US. This includes concerns about democratic backsliding, reduced cooperation between platforms and fact-checkers, and threats to research access.

– **The shift from reactive fact-checking to proactive media literacy**: Multiple speakers discussed the evolution from traditional fact-checking and content debunking toward empowering users with digital and AI literacy skills. This shift is driven partly by the rise of AI chatbots that generate personalized responses invisible to external fact-checkers.

– **Challenges in understanding the scope and impact of disinformation**: Speakers noted difficulties in measuring the actual extent of disinformation due to limited platform transparency, reduced research access, and the complexity of distinguishing disinformation from the broader information ecosystem. This knowledge gap hampers effective policy responses.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the current landscape of internet governance and disinformation, identifying key stakeholders (“friends and foes”) in the fight against false information while exploring policy approaches, challenges, and future directions for maintaining information integrity in democratic societies.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional but increasingly concerned tone throughout. It began with a comprehensive, somewhat optimistic overview of existing frameworks and cooperation mechanisms, but gradually became more sobering as speakers addressed current challenges including political polarization, regulatory divergence, and technological complications from AI. While speakers acknowledged significant obstacles, they maintained a constructive approach focused on finding solutions and maintaining international cooperation despite growing difficulties.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator (Giacomo)** – Session moderator organizing the discussion on Internet Governance and disinformation

– **Paula Gori** – Secretary General of EDMO (European Digital Media Observatory), the body tasked by the European Union for fighting disinformation

– **Benjamin Shultz** – Works for American Sunlight Project, a non-profit based in Washington D.C. that analyzes and fights back against information campaigns that undermine democracy; currently based in Berlin

– **Mikko Salo** – Representative of Faktabari, a Finnish NGO focused on fact-checking and digital information literacy services; part of the Nordic hub within EDMO network

– **Morten Langfeldt Dahlback** – From Faktisk, the Norwegian fact-checking organization jointly owned by major Norwegian media companies including public and commercial broadcasters; coordinator of Nordisk (the Nordic hub of EDMO)

– **Alberto Rabbachin** – Representative from the European Commission

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Eric Lambert** – Mentioned as being present to make the report of the session, described as “an essential figure” working “behind the scene”

– **Lou Kotny** – Retired American librarian who asked a question about EU bias regarding the Ukraine war

– **Thora** – PhD researcher from Iceland examining how large platforms and search engines undermine democracy; research fellow at the Humboldt Institute

– **Mohamed Aded Ali** – From Somalia, part of the RECIPE programme, asked about recognizing AI propaganda and digital integrity violations

# Internet Governance Forum Session: Combating Disinformation – Identifying Allies and Challenges

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum session brought together European policymakers, fact-checking organisations, and civil society representatives to examine the evolving landscape of disinformation and information integrity. Moderated by **Giacomo**, the discussion featured perspectives from EDMO, Nordic fact-checking organisations, the American Sunlight Project, and the European Commission.

The session highlighted the complexity of addressing disinformation while protecting fundamental rights, with speakers discussing challenges ranging from AI-generated content to platform transparency and the need for enhanced media literacy. Key themes included the evolution from reactive fact-checking to proactive education approaches, concerns about research access to platform data, and the importance of maintaining independence while fostering multi-stakeholder cooperation.

## Opening Framework and Context

**Paola Gori**, Secretary General of EDMO (European Digital Media Observatory), opened by characterising disinformation as a phenomenon that “creates doubt and division in society” while eroding information integrity essential for democratic decision-making. She noted that disinformation manifests across multiple domains – elections, health, climate change, and migration – involving both state and non-state actors, including increasingly sophisticated AI-generated content.

Gori outlined EDMO’s structure as a network of 14 hubs covering EU member states, soon expanding to 15 with Ukraine and Moldova, comprising more than 120 organizations. She referenced Eurobarometer survey results showing that 38% of Europeans consider disinformation one of the biggest threats to democracy, with 82% considering it a problem for democracy.

She positioned EDMO’s approach within broader global frameworks, including UNESCO guidelines and the Global Digital Compact, emphasising fundamental rights, algorithmic transparency, multi-stakeholder approaches, and risk mitigation rather than content deletion. Gori also highlighted concerning rhetoric against policy frameworks designed to address disinformation, noting that “emotional rhetoric often overshadows factual assessment of these policies.”

## Nordic Perspectives: Trust, Education, and Evolving Challenges

The moderator **Giacomo** opened the Nordic discussion by asking whether participants were “more afraid of neighbors or supposed friends,” prompting responses about regional security dynamics.

**Mikko Salo** from Faktabari in Finland responded by referencing Finland’s 50-year history of preparedness with neighbors, then emphasised the urgent need for AI literacy, particularly in trust-based Nordic societies. He introduced the concept of “AI native persons,” questioning how people who grow up with AI will develop critical thinking skills. His central argument was that “people need to develop AI literacy and learn to think critically before using AI tools.”

Salo also raised questions about societal investment in information integrity, referencing security spending and suggesting that cognitive security deserves significant attention as part of whole-of-society security approaches.

**Morten Langfeldt Dahlback** from Faktisk in Norway identified three critical concerns challenging current approaches to combating disinformation:

First, he highlighted deteriorating access to platform data for research, noting that “major platforms are limiting researcher access to data, with research APIs being more restricted than expected.” He expressed concern that “we don’t know enough about the scope of the problem, and we don’t know enough about its impact,” while “the conditions for gaining more knowledge about this problem have become worse.”

Second, Dahlback addressed the balance between independence and government cooperation for fact-checkers, observing that “once our objectives are aligned with the objectives of governments and of other regulatory and official bodies, it’s easy for others to throw our independence into doubt, because the alignment is too close.”

Third, he identified the shift from observable public disinformation to private AI chatbot interactions that fact-checkers cannot monitor. He explained that “when you use chatbots like ChatGPT or Claude, the information that you receive from the chatbot is not in the public sphere at all,” making traditional fact-checking approaches obsolete. This led him to suggest “a transition from more debunking and fact-checking work like what we’ve been engaged in so far to more literacy work.”

## Transatlantic Perspectives and Political Challenges

**Benjamin Shultz** from the American Sunlight Project described the deteriorating situation in the United States, characterising it as “democratic backsliding” with platforms moving closer to the administration. He described the current environment as one where “bad actors are becoming more active in spreading information campaigns that undermine democracy and tear at social fabric.”

However, Shultz offered a pragmatic path forward through recent bipartisan success in banning non-consensual deepfake pornography. He argued that “small steps like these that have been taken in the states that do have broad support” could maintain transatlantic cooperation despite broader political tensions.

## European Union Policy Framework and Implementation

**Alberto Rabbachin** from the European Commission provided an overview of the EU’s regulatory approach, emphasising that European frameworks focus on algorithmic transparency and platform accountability rather than content censorship.

Rabbachin outlined the Digital Services Act as “pioneering regulation that addresses disinformation while protecting freedom of expression by focusing on algorithm functioning rather than content.” He stressed that the EU supports independent fact-checking organisations rather than determining what constitutes disinformation itself, noting that “the EU supports an independent, multidisciplinary community of more than 120 organisations whose fact-checking work is completely independent from the European Commission and governments.”

He detailed the evolution of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, which has grown from 16 signatories with 21 commitments to 42 signatories with 43 commitments and 128 measures. He announced that this code would be fully integrated into the DSA framework as of July 1st, making it auditable and creating binding obligations for platform signatories.

Regarding research access to platform data, Rabbachin acknowledged the challenges while pointing to upcoming delegated acts designed to improve researcher access.

## Audience Engagement

The audience questions revealed additional concerns within the broader community working on information integrity issues.

**Thora**, a PhD researcher from Iceland, highlighted ongoing problems with academic access to platform data, noting that “large platforms are dragging their feet on providing academic access, claiming the EU needs to make definitions first.”

**Mohamed Aded Ali** from Somalia raised questions about recognising AI propaganda and digital integrity violations, highlighting the global nature of these challenges.

**Lou Kotny**, a retired American librarian, raised concerns about potential EU bias regarding the Ukraine war, introducing questions about how fact-checking organisations maintain objectivity in politically charged environments.

## Key Themes and Challenges

Several important themes emerged from the discussion:

**Shift Toward Media Literacy**: Multiple speakers emphasised the growing importance of media literacy and critical thinking education, with some suggesting this represents a necessary evolution from traditional fact-checking approaches.

**Platform Transparency Concerns**: Both researchers and fact-checkers expressed frustration with decreasing access to platform data needed for understanding and addressing disinformation.

**Independence vs. Cooperation**: The tension between maintaining organisational independence while cooperating with government initiatives emerged as a significant concern for civil society organisations.

**AI Challenges**: All speakers acknowledged that AI is fundamentally changing the disinformation landscape, making detection more difficult and requiring new approaches, particularly regarding private AI interactions that are not publicly observable.

**Local Context**: Speakers emphasised that disinformation responses must account for local cultural, political, and linguistic contexts.

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated the complexity of addressing disinformation while protecting fundamental rights and democratic values. While speakers agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation and media literacy, significant challenges remain around platform transparency, maintaining organisational independence, and adapting to new technologies.

The moderator concluded by noting that information integrity is becoming increasingly important and announced an upcoming workshop by BBC and Deutsche Welle. **Eric Lambert** was mentioned as the session’s rapporteur.

The discussion revealed a field grappling with fundamental changes in how information is created and consumed, particularly the shift from public, observable disinformation to private AI interactions that traditional oversight mechanisms cannot monitor.

Moderator: Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being so kind to be here so early in the morning, after a long trip to here, and to be for this session that will be about, as you have seen from the title, trying to understand who are the friends and who are the foes in this very complicated and unclear situation for the Internet Governance, and especially for the fight to disinformation. It’s a session that will have some participants with me here, from Nordic countries, one from Finland, another one from Norway, but also we will have other participants from remote. will be from Brussels, we will have somebody from the European Commission and we will have somebody from the, based in Berlin at the moment, but is one of the most active person in the fact-checking and countering disinformation in the U.S., and we will have Paola Gori that will open, that is from the EDMO, this is the Secretary General of EDMO, that is the body that the European Union has tasked for fighting disinformation. So, I think that we don’t have too much time, I would prefer that we start immediately. If Paola is ready, I will give the floor to her. Hello, good morning. Are you ready? Yes, she’s with us. Welcome, Paola. You look frozen.

Paula Gori: I guess you’re hearing me and are sharing also a quick presentation. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Can you hear me well? Yes, well, but we don’t see the presentation yet. She is coming. I see it on my screen, so just let me know when you see it. Yes, now we can see the first slide, it’s okay. Okay, great. Thank you very much, Giacomo. And good morning, everyone. I’m very happy to be in this, to start the day, actually, this day zero with this session. As Giacomo was saying, the overall IGF focus is on internet governance and within this topic, of course, disinformation is creating quite a few, quite a lot of, if you want, emotional reactions around. Also, in past editions of the IGF, and I think everybody here, what I just wanted to bring up here today, again, is this situation. which we are aware on one side, we have the spread of disinformation now. Be it from internal or from external actors, they are called different policies, big migration, climate change, elections, of course, health. They’re often very linked. For example, the same goes, for example, with disinformation and so on. And it can be spread internally and externally and by internal and external actors. It can be state-backed, it can be also not state-backed. There can be the use of proxies. There can be the use of artificial intelligence, both to generate content, but also to spread it. These are all things that I think we all know, as well as the fact that disinformation is there in a broader mission of creating doubt, creating division in our society, put us in a situation in which at a certain moment, we don’t actually are in a position to really be sure about stuff because we got so many information with so different facts or non-facts, actually. And this puts us in a very difficult situation overall. And this erodes, of course, the information integrity. Information integrity is key in a democratic process because, let’s put it in a very simple and easy way, if we want to take any decision, we have to have a basis on which we can make this decision. So if the basis is actually not based on facts, then we are in a situation in which we may make a decision which is not in our interest in the end. On the other side, what we are seeing more and more is a huge rhetoric against any policy framework that tries to tackle disinformation. One of the main arguments at the basis of this is the fact that it may violate freedom of expression, which if you look at it from a very neutral point of view, it’s a very fair concern because it is very important that whichever policy that deals with disinformation respects fundamental rights. fundamental rights and also freedom of expression, but the rhetoric that we’re seeing there is actually more if you want an emotional one rather than a rhetoric which actually looks at the real framework and then actually does a real assessment of whether freedom of expression is violated or not, because very often actually it is not. And the two reinforce each other. And this is something we are seeing globally. So I’m just setting the scene in a very global way. What we are seeing as approaches, and of course EDMO, and I will say a few words about EDMO. Those who are familiar with the IGF are also familiar with EDMO so far, because it’s not the first session we’re having here, is that whichever response to get back to information integrity starts of course with digital literacy, media literacy, with strengthening quality journalism and so on. And if you look at the global frameworks that we have around, like the Global Digital Compact, the guidelines by UNESCO on the governance of digital platforms, the recent communication by the High Representative and the European Commission on the communication on international digital strategy for the EU, and also the Digital Service Act, which is a regulation, there are a few elements which are common there, which are the fact that any response, as we were saying before, has to be grounded on fundamental values and the respect of human rights. We cannot transcend from it. It has to happen. The focus is rather on algorithmic and transparency. There should be a multi-stakeholder approach. This is, I think the IGF is actually one of the responses to that, right? So it’s really a multi-stakeholder level. It is based on risk mitigation, which means that it looks at the risk, at the way that the platforms, for example, or some online actors work, could have on certain elements, for example, public health, minors, civic discourse, and so on. So just to remind us that the focus is not on we delete content, we look at content, but rather on… we look at if the way the platforms work can actually be abused for malign purposes. So you just wanted to set the scene in highlighting these differences. And the instruments that I was mentioning earlier, I think show that we are all going into that direction so that the global principles overall are those. And then of course, the regional specificities, they rightly so also have differences. And this is normal. I don’t think we will ever, ever get to something which is global in this sense, but this is fine. As long as the principles are shared and the principles are all agreed, then I think that it is important to keep regional specificities also because, especially when it comes to this information, it is a global phenomenon, but the local characteristics are playing quite a strong role. Now, I will not go into this slide, but I just wanted to show these two slides. This is one is climate change is information. The next one will be on the economics of this information. Just to show how complicated it is to navigate the disinformation sphere. It’s not just one problem that is easy to understand and with an easy solution. This makes it very complicated, but probably also very interesting for everybody involved to try to address it. And I will not go through it as I was saying, but just, I wanted to just. So with this, in the interest of time, I will just, sorry? Can you repeat the last phrase, you break up? Yeah, sorry. So I just wanted to say that I was showing these slides, not to go through them because we don’t have time, but just to show how complex the disinformation phenomenon is. And by consequence, how complex it is also to find a solution. So I think it’s not by chance that it is years and years that we’re all together sitting, also sometimes disagreeing in trying to find a solution because the problem itself is complex and we cannot always simplify. complex situations, like in the case of disinformation, and you cannot simplify it precisely because human rights are at stake. So before giving the floor to our next panelist, I just wanted to recap for those who are not familiar with Edmo, what is Edmo doing and why was I showing all this complexity? Because the complexity brings us to a situation in which we have to understand properly the phenomenon in order to come with solutions, and the solutions cannot be just one solution, it’s a mix of different solutions. And what Edmo is doing, Edmo is funded by the European Commission and is one of the pillars of the response to disinformation, it’s precisely that. We are a sort of a platform that brings together the different stakeholders, it’s sort of like what the IGF is doing more generally on internet governance, we are bringing them all together. When possible, we are trying to provide tools like trainings or like repositories of fact-checking articles and so on. And by putting the community together, we are also in a position to find common trends, to do investigations, to do joint media literacy initiatives, to do policy analysis. So how are we doing it? Just to say that we have an Edmo platform, if you want, which goes EU-wide, and then we work with 14 hubs, which are national or multinational, they cover all EU member states. And these are key, because you remember what I was saying at the beginning, we cannot avoid looking at the local specificities when it comes to disinformation. Very easily said, the culture, the policy, the politics, the history, the language, the media diet of a country are actually having an impact on whether disinformation is impactful or not, if it is entering a country or not, and so on. So we really need the local element to be there, otherwise we would miss part of the picture. These hubs working all together under our coordination also allow us, as you can imagine, to do pan-European analysis, pan-European comparison, and so on. So I hope I was… clear enough to somehow set this scene. I started with the global element and then I focused a little more on the EU, and our next speakers will continue in this sense, and I think I can give it

Moderator: over to Benjamin Schultz. Thank you very much, Paula. Yes, from Europe you make a very comprehensive panorama. Now we go to the US. Benjamin, American Sunlight, can you introduce yourself? Yes. Am I coming through clear? No, no, you can go now. Oh, okay. Yeah. Is the audio okay? Yes,

Benjamin Shultz: please. Wonderful. Well, thank you so much, Giacomo, Paula. I saw Miko and Martin there on the screen. It’s great to be back here with you all at the IGF. This is a really wonderful gathering and I think a great place for dialogue, for understanding, for discussing the issues of the day and really remembering just how global and borderless and connected the internet makes us all. And of course, that leaves ample opportunity for bad actors to misuse the internet and all of its wonderful technologies to spread disinformation. My name is Ben. I work for the American Sunlight Project, a non-profit based in Washington, D.C., although I’m based in Berlin at the moment. And we analyze and fight back against information campaigns that undermine democracy and pollute our information environment. It’s no secret that in the US a lot has changed in the last six months. Things have shifted. We’ve noticed. Things have shifted greatly. And we’ve seen, just putting it frankly, democracy begin to backslide in the United States. We’ve seen bad actors become more active than ever in spreading information campaigns and using information operations to tear at the social fabric of the US. And we’ve also seen the platforms move closer and closer to the administration. really in a total sea change from the last four years and even the four years before that. We’ve seen people be denied entry to the US based on having critical text messages of the administration, something that really as an American, I thought I would never see happen to my country. And so in this day and age in which content moderation, the removal of harmful or illegal content online is being equated falsely to censorship, to a violation of the right to free speech, free expression, in order to really make progress on making our internet safer and continuing the work that we all do, we have to really start to reframe how we approach this. We have to start to think about new ways, new creative ways to maintain the alliance, the Transatlantic Alliance in these rough times. And so in the preparatory call that we all hopped on for this panel, I was told not to be so negative. So I’m gonna cut myself off there on the bad and we’re gonna shift to the good. And I’m gonna tell you all kind of how I’m approaching this reframing. As someone working in this space, someone whose organization has been called evil by a certain person that runs X and so forth, there’s some work we can do, I think, to maintain the progress that we’ve made in making the internet a safer, better place. Recently in the US, non-consensual explicit deepfakes, colloquially known as deepfake porn, have actually been made illegal. And this is a really groundbreaking achievement, advancement in our country. And it’s something that we’ve done a lot of advocacy work for a really long time. And finally, just in the last months, we had enough votes in Congress to make this happen. And this achieved wide bipartisan. support. And the way that we framed this is we actually showed Congress just how affected by this problem they were too. A lot of times our elected officials, you know, putting it frankly, maybe aren’t keeping up as in the weeds as we are with all of the things happening online. You know, they’re busy people, fair enough. And one action that we took was we wrote a report in which we laid out just in very plain terms how Congress was being affected by this problem, how people online of all ages, particularly young women, were being affected by this problem of being depicted in deepfakes. And we were able to push a bill over the finish line and it was signed recently. And now platforms have to take down deepfake videos after receiving a request from a victim within 48 hours. You know, there’s been plenty of criticism of this bill. It’s not perfect, but it was a really, it’s been a big step forward. And I think we’re going to get into a little bit more of this later on, on this panel, on, you know, the varying degrees of regulation in different European countries. Of course, Europe is a big continent. The EU is big 20, 26, 7, you know, plus a few more in the EEA member states. And there’s a lot of conflicting values and arguments around regulating content online. But my hope amidst all of the not-so-nice things happening in the U.S. right now and the, you know, unfortunate degradation of the transatlantic relationship, my hope is that with small steps like these that have been taken in the states that do have broad support, such as banning explicit deepfakes that are made non-consensually, my hope is that collaborating on these issues that Europe and the U.S. and countries all around the world can continue the dialogue and continue to make some progress on keeping the internet safe and making it safer. And so with that, I will stop myself and pass. it back to you, Giacomo, and the panel can continue and I’m sure we’ll have some good discussion coming up. Thank you very much, Benjamin. Just one question, you moved to Berlin before November or after November? I moved in January. The timing just sort of worked out, but you know.

Moderator: Very timely. Yeah. I can understand. Okay, thank you. I think that, I hope that we will have time for questions. I remember that there is a mic over there. As soon as we finish with the presentation, we will discuss with the audience, because I think there are questions that are coming. So, who’s next? Okay. Mikko, please introduce yourself. Thank you. You are one of the members

Mikko Salo: of the network that Edmo just presented us. So, my name is Mikko Salo. I’m representing a Finnish NGO around fact-checking and digital information literacy service, Faktabari. We are part of a Nordis, that is part of the Edmo, a kind of Nordic hub, and we’re working with Morten on that one. I probably kind of opened it up a little bit, my angle, civil society point of view, whereas I understood Morten is more like the journalistic side that we are working on. But yeah, indeed, very, very challenging times. We started 11 years ago, it was still like accuracy. I think now it’s more about the integrity of the information, and when you are coming from a country with a Finland that is now praised for its preparedness culture, so I try to phrase it like, where do we need to prepare now? And I think it’s very much to the information integrity and the kind of AI literacy that is very, very urgently needed. And there, our small NGO has been working with actually government officials, pushing them to get the kind of, retrain the teachers, and then providing guidance to teachers that are very lost, of course, with the AI at the moment. And why am I so worried as an organization, starting from fact-checking, is that what is happening to our information, what is happening to our sources? Do people really anymore know where the information stems from, and what kind of consequences it has, especially in trust-based societies like the Nordic societies? And so, these are big challenges. But what gives me some hope is that I can say that we are happy to be part of the EU context, that there is at least some sort of rulebook for the internet that is badly broken. There is like a raising awareness that we need to kind of know something. I think, as we’re speaking, they are currently in Hague actually framing what is security at the moment, and I would talk about the cognitive security at the moment. And then we are talking about the famous five percent of investment. investment to security, but now what I’m referring to is the 1.5, the whole of society’s security and the information integrity. And I think that’s the frame that we should be talking. In general, the media education investments are all over the world pretty non-existing at the moment. So there is a lot to improve, at least at the moment. Finland is apparently performing the best as we are doing it. If I would invest something now, and what we are trying to do in Finland is exactly going back to the basics, is still the children, the next generation. I think that’s where we have to find some sort of protection and ensure that before they first need to… I mean, this sounds kind of crazy, but they need to be able to think before they use AI. And I was just framing and I was actually asking the chat, how does it look like an AI native person? Because if we are not able to think ourselves, we are not able to use the AI as it’s meant at the moment. So I would perhaps leave you with these thoughts about the importance of the education and the possibilities that we have in empowering the teachers in different societies to at least address the youngsters for the information integrity. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mikko. Are you more afraid of your neighbours or your supposed friends? We are not afraid of our neighbours. We are prepared and there is a 50 years of history of that one. But we are, I mean, everybody has a lot to do with this information side and it’s very mental, so to say. And I think nobody’s too prepared for that one. And this is a new battlefield and we just need to take it calm and try to progress. And that’s why the IGF is doing very important work to keep a kind of internet somehow in place.

Moderator: Thank you very much. So before to give the floor to Morten, that is the next speaker, I want to remember that we have with us also Eric Lambert that will make the report of this and it’s an essential figure. He’s not with us, but he’s behind the scene. Morten, your organisation is partially also owned by the National Public Service Broadcaster.

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback: Among others, yes. So my name is Morten. I’m from Faktisken, the Norwegian fact-checking organisation. We’re jointly owned by all of the major media companies in Norway, including the public broadcaster and also the commercial public broadcaster, yes. So I’m going… I’m going to talk about three issues that I think are important in this context. So I’m both part of Faktisk, the fact checker, but I’m also the coordinator of Nordisk, so the hub of Edmo that Mikko and Fakta Barri is also part of. And the first point I want to raise is that we talk about disinformation and misinformation here. I think one of the core challenges that we face in responding to this problem is that we don’t know enough about the scope of the problem, and we don’t know enough about its impact, either at least in a lot of domains. And I think the conditions for gaining more knowledge about this problem have become worse over the past few months. So the reason why it’s becoming worse is because of regulatory divergence between Europe and the US. So up until about a year ago, several legislations came into being which were supposed to increase transparency from major tech platforms, forcing them to provide more information to independent fact checkers, but also to researchers. And I think this is one. Except one. Except one, of course. The legislation was supposed to apply to all of them, but X didn’t refuse to be part of the legislation. That is correct. But we see that there were already this last year, there were some, or this year, there were some signs that things were deteriorating when MEDA closed down the fact checking program in the US. And we were expecting them to do so in Europe as well. That hasn’t happened, fortunately. But we think these programs that allow us to gain more knowledge about the disinformation phenomenon are probably under threat, which is going to make our life more difficult. But there is a different problem here as well. It’s very hard to, because of the wealth of information that is online in the first place, it’s very difficult to estimate the scope of disinformation there. So you can see when Paula, for example, shows you a model of the disinformation phenomenon, it’s very complex. It has a lot of variables. And it’s very difficult to disentangle just the overall composition of platforms, the algorithms there from disinformation, misinformation specifically. So I think it’s become more difficult to obtain knowledge about this phenomenon. And that hampers the size, the scope of our response. So I think we have a fundamental problem there. It’s probably solvable, but it’s something that worries me. The second thing I want to address is the relationship between policymakers and political bodies and independent actors, like Faktisk, for example, and like Faktabari, now that disinformation and misinformation is, to a greater extent, on the political agenda. So I think, overall, it’s a good thing that both governments and the European Union and others are attempting to limit the impact and the spread of disinformation. But it also places independent actors in a difficult position, because we need to be and maintain our independence from governments and from regulatory bodies in order to do our job and to maintain the trust of our audience. And once our objectives are aligned with the objectives of governments and of other regulatory and official bodies, I think it’s easy for others to throw our independence into doubt, because the alignment is too close. And this is, I think, a very important problem. I think something that both we as fact checkers and as hubs of Edmo, but also the political bodies need to work out over the next couple of years to figure out what would be the right kind of cooperative coexistence between journalistic organizations that have been at the forefront of the battle against disinformation for years and governmental bodies as well. I think it’s a difficult challenge, but it’s one that we are in the process of addressing. The final point I want to address has to do with something that Mikko just mentioned, which is he asked that GPT to give him some information that would be relevant, pertinent to this session. And I think this to me raises the challenge that we may, when we talk about mis- and disinformation, may be fighting yesterday’s battles. Because up until now, the way we have related to mis- and disinformation, both as consumers, accidental consumers maybe, but also as organizations that try to address it as a problem, is that we know that the disinformation and misinformation that’s out there is usually observable from the outside. And that means that we can see posts on Facebook. We can see videos on TikTok. They might be algorithmically delivered to individual people on their private feed, but the content is out there in the open. However, when you use chatbots like ChatGPT or Clod, which is you can use whichever you want, the information that you receive from the chatbot is not in the public sphere at all. It’s a response generated on the basis of a prompt that you give to the language model, which means that we, as fact-checkers, for example, are unable, we can’t see what responses you’re getting. And the more information consumption is driven into chatbots, the less we will be able to observe the misinformation out there, and the less able we will be to respond to it as well. So I don’t have a solution to this. I think what’s going to happen if this development accelerates is that literacy and information literacy will be much more important than it is today, because it will be up to the individual consumer and the individual user of chatbots and LLMs to actually assess the information that they’re being provided. So I think we might see a transition from more debunking and fact-checking work like what we’ve been engaged in so far to more literacy work, and really empowering people to think critically about the outputs of chatbots, for example. So I’m going to close there. I think we will see some big changes in the battle against misinformation in the coming years, but it really depends on both the regulatory divergence between the US and Europe, but also the AI development and usage of AI in the general public. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much. I think that this last thing that you said are food for thought, so we need to reflect on that. But who has to reflect more is probably the European Commission that is with us in the form of Alberto Rabacin. This shift from the fact-checking to media literacy and empowerment of the users. You agree with that?

Alberto Rabbachin: Thank you, Giacomo. for this question. Indeed, this is, I hope you can hear me well. Yes, we can hear you well. This is certainly a shift that is happening and we are acknowledging that. And I would like to make, show you a few slides that I have prepared to accompany my presentation. Just give me a second that I make this happening. Yep. You should be able to see it. Yes, it’s coming. Okay. Still black, but we hope that we’ll see it in a second. Yes, now we can. Okay. So yes, indeed. So what do we, from the European Commission point of view, what we have in place, you know, is a framework which is quite a richer framework trying to, you know, preserve the integrity of the information sphere. It’s not necessarily, it’s a problem of content but it’s also a problem of functioning of the information ecosystem, of the digital information ecosystem. And first of all, I think we have to make sure that also the citizen that, the European citizen are also themselves considering disinformation and misinformation and information integrity as an issue, you know, as a problem, as a challenge. And in fact, the latest Eurobarometer survey from 2023 and 2024 had made the head of the European election had shown that 38% of the European consider, you know, disinformation, misinformation, one of the biggest threat to democracy. There is really also recently 82% of the Europeans consider that this information is a problem for democracy and they are aware, most of them are aware of this problem. So we are doing something that is perceived as useful by the citizen and also where we have to look at when we try to address the disinformation phenomenon. Certainly also from the citizen point of view, social media, online social network are the sources of the problem, the biggest source of the problem. And this also reflects the technological development that we have witnessed in the last 10 years, where the digital online information ecosystem became the main source of information. Of course, you mentioned also, some of you mentioned also, the role of AI and certainly the use of AI. Of course, AI opens a lot of opportunities in all sectors, but can also be used for malicious activity. And also thanks to Edmo, we are currently monitoring the amount of disinformation that is linked to content that has been generated by AI. And we see that this type of content is taking up. And we have witnessed this in particular in the latest national election in Europe. But what is the EU doing? First of all, we are working with partners among EU countries, with other countries outside the European border and with international organizations, and we are very happy. happy to be here talking about this important subject. Of course, there is also a very important mission, which is rising awareness and communicating about this phenomenon. I think Edmo is doing a great job with his network to also inform the citizen on the different forms that this phenomenon can take. Of course, we are also promoting access to independent media, to fact-check content. We support media literacy activity. And then we also foster this, in particular, around the Code of Conduct on Disinformation. We foster this cooperation between social media platform and civil society organization. Last but not least, of course, there is a pioneering regulation, which is the Digital Services Act. The Digital Services Act is the first global legal standard for taking disinformation, while protecting freedom of expression and information. This regulation does not look at content, but looks how the content is distributed based on, looks at the functioning of the algorithm, looks at avoiding that malicious actor abuse this algorithm to spread disinformation, to manipulate public discourse, to create different systemic risk. It gives to the Commission strong investigatory powers, which is also helping increasing transparency on the functioning of social media platform. Then we have, I mentioned, the Code of Conduct on Disinformation. The most recent development is that the Code of Practices on Disinformation has now been brought within the co-regulatory framework of the DSA. So it becomes a meaningful benchmark. for a very large online platform to fulfil the DSA requirement from, of course, the disinformation point of view. It contains a large set of commitment and measure. And then there is the third pillar, which is societal resilience. I will put AdMob under this basket. As I said, AdMob is a great tool that we support to increase awareness about the phenomenon of disinformation through the detection and the analysis of it. We have supported also the creation of the highest ethical and professional standard in the fact-checking for fact-checking in Europe. And we finance a lot of media literacy activities. This is a little bit of story of the code. We started back in 2018 with 16 signatory and 21 commitments. Now we are in 2025, 42 signatory with a very granular code that includes 43 commitments and 128 measures. As of the 1st of July, the code, as I mentioned before, we fully enter into the DSA framework and will be auditable. So this is also the big transformation that we are doing with this moving the code under the DSA. So the signatory of the code will need to be audited on the implementation of the code. This will be an obligation under the DSA. I’m not spending a lot of words on the code because maybe people are familiar, but the code wants to take several areas that are relevant for the disinformation phenomenon. The monetization of disinformation, transparency of political advertising. We also have new regulation coming into place, reducing manipulative behavior, empower user, empower fact-checkers, and provide access to data for research purposes. And then I’m concluding. you know, you have seen and it’s really a pleasure to see that in this panel there are a lot of admiral representatives. It was a huge effort from our side to create this network of 14 hubs, soon to be 15. We will have a new hub coming up which aligns to the new strategy for international cooperation of the European Union. We will have a new hub that will cover also Ukraine and Moldova, which are a critical regional spot if we want to fight disinformation. And let me also remind that maybe it’s not clear to everyone how big is this network. EDMO includes more than 120 organizations across the EU, including Norway and soon also Ukraine and Moldova. And last but not least, you mentioned it at the beginning, Giacomo, media literacy. Media literacy is an aspect that appears in different parts of our strategy. It is a part of our policy and regulatory framework, both in the DSA and in the European Media Freedom Act. We have a media literacy expert group. We also have the new European Board for Media Services that has a subgroup on media literacy. EDMO is doing great activities, in particular at the local level, with initiatives that are tailored to the needs of the different member states, and in particular to Creative Europe. And through pilot projects, we support a lot of cross-border media literacy activities. I will stop here and give you back the floor. Thank you very much, Alberto. We are quite late, but I don’t want to spoil the audience from the possibility to raise questions. I see that already there is somebody there. Could you introduce yourself, please? Yes, my name is Lou Kotny.

Audience: I’m a retired American librarian over here for my younger Norwegian-American children. On LinkedIn, I have a white paper about the Ukraine war titled Biden-Blinken’s War Beginning Holocaust Objective Facts Footnoted. And two big lies are being pushed by the European Union, by Europeans. First of all, Kyiv 2014 was an outside agitated coup for four objective reasons, which I put in my paper. Secondly, the attack in 2022 was provoked by Zelensky himself, pumped up by the Europeans in Munich, threatening Ukraine, getting nuclear weapons. And finally, which really concerns me, Europe is voting against the annual United Nations anti-Nazi resolution, which sort of is self-defining, self-incriminating that we are quizzling collaborators. Now, my question is, if the EU is so bias, pro-war biased, shouldn’t the United Nations keep it at far arm’s length as far as judging what’s misinformation and disinformation? Thank you for letting me ask my question. Thank you. Other questions from the room? Okay, in the meantime, Alberto, do you want to answer to this first question while, oh, yes, please, go ahead. There’s a second question. Hi. My name is Thora. I’m a PhD researcher from Iceland examining how very large platforms and search engines are undermining democracy. I am asking about academic access because this is a big problem, and I’ve been a research fellow at the Humboldt Institute where they have Friends of the DSA, which is a group of academics who are trying to gain this access, but the large platforms are dragging their feet and claiming that EU has to make a few definitions in order for this to start, and I’m wondering what is the status of academic access, and what should we start with? Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Do you want to answer to this, and then Alberto will give the other question?

Moderator: Yes, I can just echo what was just said from the audience.

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback: We recently tried to run a project where we were supposed to work with researchers to extract information from one of the major platforms, and we noticed very quickly that the research APIs where you can actually extract information was much more limited than we had expected. So, I think this is a major problem that a lot of people experience, and it definitely

Moderator: has not been fixed yet. Okay. So, Alberto, do you have some element of answer to the first question? And probably you have to complement what has been said about access to the data from the platforms. That is essential for understanding what happens.

Alberto Rabbachin: Yes, Giacomo. On the first question, and this is an important element that I want to stress, when we talk about detection of disinformation, analysis of disinformation, We don’t want to be the one calling the shots. We are supporting an independent, multidisciplinary community, which is represented by EDMO here, 120 organisations, which are selected by independent experts. And the work that they do in fact-checking and analysing this information is completely independent not only from the European Commission, but also from other EU governments. And this is really something that we really are taking care of and we want to be preserved. On the second question, I think there is the Digital Services Act that obliges platforms to provide data for research activity. There is an upcoming delegated act that should also move the bar up or down, let’s say, in terms of providing more access to researchers in Europe for doing their work.

Moderator: I think this is fundamental to have a better understanding of the phenomenon and therefore to design proper policy responses. Thank you very much. I think that we’ve run out of time. There is one more question. Yes, please. Thank you very much.

Audience: My name is Mohamed Aded Ali. I’m from Somalia. I’m part of the RECIPE programme. Recognising artificial AI propaganda in terms of digital integrity violations involves identifying when AI technologies are misused to deceive, manipulate or misinform individuals or groups. These violations can threaten trust, prosperity, ethical standards and digital communication. My question is, how can EU rulers recognise this in terms of internet integrity? Thank you.

Moderator: In terms of the internet? Internet and digital integrity, based on EU rules. I think that we can give a generic answer, that is, that the information integrity becomes now more and more, as Mikko said before, the relevant point, because especially we will have to face, thanks to the artificial intelligence, a flood of disinformation. automatically made and so becomes more and more important to identify which are the reliable sources and if the information has been manipulated and this according to what Martin was saying before will become more and more difficult. So a mix of rules as European Union is trying to do and work on the on the media integrity made by the media and the journalists is absolutely essential to try to to face this unpredictable future. Thank you very much. Sorry that we didn’t gave you too much answers but we share with you a lot of questions but this is the times we are living and we hope that in the next days we can we can find some other answers from other partners. I just remember you that in few minutes we’ll start in workshop room number two a seminar by BBC and Deutsche Welle that is about how the public service could remediate to part of the problems that we have faced this morning. Thank you very much everybody for participating and I wish you a nice IGF and thank you for coming again. Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for addressing disinformation

Speakers

– Paula Gori
– Alberto Rabbachin
– Moderator

Arguments

EDMO serves as a platform bringing together different stakeholders, similar to IGF’s approach to internet governance

The EU supports an independent, multidisciplinary community of 120+ organizations whose fact-checking work is completely independent from the European Commission and governments

The session aims to understand who are friends and foes in the complicated situation of Internet Governance and the fight against disinformation

Summary

All speakers agree that combating disinformation requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders including civil society, government, platforms, and international organizations, while maintaining independence of fact-checking organizations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Local context and specificities are crucial for effective disinformation response

Speakers

– Paula Gori
– Mikko Salo

Arguments

Local specificities in culture, politics, and language are crucial for understanding how disinformation impacts different countries

Investment in media education is crucial, particularly for children who need to learn critical thinking before using AI tools

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that disinformation responses must account for local cultural, political, and linguistic contexts, with tailored approaches for different countries and communities

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Media literacy and education are fundamental to combating disinformation

Speakers

– Mikko Salo
– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Alberto Rabbachin
– Moderator

Arguments

Investment in media education is crucial, particularly for children who need to learn critical thinking before using AI tools

There may be a necessary shift from fact-checking and debunking work toward more literacy work and empowering people to think critically

Media literacy appears across multiple policy frameworks and is supported through various EU initiatives and expert groups

There is a shift from fact-checking to media literacy and user empowerment that needs reflection, particularly by policymakers

Summary

All speakers agree that media literacy and critical thinking education are becoming increasingly important, potentially more so than reactive fact-checking approaches

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

AI is creating new challenges for disinformation detection and response

Speakers

– Paula Gori
– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Alberto Rabbachin
– Mikko Salo
– Moderator

Arguments

The disinformation phenomenon is extremely complex with multiple variables, making it difficult to find simple solutions while protecting human rights

The shift toward AI chatbots creates invisible information consumption that fact-checkers cannot observe or respond to effectively

AI-generated disinformation is increasing and was particularly witnessed in recent European elections

People need to develop AI literacy and learn to think critically before using AI tools

Information integrity and reliable source identification become increasingly important due to AI-generated disinformation floods

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that AI is fundamentally changing the disinformation landscape, making detection more difficult and requiring new approaches to combat AI-generated false content

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for regulatory approaches that focus on algorithmic transparency and platform functioning rather than direct content moderation, emphasizing protection of fundamental rights and freedom of expression

Speakers

– Paula Gori
– Alberto Rabbachin

Arguments

Global frameworks emphasize fundamental rights, algorithmic transparency, multi-stakeholder approaches, and risk mitigation rather than content deletion

The Digital Services Act is pioneering regulation that addresses disinformation while protecting freedom of expression by focusing on algorithm functioning rather than content

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both express frustration with limited platform data access for research purposes, highlighting that platforms are not providing adequate transparency despite regulatory requirements

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Audience

Arguments

Major platforms are limiting researcher access to data, with research APIs being more restricted than expected

Academic access to platform data remains problematic, with platforms claiming definitional issues prevent compliance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers express concerns about threats to democratic institutions and the challenges of maintaining independence while working to combat disinformation

Speakers

– Benjamin Shultz
– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Arguments

Bad actors are becoming more active in spreading information campaigns that undermine democracy and tear at social fabric

Independent actors like fact-checkers face challenges maintaining independence from governments while their objectives align with official bodies

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Shift from reactive fact-checking to proactive media literacy

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Mikko Salo
– Alberto Rabbachin
– Moderator

Arguments

There may be a necessary shift from fact-checking and debunking work toward more literacy work and empowering people to think critically

Investment in media education is crucial, particularly for children who need to learn critical thinking before using AI tools

Media literacy appears across multiple policy frameworks and is supported through various EU initiatives and expert groups

There is a shift from fact-checking to media literacy and user empowerment that needs reflection, particularly by policymakers

Explanation

It’s unexpected that fact-checkers themselves (Dahlback) are advocating for a shift away from their traditional reactive approach toward proactive education, with broad agreement from policymakers and civil society representatives

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Complexity requires nuanced rather than simple solutions

Speakers

– Paula Gori
– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Alberto Rabbachin

Arguments

The disinformation phenomenon is extremely complex with multiple variables, making it difficult to find simple solutions while protecting human rights

There is insufficient knowledge about the scope and impact of disinformation, and conditions for gaining this knowledge are deteriorating

The Digital Services Act is pioneering regulation that addresses disinformation while protecting freedom of expression by focusing on algorithm functioning rather than content

Explanation

Unexpected consensus among different stakeholder types (NGO, fact-checker, policymaker) that simple solutions are inadequate and that the complexity of disinformation requires sophisticated, multi-faceted approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation, importance of media literacy education, challenges posed by AI-generated disinformation, and the necessity of protecting fundamental rights while addressing disinformation. There is also agreement on the importance of local context and the complexity of the phenomenon requiring nuanced solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers despite representing different sectors (EU policy, fact-checking, civil society, US perspective). The consensus suggests a mature understanding of disinformation challenges and broad agreement on fundamental principles, though implementation details may vary. This strong alignment across different stakeholder groups indicates potential for effective collaborative approaches to combating disinformation while preserving democratic values.

Different viewpoints

Approach to combating disinformation: regulatory vs. independence concerns

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Alberto Rabbachin

Arguments

Independent actors like fact-checkers face challenges maintaining independence from governments while their objectives align with official bodies

The EU supports an independent, multidisciplinary community of 120+ organizations whose fact-checking work is completely independent from the European Commission and governments

Summary

Dahlback expresses concern about fact-checkers maintaining independence when their objectives align with government goals, while Rabbachin emphasizes that EU-supported organizations maintain complete independence from government influence

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Platform data access and transparency

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Alberto Rabbachin
– Audience

Arguments

Major platforms are limiting researcher access to data, with research APIs being more restricted than expected

The Digital Services Act requires platforms to provide data for research activities, with upcoming regulations to improve researcher access

Academic access to platform data remains problematic, with platforms claiming definitional issues prevent compliance

Summary

There’s disagreement about the effectiveness of current data access provisions – Rabbachin presents the DSA as providing adequate framework, while Dahlback and audience members report practical difficulties in accessing platform data for research

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current transparency and research access mechanisms

Speakers

– Alberto Rabbachin
– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Audience

Arguments

The Digital Services Act requires platforms to provide data for research activities, with upcoming regulations to improve researcher access

Major platforms are limiting researcher access to data, with research APIs being more restricted than expected

Academic access to platform data remains problematic, with platforms claiming definitional issues prevent compliance

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because it reveals a gap between regulatory intentions and practical implementation. While the EU representative presents the DSA as providing adequate framework for research access, practitioners report significant difficulties in actually obtaining data, suggesting implementation challenges not acknowledged in policy discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on the balance between regulatory approaches and independence concerns, the effectiveness of current data access mechanisms, and the optimal balance between different anti-disinformation strategies (fact-checking vs. media literacy vs. regulatory frameworks)

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications – while speakers share common goals of protecting information integrity and fundamental rights, they differ substantially on implementation approaches and the effectiveness of current measures. This suggests potential coordination challenges between policy makers, practitioners, and researchers in addressing disinformation effectively

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for regulatory approaches that focus on algorithmic transparency and platform functioning rather than direct content moderation, emphasizing protection of fundamental rights and freedom of expression

Speakers

– Paula Gori
– Alberto Rabbachin

Arguments

Global frameworks emphasize fundamental rights, algorithmic transparency, multi-stakeholder approaches, and risk mitigation rather than content deletion

The Digital Services Act is pioneering regulation that addresses disinformation while protecting freedom of expression by focusing on algorithm functioning rather than content

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both express frustration with limited platform data access for research purposes, highlighting that platforms are not providing adequate transparency despite regulatory requirements

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback
– Audience

Arguments

Major platforms are limiting researcher access to data, with research APIs being more restricted than expected

Academic access to platform data remains problematic, with platforms claiming definitional issues prevent compliance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers express concerns about threats to democratic institutions and the challenges of maintaining independence while working to combat disinformation

Speakers

– Benjamin Shultz
– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Arguments

Bad actors are becoming more active in spreading information campaigns that undermine democracy and tear at social fabric

Independent actors like fact-checkers face challenges maintaining independence from governments while their objectives align with official bodies

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Disinformation is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that erodes information integrity essential for democratic decision-making, requiring sophisticated responses rather than simple solutions

There is a fundamental shift occurring from traditional fact-checking approaches toward media literacy and user empowerment, particularly as AI chatbots make disinformation less observable to fact-checkers

Regulatory divergence between the US and Europe is hampering knowledge gathering about disinformation, with the US experiencing democratic backsliding while Europe maintains stronger regulatory frameworks

The EU’s approach focuses on algorithmic transparency and platform accountability rather than content censorship, exemplified by the Digital Services Act which addresses how content is distributed rather than the content itself

Education and media literacy, particularly for children, are becoming increasingly critical as AI-generated disinformation proliferates and people need to develop critical thinking skills before using AI tools

Independent fact-checking organizations face the challenge of maintaining credibility and independence while their objectives increasingly align with government anti-disinformation efforts

Multi-stakeholder cooperation through networks like EDMO (120+ organizations across EU) is essential, but must respect local specificities in culture, politics, and language

Platform data access for researchers remains severely limited despite regulatory requirements, hindering understanding of disinformation scope and impact

Resolutions and action items

The Code of Practice on Disinformation will be fully integrated into the DSA framework as of July 1st, making it auditable and creating binding obligations for platform signatories

A new EDMO hub covering Ukraine and Moldova will be established to address critical regional disinformation challenges

Upcoming EU delegated acts will improve researcher access to platform data for disinformation studies

Continued investment in media literacy programs across EU member states, with initiatives tailored to local needs

Maintenance of transatlantic cooperation through focus on areas of broad bipartisan support, such as banning non-consensual deepfakes

Unresolved issues

How to effectively monitor and respond to disinformation distributed through private AI chatbot interactions that are not publicly observable

How independent fact-checking organizations can maintain credibility while working closely with government anti-disinformation initiatives

How to obtain sufficient knowledge about the scope and impact of disinformation when platform transparency is decreasing

How to balance the need for platform regulation with protecting freedom of expression, particularly given varying cultural and political contexts

How to address the growing regulatory divergence between the US and Europe while maintaining effective global cooperation against disinformation

How to scale media literacy education effectively when current global investments in media education are minimal

How to ensure meaningful academic and researcher access to platform data despite platform resistance and technical limitations

Suggested compromises

Focus on areas of broad political consensus (like banning non-consensual deepfakes) to maintain transatlantic cooperation despite broader disagreements

Emphasize algorithmic transparency and platform accountability rather than content moderation to address free speech concerns while tackling disinformation

Combine regulatory approaches with voluntary industry cooperation through codes of practice that can evolve into binding obligations

Balance global principles with regional specificities, allowing for local adaptation while maintaining shared fundamental values

Shift emphasis from reactive fact-checking to proactive media literacy education to address the changing nature of information consumption

Maintain independence of fact-checking organizations through multi-stakeholder governance structures rather than direct government control

We have to start to think about new ways, new creative ways to maintain the alliance, the Transatlantic Alliance in these rough times… Recently in the US, non-consensual explicit deepfakes, colloquially known as deepfake porn, have actually been made illegal… my hope is that with small steps like these that have been taken in the states that do have broad support, such as banning explicit deepfakes that are made non-consensually, my hope is that collaborating on these issues that Europe and the U.S. and countries all around the world can continue the dialogue

Speaker

Benjamin Shultz

Reason

This comment was insightful because it reframed the discussion from focusing on problems to identifying practical solutions for maintaining international cooperation despite political tensions. Shultz acknowledged the deteriorating transatlantic relationship while proposing a pragmatic approach of finding common ground on specific, less politically charged issues.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from a purely analytical discussion of disinformation challenges to a more solution-oriented dialogue about maintaining cooperation. It introduced the concept of incremental progress through bipartisan issues, which influenced subsequent speakers to consider practical approaches rather than just theoretical frameworks.

However, when you use chatbots like ChatGPT or Clod… the information that you receive from the chatbot is not in the public sphere at all. It’s a response generated on the basis of a prompt that you give to the language model, which means that we, as fact-checkers, for example, are unable, we can’t see what responses you’re getting… I think we might see a transition from more debunking and fact-checking work like what we’ve been engaged in so far to more literacy work

Speaker

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Reason

This was perhaps the most thought-provoking comment of the session because it fundamentally challenged the existing paradigm of fighting disinformation. Dahlback identified a critical blind spot in current approaches – that AI-generated responses in private conversations are invisible to fact-checkers, making traditional debunking methods obsolete.

Impact

This comment created a pivotal moment in the discussion, shifting focus from current regulatory frameworks to future challenges. It prompted the moderator to specifically ask the European Commission representative about this shift from fact-checking to media literacy, making it a central theme for the remainder of the session. It essentially redefined the problem space from observable public content to private, personalized AI interactions.

I think one of the core challenges that we face in responding to this problem is that we don’t know enough about the scope of the problem, and we don’t know enough about its impact… the conditions for gaining more knowledge about this problem have become worse over the past few months… because of regulatory divergence between Europe and the US

Speaker

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Reason

This comment was insightful because it identified a fundamental epistemological problem – that effective policy responses require understanding the scope and impact of disinformation, but the tools for gaining this knowledge are being eroded. It connected regulatory divergence to practical research limitations.

Impact

This comment established a critical foundation for understanding why the disinformation fight is becoming more difficult. It influenced subsequent discussion about data access for researchers and highlighted the interconnected nature of regulatory frameworks and research capabilities.

Once our objectives are aligned with the objectives of governments and of other regulatory and official bodies, I think it’s easy for others to throw our independence into doubt, because the alignment is too close

Speaker

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Reason

This comment revealed a sophisticated understanding of the paradox facing independent fact-checkers: the more successful they are in aligning with government anti-disinformation efforts, the more their independence and credibility can be questioned. It highlighted the delicate balance between cooperation and independence.

Impact

This comment introduced a nuanced discussion about the relationship between civil society organizations and government bodies in the fight against disinformation. It added complexity to what might otherwise be seen as straightforward cooperation, showing how political dynamics can undermine the very organizations trying to combat disinformation.

I think that’s where we have to find some sort of protection and ensure that before they first need to… they need to be able to think before they use AI. And I was just framing and I was actually asking the chat, how does it look like an AI native person? Because if we are not able to think ourselves, we are not able to use the AI as it’s meant at the moment

Speaker

Mikko Salo

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified a fundamental cognitive challenge of the AI era – that people need critical thinking skills before they can effectively use AI tools. The concept of ‘AI native persons’ and the need to ‘think before using AI’ highlighted a crucial educational gap.

Impact

This comment reinforced the emerging theme about the importance of education and media literacy over traditional fact-checking approaches. It provided concrete support for the shift in strategy that other speakers were advocating, emphasizing the foundational role of critical thinking skills.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally reshaped the discussion from a traditional focus on current disinformation challenges and regulatory responses to a forward-looking examination of how the landscape is changing. Morten Langfeldt Dahlback’s insights about AI-generated content being invisible to fact-checkers and the erosion of research capabilities created pivotal moments that shifted the conversation toward future challenges and the need for new approaches. Benjamin Shultz’s reframing toward practical cooperation despite political tensions moved the discussion from problem identification to solution-seeking. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a more sophisticated analysis of the evolving nature of information integrity challenges, the limitations of current approaches, and the need for adaptive strategies that emphasize education and literacy over traditional content moderation.

How can we better understand the scope and impact of disinformation across different domains?

Speaker

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Explanation

He identified this as a core challenge, noting that we don’t know enough about the scope of the problem and its impact, and that conditions for gaining knowledge have worsened due to regulatory divergence and platform restrictions

How can independent fact-checking organizations maintain their independence while working with governments and regulatory bodies on disinformation?

Speaker

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Explanation

He highlighted the difficult position independent actors face when their objectives align with governments, as it can throw their independence into doubt and affect audience trust

How can fact-checkers and researchers address misinformation generated by private chatbot interactions that are not publicly observable?

Speaker

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Explanation

He noted that chatbot responses are not in the public sphere, making it impossible for fact-checkers to observe and respond to misinformation delivered through these channels

What does an AI-native person look like and how should we prepare them for information integrity?

Speaker

Mikko Salo

Explanation

He emphasized the urgent need for AI literacy and questioned how people who grow up with AI will think critically about information, stressing that people need to be able to think before they use AI

What is the current status of academic access to platform data under the Digital Services Act?

Speaker

Thora (audience member)

Explanation

She highlighted that large platforms are dragging their feet on providing academic access, claiming the EU needs to make definitions first, which is hindering research on how platforms undermine democracy

How can EU rules help recognize AI propaganda and digital integrity violations?

Speaker

Mohamed Aded Ali (audience member)

Explanation

He asked about identifying when AI technologies are misused to deceive or manipulate, and how EU frameworks can address these threats to digital communication integrity

How much investment should be allocated to cognitive security and information integrity as part of societal security?

Speaker

Mikko Salo

Explanation

He referenced the 5% investment in security and suggested 1.5% should go to whole-of-society security including information integrity, but questioned what the appropriate investment level should be

How can we transition from debunking and fact-checking work to more effective literacy work?

Speaker

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback

Explanation

He suggested this transition may be necessary as more information consumption moves to private chatbot interactions, requiring individuals to assess information themselves rather than relying on public fact-checking

Summary

This OECD open forum discussion focused on implementing AI principles and using AI in government services, featuring two main segments with international experts and policymakers. The first segment examined the OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit, a practical initiative designed to help countries, particularly in the Global South, develop responsible AI policies tailored to their local contexts. Costa Rica’s Marlon Avalos explained how his country initiated this toolkit project after recognizing that while OECD principles provide strong ethical guidance, many developing countries lack the tools to translate these principles into actionable policies. The toolkit will feature a self-assessment component and repository of best practices to guide countries through AI governance challenges.

OECD’s Lucia Rossi detailed the toolkit’s structure, emphasizing its co-creation approach through regional workshops with countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Mozilla’s Jibu Elias shared India’s community-driven approach to responsible AI, highlighting successful grassroots initiatives like student-developed accessibility tools and tribal community workshops that demonstrate how AI adoption must be locally rooted and people-centered. Niger’s Anne Rachel Ng discussed African countries’ opportunities and challenges, noting that while AI can address development barriers in healthcare, agriculture, and education, the continent faces significant infrastructure constraints, with only 22% of Africans having broadband access and many AI systems performing poorly on African populations due to training bias.

The second segment explored practical government AI implementation, with Norway’s Katarina de Brisis sharing successful use cases including AI-powered X-ray analysis that reduced patient waiting times by 79 days and tax fraud detection that increased detection rates from 12% to 85%. Korea’s Jungwook Kim emphasized three key pillars for effective AI adoption: innovation in data and infrastructure, inclusion to address digital divides, and strategic investment in capabilities. Both speakers stressed the importance of building employee competence, establishing legal frameworks, and ensuring data security when implementing AI in government services. The discussion concluded that successful AI implementation requires inclusive, context-sensitive approaches that prioritize trustworthiness, local capacity building, and international cooperation to prevent widening digital divides.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit Development**: A collaborative initiative led by Costa Rica to create practical tools that help countries, especially in the Global South, translate the high-level OECD AI principles into actionable policies. The toolkit will feature self-assessment tools and region-specific guidance based on best practices from comparable countries.

– **Inclusive AI Development in Emerging Economies**: Speakers from India, Costa Rica, and Niger emphasized the importance of community-rooted, locally-contextualized AI solutions. Examples included student-developed accessibility tools, tribal community workshops, and addressing infrastructure challenges like connectivity and the digital divide.

– **AI Implementation in Government Services**: Discussion of practical AI applications in public sector services, with Norway sharing successful cases like AI-assisted medical diagnosis, tax fraud detection, and police transcription services. The focus was on improving efficiency while maintaining trustworthiness and citizen safety.

– **Challenges and Risks in AI Governance**: Identification of key barriers including inadequate infrastructure, skills gaps, data scarcity, and the need for inclusive governance frameworks. Speakers highlighted risks around bias, exclusion, and the importance of building public trust through transparent, accountable AI systems.

– **International Cooperation and Capacity Building**: Emphasis on the need for collaborative approaches to AI development, with particular attention to supporting developing countries through knowledge sharing, technical assistance, and ensuring no country is left behind in the AI transformation.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to showcase practical approaches for implementing responsible AI governance globally, with a particular focus on supporting developing countries. The session sought to bridge the gap between high-level AI principles and concrete policy actions, while demonstrating real-world applications of AI in government services.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by knowledge sharing and mutual learning. Speakers were optimistic about AI’s potential while remaining realistic about challenges. The tone was particularly inclusive, with strong emphasis on ensuring global participation in AI development. Technical difficulties with some remote speakers added a touch of informality but reinforced the speakers’ points about digital infrastructure challenges. The session concluded on an encouraging note, emphasizing collective action and continued cooperation.

Speakers

– **Moderator (Yoichi Iida)**: Chair of the OECD Committee on Digital Policy

– **Marlon Avalos**: Online Director of Research Development and Innovation at the Ministry of Science and Technology from Costa Rica

– **Lucia Rossi**: Economist at Artificial Intelligence and Digital Emerging Technology Division from OECD

– **Jibu Elias**: Responsible Computing Lead for India from Mozilla

– **Anne Rachel Ng**: Director General at National Agency for Information Society, ANSI from Niger

– **Katarina de Brisis**: Deputy Director General at the Ministry of Digitalization and Public Governance from Norway, and long-standing representative at OECD Digital Policy Committee

– **Jungwook Kim**: Executive Director at Center for International Development from KDI

– **Seong Ju Park**: Policy Analyst at Innovative Digital and Open Government Division from OECD

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# OECD Open Forum: Implementing AI Principles and Government AI Services – Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This OECD open forum at the Internet Governance Forum 2025 brought together international experts to discuss two critical aspects of AI governance: implementing AI principles through practical toolkits and deploying AI in government services. The session featured representatives from Costa Rica, Niger, India, Norway, and Korea, alongside OECD officials, creating dialogue between developed and developing nations on shared AI governance challenges.

The discussion was structured in two segments: first examining the OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit led by Costa Rica, and second exploring practical government AI applications. Key themes included the need for international cooperation, community-centered approaches to AI development, and addressing infrastructure challenges while scaling AI implementations effectively.

## Session Overview and Structure

The forum was moderated by Yoichi Iida, Chair of the OECD Committee on Digital Policy, who noted Japan’s role in proposing the OECD AI principles in 2016. The session transitioned to Seong Ju Park, Policy Analyst at OECD’s Innovative Digital and Open Government Division, who moderated the second segment on government AI services.

## Segment 1: OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit

### Initiative Background

Marlon Avalos, Online Director of Research Development and Innovation at Costa Rica’s Ministry of Science and Technology, explained the toolkit’s origins in Costa Rica’s experience developing their national AI strategy. Despite being politically stable and technically skilled, Costa Rica recognized significant challenges in translating OECD AI principles into actionable policies. As Avalos noted, “even a country like Costa Rica, politically stable, technically skilled and internationally connected, face these challenges, then surely other countries like us will too face that challenge.”

The initiative gained momentum when the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) joined with the OECD AI community in July 2024, creating opportunities for broader collaboration on practical implementation tools.

### Toolkit Structure and Co-Creation Approach

Lucia Rossi, Economist at OECD’s Artificial Intelligence and Digital Emerging Technology Division, outlined the toolkit’s development through regional co-creation workshops across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The toolkit will include:

– A self-assessment tool for countries to evaluate their AI governance capabilities

– Region-specific guidance tailored to different developmental contexts

– A repository of best practices from comparable countries

– Resources available through the OECD AI Policy Observatory on oecd.ai

The co-creation workshops serve dual purposes: informing toolkit development and creating knowledge-sharing networks among participating countries.

### Country Experiences and Perspectives

**India – Community-Driven Development**

Jibu Elias, Responsible Computing Lead for India at Mozilla, presented examples of grassroots AI initiatives including student-developed accessibility tools like WebBeast (a web accessibility checker) and PhysioPlay (a physiotherapy game), plus tribal community workshops. He emphasized that “responsible AI must be inclusive, accessible, and rooted in local values, focusing on communities most affected but least represented in AI development.”

Elias posed a fundamental question: “Don’t just ask who builds AI, ask whose future is it building? Because in countries like ours, trust is not a given, it’s earned. And when communities are trusted as co-creators, not just end users, they don’t just adopt technology, they transform it.”

**Niger – African Context and Challenges**

Anne Rachel Ng, Director General at Niger’s National Agency for Information Society (ANSI), highlighted both opportunities and significant barriers for AI adoption in Africa. She identified potential applications in healthcare, agriculture, and education, while noting critical infrastructure constraints: only 22% of Africans have broadband access, and 16 African countries are landlocked.

Ng addressed data bias issues, noting that only 2% of African-generated data is used locally, and facial recognition systems perform poorly on African populations. She referenced how pulse oximeters during COVID-19 were less accurate for people with darker skin tones due to training bias.

Despite challenges, Ng advocated for patient, culturally-grounded approaches, invoking an African saying: “Europeans have watches, we have time,” explaining that “taking the time to develop context-appropriate solutions is more important than rushing implementation without proper understanding.”

## Segment 2: AI in Government Services

### OECD Research Findings

Seong Ju Park presented OECD research showing that while AI offers significant potential for improving public services, implementation faces numerous barriers. AI use cases are unevenly distributed across government functions, with many initiatives remaining at the piloting stage rather than scaling to wider systems.

Government AI carries higher risks than private sector applications, including ethical, operational, exclusion, and public resistance risks. Some government functions face particular barriers, such as stricter data access rules and requirements for audit trails in public integrity functions.

### Country Implementation Examples

**Norway – Systematic Deployment**

Katarina de Brisis, Deputy Director General at Norway’s Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance, shared concrete examples of successful AI implementation:

– AI-powered X-ray analysis allowing patients to go home immediately instead of waiting, affecting about 2,000 patients

– Tax administration fraud detection improving from 12% to 85% detection rates, generating 110 million kroner in additional revenue

– Police transcription services streamlining administrative processes

Currently, 70% of Norwegian state agencies use AI, with targets of 80% by 2025 and 100% by 2030. Norway is investing in Norwegian language foundational models and computing infrastructure while implementing the EU AI Act.

**Korea – Strategic Framework**

Jungwook Kim, Executive Director at Korea’s KDI Center for International Development, outlined a three-pillar framework: innovation (data and infrastructure development), inclusion (addressing digital divides through accessibility improvements), and investment (strategic resource allocation).

Kim noted that AI involves “moving targets” requiring “agile measures to take care of the AI safety issues,” highlighting the need for adaptive governance frameworks.

## Key Themes and Consensus Points

### International Cooperation

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of international cooperation for successful AI development. The OECD toolkit represents collaborative efforts to bridge gaps between principles and practice, with support across different developmental contexts.

### Community-Centered Approaches

Multiple speakers stressed involving local communities, especially marginalized groups, in AI development to ensure solutions address real local needs rather than imposing external solutions.

### Infrastructure as Foundation

Representatives from developing countries highlighted connectivity and infrastructure limitations as fundamental barriers requiring attention before sophisticated AI governance frameworks can be effectively implemented.

## Challenges and Implementation Barriers

### Scaling from Pilots to Systems

A significant challenge identified across countries is moving AI initiatives from pilot projects to systematic implementation across government services.

### Capacity Building

The pace of AI development often exceeds the speed at which human capacity can be developed, creating mismatches between technological advancement and workforce readiness.

### Bias and Inclusivity

Current AI systems often fail to serve non-Western populations effectively due to bias and lack of representative training data, requiring both technical solutions and inclusive development processes.

## Next Steps and Commitments

The OECD committed to:

– Launching a comprehensive report on governing with AI

– Creating a dedicated hub for AI in the public sector on oecd.ai

– Organizing regional co-creation workshops, starting with ASEAN countries in Thailand

– Conducting global data collection on AI policies and use cases for the OECD AI Policy Observatory

Regional workshops will continue with African, Central American, and South American countries to inform toolkit development and build knowledge-sharing networks.

## Conclusion

This forum demonstrated both the potential and challenges of implementing responsible AI governance globally. While speakers showed strong consensus on fundamental principles—international cooperation, inclusive approaches, and context-sensitive solutions—they also acknowledged significant differences in implementation approaches based on developmental contexts and available resources.

The discussion revealed that successful AI implementation requires more than technical capabilities; it demands inclusive governance frameworks, robust infrastructure, community engagement, and sustained capacity building. The OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit represents an important step toward bridging the gap between high-level principles and practical implementation, supported by ongoing collaboration and knowledge sharing among countries facing similar challenges.

The path forward emphasizes balancing international cooperation with local ownership, ensuring that AI development serves community needs while building the foundational capabilities necessary for sustainable and equitable AI adoption.

Moderator: Thanks for watching, don’t forget to subscribe! Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to this open forum organized by the OECD. Thank you for joining us here in the Lillestorm and also online. This session brings together two connected discussions. Before jumping to the content, my name is Yoichi Iida, the chair of the OECD Committee on Digital Policy, and I’m very happy to be here together with all of you to moderate this session. So as first part, we begin with a panel on the OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit that is a practical initiative designed to support countries in strengthening their AI ecosystems and in adapting governance frameworks to local contexts. The toolkit will offer region-specific guidance to help bridge AI divides and advance responsible inclusive AI development. We will then transition to a second segment. focused on how governments are using AI in practice to improve public service deliveries and policy making. Since 2019, the OECD AI principles have guided national strategies and international cooperation on AI. The OECD AI principles also serve as the common foundation guiding the work of the global partnership on AI GPA, which recently joined with the OECD AI community in July 2024 in a new integrated partnership. Despite the transformative potential of AI, access to benefit of this technology remains uneven. Many countries face challenges related to infrastructure, human capacity, and the policy frameworks, along with greater exposure to risks such as task replacement. Today’s discussion will spotlight on policy efforts and initiatives that help close those gaps and promote inclusive AI ecosystems around the world. Please join me in welcoming our four distinguished speakers. Mr Marlon Avalos, Online Director of Research Development and Innovation at the Ministry of Science and Technology from Costa Rica. Second, on my left side, Ms Lucia Rossi, Economist at Artificial Intelligence and Digital Emerging Technology Division from OECD. Third, again online, Jibu Elias. Mr Jibu Elias, Responsible Computing Lead for India from Mozilla. And of course, last but not least, of course, Miss Anne Rachel Ng, Director General at National Agency for Information Society, ANSI from Nigel. Welcome. So we will first hear from the panelists about their experience in designing policies for fostering AI development and diffusion. After the first round of questions, we will go around for a short final reflection from each speaker. We will then hear from our second segment, which will talk about AI in the public sector. Here we will listen from three distinguished speakers. So on my right side, Miss Katarina de Brisis, Deputy Director General at the Ministry of Digitalization and Public Governance from Norway, and also the long-standing representative at OECD Digital Policy Committee. And Dr. Jungwook Kim, Executive Director at Center for International Development from KDI. And Miss Seong Ju Park, Policy Analyst at Innovative Digital and Open Government Division from OECD. So after the second segment on AI in the public sector, we will then open the floor for questions and answers session to hear from you and engage in a conversation. So we will monitor the online chat and take questions from the room also. So as we will be taking questions after the second segment, if you are joining online, feel free to ask your comments and put your questions in the chat box. If you are here with us in the room, please note your questions down on the note, and we will reply to them after the second segment of this open forum. So we start with the first segment, and I would like to start with the discussion on collaboration on trustworthy AI and hear about the designing AI policies and plans for the OECD toolkit to provide support to countries while elaborating these policies. So I will start with Mr. Avalos online. Mr. Avalos Martin from Costa Rica initiated the work on the OECD principles implementation toolkit. So Avalos, what prompted this initiative and what has been Costa Rica’s experience so far up until now in developing a national AI strategy from this perspective?

Marlon Avalos: Thank you very much, Ida-san, for giving me the floor. Good morning and good afternoon, dear colleagues connected virtually and there in Norway. It’s an honor to be in this Internet Governance Forum 2025 to tell a little bit about our experience, design our

Moderator: It seems to have some technical issues online, so please wait a little bit before we get him back, but otherwise we will proceed to the second speaker. Okay, so thank you for your patience. Before we get him back online, I would like to proceed to the second speaker. So, moving to Lucia, I would like to ask you, could you tell us more about the OECD AI principles implementation toolkit, with its objectives, structure, and how it aims to support governments with different levels of AI maturity in policymaking. What is the overall vision for this project going forward? Lucia, the floor is yours.

Lucia Rossi: Thank you, Yoichi, and good afternoon to the audience here and online. It’s a pleasure being here at the IGF. So, as Marlon was starting to say, this project was initiated by Costa Rica, and it started off from the consideration that AI opportunities are manifold across sectors and across the globe. And there are, of course, several potential transformative effects of AI across sectors, and we will hear later on about AI in the public sector. and as well as we know in agriculture, in health care, in education. And these opportunities are however difficult to seize for different countries as there are several bottlenecks that oftentimes prevent countries from having the capacity or the financial resources or the organizational resources to devise effective AI policies. So with these considerations in mind, we started with our delegates in the Global Partnership on AI and with the support of several countries including Japan, Costa Rica, the UK, France, Korea to developing what is a practical toolkit to implement the OECD principles. And just allow me to stay a bit on the principles that as we heard are the foundational document for the OECD in AI governance and that were adopted in 2019. And these principles have since then been the object of further work from the OECD to provide analytical analysis but also guidance on how to implement them. And they are constituted by five policy principles that are recommendations to governments around areas such as research and development, infrastructure, the policy environment, skills and jobs that are required to effectively implement AI across sectors and international cooperation. But also they are values-based principles that cover those values that all stakeholders should strive to embed in. in AI systems and, of course, to respect democratic values, fairness, transparency, explainability, accountability, among others. So what this toolkit aims to do is to provide really practical resources for implementing, facilitating adoption across countries with a specific focus on emerging and developing economies but tailored to the diversity of needs, preferences and available policy options across countries. So ultimately these resources will support advancing a more inclusive and effective AI governance. So in practice what this toolkit will look like is an online tool that will be composed of two main elements, the first one being a self-assessment that countries will be able to navigate autonomously and that would guide them through, on one hand, the areas that they would need to strengthen in AI governance and, on the other hand, priorities that they may want to establish. And then once this self-assessment is completed, the toolkit will provide suggestions based on best practices in regions that are at the same or that are comparable or have similar challenges so that they can take inspiration from these other countries. So the second component will build on the repository of national AI policies that we have on the OECD. AI Policy Observatory and that we aim to strengthen by collecting further information on national initiatives and regional initiatives. And in terms of the design of this toolkit, one key feature is really the co-creation component. So to develop the toolkit, we are currently planning and organizing, and we have already won such a regional workshop planned, to have really engaging engagement with countries, with the designer of AI policies, to understand better on one hand what are the key challenges they face when devising AI policies and when thinking about AI governance in their respective countries. And on the other hand, understand what resources they need, but also, as I mentioned, also understand what practices they have put in place to overcome these challenges. So we will have one first such workshop in Thailand, again supported by Japan with ASEAN countries, and we will then organize several others, for instance, with African countries, with Central American and South American countries. And we plan to make this tool as helpful as possible. I think I will stop here in the interest of time, and I’m just checking online if Marlon is there, but I don’t see him.

Marlon Avalos: So, please. Thank you, Ida-san. This is an immersive experience. I just lost my connection, and this is a challenge that developing countries like us face every day, every time. And, well, I was saying that our decisions to promote this OECD AI principle implementation toolkit wasn’t a coincidence. It was intentioned based on our national experience, as you can see. And we saw a reality while the OECD principles provide strong ethical guidance, and many countries, especially in the Global South, still lack the tools and institutions to turn those principles into actions. And our initiative was motivated by three aspects, necessity, urgency, and opportunity. Why necessity? Because the AI revolution is reaching all countries, but the capacities needed to adopt it responsibly are still unequally shared. Urgency, because we saw how quickly the benefits of AI were concentrated in advanced economies, leaving others behind, mainly in infrastructure and AI compute capacity. And opportunity, we have a chance to move from principles to concrete capabilities, mainly in developing countries. As context, we launched our national AI strategy last October. Currently, it’s being implemented with the support of over 50 entities across government, academia, civil society, and the private sector. And we learned a lot of things with this process. First, that a successful strategy must be grounded in reality. That’s why we try to focus on what truly matters, ensuring the ethical, secure, and responsible use. Development and Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, always with the people at the center and aligned with our national priorities and values. We prioritize key sectors where AI can add tangible value like health, education, agriculture, and public services, reflecting our development goals and our comparative advantage like environmental leadership, political stability, and international engagement. We also decide to build a solid foundation first based on our strategic objective, first, design flexible and adaptive regulatory frameworks, second, strengthen our R&D and innovation ecosystem, three, develop talent and skills for a changing world, and fourth, leverage AI in the public sector as tools for inclusion and efficiency. Our guiding principles emerge through a diverse benchmarking from the OECD and UNESCO recommendations to the Edochime AI process, Code of Conduct, and our national values rooted in peace and human dignity. As I said, we take the best parts of a lot of instruments. For example, we are so inspired by the European Union, AI Act, the U.S. AI Risk Management, and AI policies from our regional peers in Latin America, and several papers and reports. We don’t stop there. We conducted a national risk assessment based on real threats and prior experience. As you can see, we got inspired from a lot of instruments and references, but one of our most important conclusions was international collaboration is essential, mainly for developing countries like us. That’s why we embed these international leaderships as a core line of action. in our strategy based on our active participation in the OECD as a member in GPIE, in regional initiatives, European programs and other programs gave us the path to do it. Design a strategy like this wasn’t easy because we had a lot of goals, we had a lot of priorities, but we lack maybe the knowledge that other countries, that the developed countries have. Even a country like Costa Rica, politically stable, technically skilled and internationally connected, face these challenges, then surely other countries like us will too face that challenge. Just a few days ago, as chair of the OECD Ministerial Council meeting, Costa Rica proposed the development of this OECD AI principles implementation toolkit, a tool now endorsed by several countries, members and non-members. Getting to this point required months of preparation and negotiation with developing and developing countries, thanks to the support and talent of the OECD Secretariat, represented today by Lucia Rossi at the panel, to design a tool that will contain simple and actionable features to help governments in the struggle of building their own AI policies. A self-assessment and implementation guide that my colleague Lucia Rossi will explain more in her intervention or was explained in their intervention after my reconnecting issue. This is not only a Costa Rica initiative, this is a collective project that is entering a phase of regional co-creations with the support of countries like Japan, Korea, Italy, France, the European Union, Slovakia, Republic and other countries that are supporting us not only politically but financially. Countries of different regions, Central American region, Latin American region, Africa, and Asia, will help shape the toolkit’s next iterations, ensuring it adapts as technologies evolve and societies change. Lastly, the success of the toolkit will depend on two things, we hope. Customization, learning, and evidence. We need features that reflect local needs, processes that evolve over time, and metrics that show that AI is actually delivering value for people. Costa Rica offers its lessons based on our experience in the design of AI policies and the next tools and instruments that we are designing, for example, the sandbox, the regulations, and other instruments. And for sure, our full commitment to help turn the energy that we have and the support that countries gave us into actions so that no country, regardless the size or income, is left behind in the age of this artificial intelligence age that we face in this moment. I will stop here, and thank you, and my apologies for the connection issue. Thank you.

Moderator: Okay, thank you very much, Marlon, for your sharing the experience and your efforts on this very important initiative. If you allow me to talk a little bit about Japan’s experience, because we actually started this discussion in the year 2016 and proposed international discussion to OECD on AI principles. That was the beginning of the whole process, and the When people agreed on OECD AI principles, it is actually very comprehensive and very high-level. So some people said, you know, this is wonderful, but how we can make this into practical policies and actions? So now we are making efforts together, not by only Japan, but all together with Costa Rica, Korea and others, of course, backed by OECD Secretariat to guide the governments and other stakeholders to understand and make this very comprehensive set of principles into actions and practical policies. So this is a wonderful process and I’m very happy to hear these two presentations. And now I would like to move on to Jibu Elias from Mozilla online. So based on your experience and work with Mozilla and also your experience in India’s AI ecosystem, Jibu, what types of community-led or policy-driven initiatives have proven most effective in supporting responsible AI adoption, particularly in emerging economies? So what insights can we derive from these initiatives that could be relevant for policymakers? So Jibu, the floor is yours.

Jibu Elias: Thank you very much, Yoichi-san. It’s an honor to be here to share my experience building a responsible AI ecosystem in India, one of the most complex and dynamic tech environments in the world. So let’s begin with the foundational truth. In emerging economies, AI adoption is not just a question of capacity, but a larger question of context as well. Now responsible AI must be inclusive, accessible, and rooted in the values and live realities of people it should serve. And at Mozilla Foundation, we tried to meet these challenges head-on through a unique initiative called Responsible Computing Challenge or RCC. So in India, India has the world’s one of the largest or I think second largest developer population in the world. Yet there are a lot of shortcomings. For example, ethics, accessibility, and inclusion are almost entirely missing from the mainstream AI or even the tech curricula. The AI workforce in India is concentrated in elite urban clusters around cities like Bangalore or Gurgaon, leaving the smaller tier two, tier three cities, rural communities, and especially female workforce, women behind. And fundamentally, there’s a growing trust deficit. People are rightfully skeptical of opaque systems that affect their jobs, access to welfare, or even their freedom. So in RCC India, we decided not to start with rather abstract frameworks. We focused with people, especially students, academic faculties, women, community, marginalized groups like tribal population, and most importantly, first-generation learners who never had been asked what Responsive AI meant in their world. So from the starting point, we have designed a deeply localized and community-rooted approach where we begin with this question, what does Responsive AI mean to those who are most affected by it, but at the same time, least represented in building it? So our answer came from the communities we mentioned before, you know, students, marginalized communities, and importantly, young innovators across the country. So, one of the most striking experiences came from one of the colleges we worked with called Merian College in a hilly terrain in the Western Ghats campus in Kerala, where they became a testbed for some of our ethical tech innovations. One of its standout outputs is that it’s an AI-powered tool called WebBeast, which was developed by a first-year BCS student. So the tool is a lightweight, open-source, AI-powered accessibility widget, which was built as part of an equitable digital access course we developed with the university. It’s now been used by 30 websites across the world, and it even received a design patent from the Indian Patent Office. So this isn’t just about a student project. It’s a project that even first-year undergraduates, when empowered with ethical frameworks and open tools, can create global public goods. Similarly, we had another tool called PhysioPlay, which is a WhatsApp-based AI simulation tool for physiotherapy students designed to help them build diagnostic skills through gamified real-world casework built by a physiology student. SpeakBoost, a communication coaching platform that provides AI-powered feedback on fluency, filler words, grammar, tone, and supporting students prepare for interviews and presentations. TwinSage, which was developed by, again, a community of students from Maharashtra, coming from very marginalized groups who don’t have the privilege of access to buy high-tech technology or access. So they have developed this tool, which is a personal finance chatbot that teaches college students about budgeting, saving, financial planning through natural language conversations. So each of these tools we mentioned here are, first of all, community-based tools, community-routed tools, in some cases built by students for their peers, understanding what is lacking in their ecosystem, what they need to build. Their ethics-aware or responsible pillars are focused on AI. and Open Source Fuzz. They represent not just innovation, but how does democratized digital leadership look like. While students demonstrate what a responsible tech looks like from ground up, when we work with faculties, that led to initiatives addressing another critical frontier of AI, such as explainability in high-stake domains. So our work with the Indian Institute of Information Technology, IIT Kottayam, we developed something called the FactSets Lab, which launched a suite of explainability dashboards designed to tackle the larger black box problem in AI. So one of their dashboard helps users understand why an AI system made a decision using shared values, biased audits, and fairness metrics. Similarly, we developed a dashboard called AI Fora, which enables real-time interactive testing of AI predictions on real data sets, making model behavior visible to even non-technical users. And finally, IXI, which applies explainability to medical AI by using GradCams heat maps to highlight what influenced diagnostic decisions in retinal scans are like. So these are open, and the key impact is that they give everyday users and regulators and policymakers the ability to question and importantly correct the cost of AI. This is the future of public AI infrastructure, transparent, participatory, and grounded in accountability. And finally, our most powerful insights came not from labs, but from communities often left out of the AI conversation altogether. So at Lendi Institute of Engineering Technology in Andhra Pradesh, we ran an ideathon with students from rural and semi-urban backgrounds, where we guided activities in empathy, inquiry, creative problem-solving, and student-identified challenges in their own communities, from waste to safety, to waste management, to safety, to water scarcity. They even built tech-assisted AI, such as solutions, blueprints, and video pictures applying digital ethics in a more practical and personal way. In parallel, we also took RCC model even further to an area called Chintapalli, it’s a tribal area in Eastern Ghats where we conducted workshops with 56 tribal women, many of whom have never accessed AI tools before. We did it in the local language Telugu through participatory storytelling, visuals, and guided use of AI tools such as ChaiGPT and map real problems such as unemployment, safety, healthcare, and explore how AI could support micro-enterprises in herbal medicine, food production, and arts and crafts, some of which are the prominent employment methods these people use. The results were not just minimal tech exposure, but rather, I’m happy to say, it’s a tech transformation powered by a powerful tech like AI on cultural grounding, peer collaboration, and a dignity-first design. So these workshops proved that responsible AI doesn’t begin with the tools, it begins with trust. So while wrapping up, let me say the main lessons from India’s AI ecosystem and what we may see works in emerging economics or global south or global majority as we call it is, you know, especially having worked in the intersection of civil society, academia, and national policy is that we need ecosystems that are locally rooted, capacity-driven, and above all, people-centered. And the most powerful lesson here is that don’t just ask who builds AI, ask whose future is it building? Because in countries like ours, trust is not a given, it’s earned. And when communities are trusted as co-creators, not just end users, they don’t just adopt technology, they transform it. So if you want AI that is safe, just truly inclusive, we must design not only the code and policy, but the humility, memory, and imagination as well. So thank you very much for this opportunity. I will stop here.

Moderator: Okay, thank you very much Jibu for this wonderful story and it’s great to hear about these experiences from the ground and congratulations on your work. India’s success with DPI and the digital public goods is a powerful example of good policy practice and the I’m very happy to hear that the responsible AI principles is just backing up such success for digitalization. So now I would like to turn to Miss Anne Rachel Ng. So from your perspective as a digital policy leader in Africa, what are some of the key opportunities and also challenges for African countries in developing inclusive and context-sensitive AI policies? How can international initiatives like the OECD AI policy toolkit better support countries in that region? What key considerations should be made? So Anne Rachel, the floor is yours.

Anne Rachel: Thank you very much and good afternoon everybody. I’m actually very happy to go after Jibu in this conversation because he gave a lot of examples that I can relate to. But I’m going to start by saying that in the Global AI Index, it places African countries in general among waking up, nascent when it comes to AI investment, innovation, implementation in general. So for example, Egypt, Nigeria, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So it places African countries in general Kenya are nascent, while Morocco, South Africa and Tunisia are waking up. There’s a lot more waking up and I really hope that we will soon, you know, all be graduating. So, we do face opportunities and challenges and those are basically in developing everything that is, as Jibu said, inclusive, context-sensitive AI policies and I’m pretty sure international initiatives like the OECD toolkit can help because it does give, you know, a few places where we can pick and choose and also make sure that we look into others’ experiences so that in doing what we have to do to get there, we do it the right way. So, in terms of the key opportunities, for example, we do have development barriers that can be alleviated. AI can accelerate our, you know, critical sectors like healthcare and in there, for example, if I take the case of my own country that is Niger, we started years ago something that is called a program on smart villages and we started with healthcare. So, you know, with telemedicine that is geared mostly to skin diseases because it was easier to take pictures, send them to dermatologists and, you know, get treatment to people and also, you know, disease prediction. But it’s gone to the point that, for example, I have a group of young people right now at home who are looking at, who are working on a device Remember the oximeter during COVID where you would measure oxygen levels in a person that was sick? So, a lot of researchers found out that, for example, that is a device that does not gauge oxygen level the right way in people who are melanated. So, they decided that it was something that they wanted to do during COVID. And today, they actually have a little device that is just like the regular oximeter, but whereby the light can penetrate a darker skin and give true measures of what oxygen level is in a person’s body. And in, you know, agriculture, precision farming, agroforestry is one of the places where we’ve been using AI, education, of course, personalized learning, and use of languages in general. Because this is a place where nobody grows up with just one language in Africa, hardly any. It is important that when we’re trying to get context AI, that we make sure that to get trustworthiness, we have people who really understand what’s in it for them. We tend to have policies that are geared to people who can read and write what we call the official languages. And then we forget that in our settings, we have about, you know, 60 to 80% of our populations that are still rural. So, they don’t speak English, they don’t speak French. And if you want them to be part of this, you really have to explain it to them in their language. And that’s also one of the reasons why the little applications that the kids are doing in terms of voice recognition softwares that can be helped whether in can help people whether in FinTech or health care and others are really helping. We do have another opportunity which is simply that we have a very young population in the region. Now we do need a skilled workforce so capacity development and deployment is something that we absolutely need. Now one of the big constraints that also come with that is that kids do not grow at the speed that artificial intelligence is growing and when I take my again my own country we have you know 65 plus that are under 25 and at least 50 percent that are under 15. So it’s really a very young population and as much as we need a lot of capacity building we need to give it time you know for the kids to get to the point where we can have a sound and real workforce. We do have local innovation ecosystems that are really growing AI solutions that are geared to the local place as in for example using a lot of mobile financial tools to make sure that from the women agriculturists all the way to land sharing and deeds recognition in rural areas things like that are being done. So those are you know some of the key opportunities and of course we do have the regular challenges that everybody know in terms of infrastructure. Again, when I take the case of my country in the African region, we have 16 countries that are landlocked. So connectivity infrastructure is already something that is quite dear. We do have, we still have, you couple that together and you have only about 22% of Africans that have broadband access. So that’s still something that we need to work on because it exacerbates the divide. In terms of policy and regulatory frameworks, we have a deep fragmentation also because many countries like cohesive strategies, AI strategies, or harmonized regulations. So you do have uneven implementation or even, you know, missed cross-border collaboration opportunities because we don’t, in as much as we have some of the ministerial meetings, for example, on the continent to talk about one policies or the other, we absolutely need, if we’re going to use, you know, AI tools in fintech, we have to make sure that the finance minister understand it’s not only the, you know, the technology or digital minister talking about this. We need to make sure that if we’re going for a national ID that the person who is going to be ID’d understands the reasons why and what it’s bringing to them in terms of advantages. And we also need all of the different government ministries like, you know, Interior, Defense, all the way to the National Data Protection Agency to talk together to make sure that whatever is put in place is really protecting people’s privacy. So we also have, of course, data scarcity and bias. As I just said, we do have a lot of facial recognition systems, for example, globally that are trained on non-African data, and they perform poorly on our people. And in general, right now, at the minute that we’re speaking, only about 2% of data generated on the continent is used locally. So it’s basically hard to get real data back to our institutions just because it’s managed by global platforms that do not necessarily want to share it readily with us. And again, we do have the capacity constraints just because the governments struggle to keep pace also with AI advancements. So you’ve started barely talking about data privacy, that your agricultural minister wants to put a lot more stuff in there and environment and everything. So all of it collides to the point where, honestly, we come to a point where governments are having a hard time sieving through the little data that they have to make sense of it locally. So toolkits like the OECD one can help. because it also, but it can only help if we really have modular, flexible guidance also, you know, on low resource settings. So things like Jibu and Malone talked about are really interesting and can be looked at and that can also help some of our countries because it’s much better to have real case uses than generic benchmarks because those are great but, you know, they don’t really show you how to make it work at home. So in terms of capacity building, we need definitely more AI research centers. We need policy training and knowledge sharing, you know, with platforms. How to make that happen is also one of the things that we’re grappling with and we need all of that, of course, so that our own policymakers can be empowered to have discussions at the level where, you know, policies can then trickle down to people. And, of course, we all talked about it, inclusive governance, you know, we must include, globally, we must include African voices to avoid the one-size-fits-all, you know, that I love the idea of that oximeter because we’ll kind of sew it and we’ve experienced it somehow, but to suddenly discover that this little device that we were trusting to do something is not really doing the right thing for us was really eye-opening. So it’s important that, you know, everybody’s perspective is taken into making sure that these global toolkits are done the right way, looking at people’s I guess particular settings and context. So in terms of also, you know, developing public-private partnerships, it is something that is starting to get traction more in the region, because of course government cannot do it all. We absolutely need the private sectors to, you know, to be part of this whole process and to also make sure that they can develop things that they can, you know, live on. So I think having said that, I will conclude by saying, I’m going to say something that makes us all laugh all the time, that maybe a few here can relate to, at least if you’re African. We do say Europeans have watches, we have time. So I’m just saying this to plead for, you know, taking the time to do things, because rushing into doing things that are not geared to the context just keeps us behind more than anything, because people do not understand what it is we’re trying to do or where is it that we’re trying to get to. So it is truly important that everybody is listened to, everybody is part of the discussion, everybody is brought to the table, so that that trustworthiness that we want be not only in AI, but in the whole, you know, digital transformation that we want to see in our countries. Thank you.

Moderator: Okay, thank you very much for this very insightful presentation, Rachel. And I saw a lot of commonalities between your country and our country, like issues such as education or maybe the… Spreading the idea is always very difficult in Japan. But I really agree to the point that, you know, the inclusive multi-stakeholder approach is definitely important in this section. So thank you very much. And for the sake of the time, I thank to all speakers for those rich and insightful contributions. And now we turn to the second part of our session, which will focus on how governments are using AI in practice across key public functions. This is also of relevance to the previous segment, as the OECD AI Policy Toolkit will have information on sectors, including the public sector. So I’m pleased to hand over the moderation to Ms Seon-Joo Park, Policy Analyst at Innovative Digital and Open Government Division of OECD, who will lead the next segment. So Seong Ju , please.

Seong Ju Park: Thank you, Mr Moderator. So before we start, I just want to quickly share, I was recently back in my country, Korea, and then I needed to explain about a history of a palace to the friends that I had over there. Before, I would have used search for the palace and then try to understand the information I find, and then explain that in English to my friends. But this time, I just asked ChatGPT to give me a very catchy explanation about this palace. And then I just played it for my friends. So AI has changed many aspects of our lives, how we communicate, how we seek information. And this is affecting governments as well. This is accelerating digital transformation of public sector, changing how governments work, how government design and deliver policies and services. And it also changed the expectations and needs of the citizens and businesses that they serve. So before I invite two panelists that I have here, I want to quickly present to you some of the OECD findings on AI in government. May I have the slides? Okay, can we put it on, it’s in a presenter mode. Thank you. So AI as a tool has a great potential to support government to improve productivity, responsiveness and accountability. So AI can automate and streamline mundane and repetitive tasks, allocating efforts of the public servants into more meaningful tasks, interacting with citizens and businesses. And AI can also support tailoring processes and personalizing government services to meet users’ needs. AI can enhance decision-making by supporting governments with making sense of the present and better forecasting for the future. AI can also support enhancing accountability and detecting anomalies. Also, AI can help governments unlock opportunities for external stakeholders. So how can governments enjoy this potential benefits in a trustworthy and in a responsible way? So the work on governing with AI seeks to address this question of how to develop and then deploy trustworthy AI in governments. So AI is a tool that can be used to develop and then deploy trustworthy AI in governments. So AI is a tool that can be used And then we started with looking at what has been done across different government functions. So we have conducted analysis of use cases across 11 government functions covering three broad categories, police functions, key government processes, and service and justice. So in total, 200 use cases were selected and based on the influence, diversity, and then representativeness. So based on the use cases, literature research, and then recent policy developments, we were able to identify key trends, shaping the current state of play, major risk, and then implementation challenges that governments face, and also explore potential use and future pathways. So the first trend we saw is that use cases are unevenly distributed. There are a number of potential explanations for this distribution that you see on the screen. I won’t be able to share all, but I will try to share a couple with you. The policy functions most represented tend to be the ones most in the public eye, potentially suggesting a focus on areas that have immediate visibility to citizens. Factors going into this could involve both more demands from the citizens, but also a desire among governments and political leaders to visibly demonstrate a value of using AI in government. And we also found that some functions face particular barriers or complexities, such as particularly stricter rules on data access and sharing, and then stricter requirements for thorough audit trails in public integrity. Another trend we saw is a big emphasis on automating and personalizing processes and services. The slightly more than half of the examined use cases, they seek to contribute to the automation, streamlining and tailoring and personalization of government processes and services, particularly in justice, public services, civic participation and regulatory design and delivery. We found that four out of 10 use cases seek to enhance decision-making, sense-making and forecasting, with most concentrated in public services, regulation and civic participation. I have some of the use cases, I won’t be able to go through them, but the OECD is planning to launch the more comprehensive report where you will be able to find all 200, well, some of the 200 use cases that I mentioned earlier. So I will skip through different use cases we found for supporting different functions of the government, and then I will go to the most important topic when it comes to government AI in government. So it might not be a fun topic for us to discuss, but government’s use of AI is quite different from use of AI in private sector. It comes with higher risk. It has potential dangers and threats that could seriously harm individuals’ lives and also society as a whole. It could potentially undermine public’s trust in government, the legitimacy of government’s AI use, and even democratic values. So to address these concerns, it is important to continuously consider potential risks that may not exist today, and here on the screen you see the general five risks that we identified through our research. So these risks range from ethical risk, operational risk, exclusion risk, to public resistance and missed opportunities and then it was mentioned during earlier segment, a widened gap between the public sector and then private sector capacities. So beyond grappling with this risk, we also found that governments all face a number of implementation challenges when seeking to develop and use AI. So we found that there are many use cases, however, they remain at a piloting stage and many are struggling to scale the pilots into the wider systems or services. And also there is a large room for improvement when it comes to actionable guidelines. Also governments need to navigate a rigid regulatory environment. And the next challenge is shared by almost every government on this planet. There are inadequate data, skills and infrastructure in the public sector. In addition, governments need to better understand the cost and benefit of AI in the public sector. Many are still, the cost and benefits around the use of AI in government is quite unknown. That makes it quite difficult for policy makers to make business cases to scale up their AI efforts. So to support governments to mitigate this risk and then overcome these challenges, we have worked together with the OECD and then the partner countries. on a framework to support government’s AI efforts. This is an evolving framework and then we only seek to provide guidance for countries so that they can continue on through this AI journey. As you can see, the framework is organized around three sections. So first is a level of engagement. This includes the different stakeholders that needs to be engaged in building the foundations for a responsible use of AI in the public sector. Our previous speakers, they mentioned involving different stakeholders not only from the public sector but also from private academia users into devising AI strategies or developing AI solutions. So it’s important to have a different actors around the table. Then the second element is enablers. So enablers include areas where policy actions can be prioritized to establish a solid enabling environment and then unlock the full-scale adoption of AI in the public sector. So these areas include governance and capabilities, collaborations and partnerships where policymakers currently indicate the existence of important constraints and shortcomings. The last element is on guardrails. So guardrails include options for policy levers that governments can consider developing for a responsible, trustworthy, and human-centered use of AI in the public sector. So this can range from soft laws and guidance as standard to legislation on AI enforcement mechanisms or oversight bodies. So this work is a part of a bigger OECD project called a Horizontal Project on Thriving with AI. Under this project, there are specific deliverables focusing on AI in government. So as I mentioned before, there will be a OECD report on governing with AI, which goes much deeper and then into details of what I just quickly presented with you. And then there will be a dedicated hub for AI in the public sector. It will be on oecd.ai. It will be sort of a repository for policymakers, practitioners and researchers. And we are planning to have a global data collection exercise on AI policies and then use cases, which will also be presented through OECD AI Policy Observatory. So thank you very much. That was my very quick presentation on, just to give you an idea on where OECD research has been when it comes to AI in government. So now I would like to invite two panelists to hear from them on what it means for governments to harness AI in practice. So the first topic will be around the AI opportunities in the public sector. So I would like to invite Katarina first. So Katarina, Norway has been exploring AI to enhance the efficiency and then effectiveness of public sector services. Can you share with us some early impact that you see or early impact that you expect from Norway’s AI use in government?

Katarina de Brisis: Thank you, Seju, for your introduction. Artificial intelligence tends to be perceived by now as being chart GPT or the likes, but actually artificial intelligence is much more than that. and it has been applied and used in Norway already in some years in many government services, especially in the health sector. We have several applications that are really having a practical impact on people’s lives. One case is our Vestreviken hospital community where they implemented AI analysing x-rays of fractures and it really saved time for the patients. By 79 days many patients, about 2000, were able to go home immediately instead of waiting for results of their analysis and their diagnosis and this is now being deployed to several other hospitals. So it gives really practical benefits on the ground. Then we have our Norwegian tax administration that has used AI, developed an AI model which combined with the rule-based models analysed deposits of tax returns looking for missing returns on lending out secondary homes and that actually led to 85% detection rates across or opposite of 12% before and it saved taxpayers for 110 million kroner. It was the additional revenue they were able to produce. In cancer treatment there are hospitals using AI to produce three-dimensional maps of internal organs to have more direct radiation treatment and it already has been in use since 2023. There are also hospitals using AI to give more accurate analysis of patients with epilepsy that can diagnose it precisely and quickly. Our state loans, student loan agency uses AI to control housing, they do housing verification checks just to be sure that no public funds are misappropriated by students saying we are living there while they are actually living some other place and collecting grants for that. Our police authorities use AI for transcriptions of interrogations when they do an investigation on crime, which saves a lot of time because the AI just transcripts spoken language into written language immediately. So, in general, we have a lot of this kind of use already, but still the potential is very great. We have done a state employer survey in 2025 which asked 200 state agencies about their use of AI and 70% answered that they actually use AI in their daily work. I think this is mostly generative AI systems which they use for things like designing job advertisements, case processing, analytical work, helping them in recruitment procedures and this kind of stuff. But this is state, we have about 400 or more municipalities which are very small and potential there is much greater. We still have a way to go there and what we also need to work on is better tools to assess benefits from AI. We have cases, we have real benefits already produced. but to look across the board and have some tools that will really give us methodological background to assess benefits of introducing AI in various sectors and government levels that we need to work more on. So I’ll just maybe finish here.

Seong Ju Park: No, thank you. That is a really important point. I think many governments are still trying to find out the best way to measure what benefits and then impact use of AI actually brings in long run. But some of the cases that you share, it clearly demonstrated that use of AI has supported the Norwegian governments to enhance efficiency, but then also enhancing people’s lives, saving them time and money. Then I will go to Dr. Kim. So, Dr. Kim, you have conducted extensive research on Korea’s use of digital technology including AI and for enhancing services and policies. Could you describe the key elements that governments should consider when using AI to ensure that it is used effectively, innovatively, and inclusively?

Jungwook Kim: Thank you. So Korea is ranked as one of the leading countries in OECD Digital Government Index, which was published recently. And as Anne Rachel states, there’s some different stages of development or adoption of the AI technologies in the public side. But I’m pretty sure that there is no graduation. That means it’s a long journey and it’s a gradual change of the government services delivered to the public. So I’d like to explain and address some of the key enablers or pillars of the Korean history of AI adoptions or digitalization in public services. And the first one is innovation. Innovation is change. Change in your life, change in what you work, and change in what you address your needs and deliver your services. So for the innovations, we have three different aspects of the targets. One is data. So we need open data, but we need machine-readable data, which is not available before. That means we need to make some researches on development in data and accessing data and processing data and make aggregation and changing the data formats so that we can utilize it in AI adoption. So we need change in the data. And the other one is infrastructure. So each and every government has infrastructure in dealing with and providing public services, but for the adoption of AI, it has challenging aspects. That means we need innovative ways to take care of the current infrastructure of the public service delivery. And the third one is public service delivery itself. That means we need brand new citizen-centric AI public services, which was not available before. However, it is feasible, and we need to coin out the way we provide the services and the way we try to address the demand by the public citizens. So those are innovations like data and infrastructure and public service development. And the other pillar is inclusion. That means we should take care of the digital divide for sure. and we experience digital divide, even Korea experience digital divide and by gender, by region, by income, also by the education. So, we need enhanced accessibility for the AI adoption for the public services, of course. That might be enhancing accessibility through AI-driven hyper-personalized services by the public sector or focus on the effectiveness, access of the vulnerable peoples or isolated groups so that they can take care, they can assess easily for the public services. The other one is capability. So, we need educate, we need train the public officers as well as the citizens because it’s changing the life, you know, innovative way to take care of the issues. So, we need inclusion which can be separated into accessibility enhancement, also education for the capacity building and capability increasement, also ability increase. So, those are two pillars of the AI adoptions in public services. And the final element is investment. That requires huge resources in adopt and develop and deploy those AI services into the public sector. So, innovation, inclusion requires investment. So, you should spend your money wisely and strategically in order for the AI adoptions.

Seong Ju Park: Thank you very much. So, the data infrastructure and then also innovating how we approach public services design. These are the hot topics of many of our delegates as well. And then also the last point on investment. It has put a bigger more spotlight now with AI that governments needs to have a strategic thinking around how they’re going to use public money on investing and digital or AI related systems and services. And then I cannot agree with you more that we are in this a long journey and then I often say a moving target so there’s always new target every day and then no graduation. I think this is for many governments around the world. So thank you for sharing the key policy issues. I understand that your work also includes elements to support safe and trustworthy use of AI. How could governments use AI in a responsible and trustworthy way? What are the key elements to avoid or mitigate the five risks that I mentioned earlier?

Jungwook Kim: Thank you. So the question is dealing with the safety or security issues around the AI and it’s a public organization or public body’s work in dealing with AI technology and there is a big challenges in dealing with those security issues especially for the public services because many a lot of actually detailed personal data is accumulated and processed in public body. That means we need to secure those safety of data and that’s top priority. That means so we need citizens rights to their personal data not just you know giving access to the personalized data for anyone or some of the stakeholders. Rather you need a bit of consensus and you get the explicit consent in utilizing and processing your personal data for sure. So it’s a way to secure some of the safety issues in dealing with personalized and privacy issues. And the second one is security issues. So it’s vulnerable to like hacking or other malicious function of the system. So attention to the open network infrastructure and mobile-based system has some challenges of those ones. So system itself should be secured, should be designed and maintained in a safer way. So that is another challenge for dealing with safety issues. And the third one is AI safety and governance. So as you said, it’s moving targets. Then we need agile measures to take care of the AI safety issues. So we have examples which breaches privacy, which has harm for the citizens’ safety issues. And there are so many dialogues on those ones, but each and every country should establish those safety and governance in the right manner, in a sound system, so that they can take care of those issues for real time and even in advance, to minimize the risks or uncertainty associated with the AI implementation. So those ones are not independent from our daily life. Rather, it reflects and it has great impact on the daily life of the citizens in large scale. So for the public services, AI employment and deployment, those ones should be narrated clearly in the AI safety and governance in one specific country. So that’s what we can say based upon the Korean experience.

Seong Ju Park: Thank you very much. It’s really important when it comes to data, but also sensitive data, because we found that some of the sectors, including social security sectors and then healthcare sector, justice sector, they hold a lot more sensitive and then personal information on the users, the citizens and businesses. And I cannot agree with you more on the need for the agile governance. I think many governments have been talking about being more agile, but I think we haven’t reached. the point yet, but it will be important to have governance that will allow the proactive measures and also timely measures to prevent or mitigate this risk that we see. Katarina, I will come to you. What concrete initiatives in Norway is Norway implementing to ensure that AI in government are safe and trustworthy?

Katarina de Brisis: Thank you. Let me start with a couple of reflections on the challenges when implementing AI. For us, one of the main challenges is leadership and competence level in government agencies. So actually that will underpin also trustworthy use of AI. If we have managers in public state agencies who understand both the opportunities and risks associated with using AI, and we know that 60% of our state organizations already implement measures to increase employee competence. These are the people who are actually working and managing artificial intelligence-based systems. And 43% created internal guidelines for using AI. So this is sort of building a fundament within each public agency. And one other important issue is also a dialogue between the employer, the management, and the employee representatives. So that also those people feel having a finger on the levers of how AI is being deployed and implemented in the agency. And then the second thing is the access to data. I agree with Professor Kim that this is a crucial issue. and we have a number of very good quality registers and we have been working for several years on opening those data but the opening must happen in a responsible way and that’s why in Norway at least to access personal data for a purpose of training and using AI systems requires legal basis. So you cannot just say okay I have this data, I pick them and then I train a system and here we go. You have to have legal basis. So you have to procure this legal basis that may take time with the legislative branch. When you have that then you can proceed but within also safety and security constraints. Another thing is of course to have a legal framework in general. So Norway is now working on implementing the EU AI Act which will be our overarching framework for using AI in Norway. We aim at implementing in on par with EU countries to create level playing field. We have already in 2020 put forward a national strategy for AI which put forward seven principles for responsible and trustworthy AI. Those principles are further endorsed by our new digitalization strategy for Norway, published just recently in the fall of 24. And in that strategy our government has a very ambitious goals. They want public agencies to adopt AI at very quick rate. Already in 25 80 percent of public agencies should use AI and by 2030 100 percent. So as you see it’s very ambitious. but we work quite diligently to make it possible both within agencies as I was describing but also on national level by investing in Israel infrastructure so we the government has invested for example 40 million kroner early in developing foundational models in our language that is Norwegian and Sami languages based on our societal values so that we have systems that really reflect who we are not the whole of internet sorry and then the other investment we are looking at is our high performance computing infrastructure to enable actually develop and train AI at a scale that is needed so that’s also the investment and this infrastructure may be used by both public and private entities for example we have one startup which is called Digifarm that uses AI to help farmers predict what to sow when and where and so on and this requires computing power so this kind of infrastructure may provide it even to small startups and companies and of course in enforcing the AI act we will establish or are establishing a national enforcement structure so we will have one authority in our national communication authority that will look at the compliance with the AI act and we will also establish AI Norway which will be an arena for sharing experience guidance and testing in a regulatory sandbox of systems in a very safe environment before deploy so and we will also collaborate with our data protection authority on this regulatory sandbox so and also systems which are trained on personal data may be tested there. So this is sort of outline how do we work both at the micro level and macro level on enabling trustworthy and safe AI in Norway. Thank you.

Seong Ju Park: Thank you very much for sharing Norway’s experience and then what Norway has been doing. I remember about this one tool implemented by one of the countries I would name and it was supposed to support the public sector officials with their job but then the users of that tool wasn’t really trained on how to use the tool and at the end what was supposed to be a supporting tool ended up making wrong decisions for the government. So I see how building employee capabilities and then the leadership around AI and digital is a key to ensuring trustworthy use of AI. So I will conclude our segment here. Thank you very much to you both and then I give the floor back to you, Mr. Moderator.

Moderator: Okay, thank you very much for the wonderful discussion to all the speakers in segment two and I apologize to all the speakers in segment one that I cannot come back to you for finalizing comment but now I will open the floor for audience for any questions or comments on both segments of this open forum. So no questions. So I’m sorry the time has run out, so sorry about the management but I hope you enjoyed the discussion and if you have any questions please contact directly to the individual speakers and let me also share we will have another session on AI tomorrow morning at nine o’clock in the conference hall. So thank you very much to all the audience and also to all the speakers and this session is closed. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

International collaboration is essential for AI development, especially for developing countries

Speakers

– Marlon Avalos
– Anne Rachel
– Jibu Elias

Arguments

International collaboration is essential for developing countries, requiring customization, learning, and evidence-based approaches

Taking time to develop context-appropriate solutions is more important than rushing implementation without proper understanding

Trust is earned through community co-creation rather than just end-user adoption, requiring locally rooted and people-centered ecosystems

Summary

All three speakers from developing countries emphasized that successful AI implementation requires international cooperation, context-sensitive approaches, and community involvement rather than top-down or rushed implementations

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Infrastructure and connectivity challenges are major barriers for developing countries

Speakers

– Marlon Avalos
– Anne Rachel

Arguments

Technical connectivity issues demonstrate daily challenges that developing countries face in AI implementation

Only 22% of Africans have broadband access, and 16 African countries are landlocked, creating connectivity challenges

Summary

Both speakers highlighted infrastructure limitations as fundamental barriers to AI adoption, with Avalos experiencing connectivity issues during the session and Anne Rachel providing specific statistics about African connectivity challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Community-centered and inclusive approaches are crucial for responsible AI development

Speakers

– Jibu Elias
– Anne Rachel

Arguments

Responsible AI must be inclusive, accessible, and rooted in local values, focusing on communities most affected but least represented in AI development

AI opportunities exist in healthcare, agriculture, and education, but require addressing infrastructure constraints and capacity building for young populations

Summary

Both speakers emphasized the importance of involving local communities, especially marginalized groups, in AI development and ensuring that solutions address real local needs and contexts

Topics

Development | Human rights principles

Data security and governance are critical for trustworthy AI in government

Speakers

– Katarina de Brisis
– Jungwook Kim
– Seong Ju Park

Arguments

Leadership competence, legal frameworks, and employee training are crucial for trustworthy AI implementation in government

Data security, system security, and agile AI governance are essential for protecting citizens’ personal data and rights

AI in government carries higher risks than private sector use, including ethical, operational, exclusion, and public resistance risks

Summary

All three speakers agreed that government AI implementation requires robust governance frameworks, data protection measures, and comprehensive risk management approaches due to the sensitive nature of government data and services

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Practical implementation tools and frameworks are needed to translate AI principles into action

Speakers

– Marlon Avalos
– Lucia Rossi
– Moderator
– Seong Ju Park

Arguments

Costa Rica initiated the toolkit based on their national AI strategy experience, recognizing that developing countries need practical tools to implement OECD principles

The toolkit will provide self-assessment tools and region-specific guidance through co-creation workshops to help countries bridge AI divides

Japan’s leadership in proposing OECD AI principles in 2016 and current efforts to make comprehensive principles into practical policies

The OECD framework provides guidance on stakeholder engagement, enabling environments, and guardrails for responsible AI use

Summary

Multiple speakers agreed on the need for practical tools and frameworks to help countries implement high-level AI principles, with the OECD toolkit representing a collaborative effort to bridge the gap between principles and practice

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the potential of young people and marginalized communities to drive AI innovation when given proper support and tools, highlighting examples of student-led innovations and the importance of capacity building for young populations

Speakers

– Jibu Elias
– Anne Rachel

Arguments

Students and marginalized communities can create global public goods when empowered with ethical frameworks and open tools

AI opportunities exist in healthcare, agriculture, and education, but require addressing infrastructure constraints and capacity building for young populations

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers from developed countries shared experiences of successful government AI implementations with measurable benefits, emphasizing the importance of systematic approaches to AI adoption across multiple government sectors

Speakers

– Katarina de Brisis
– Jungwook Kim

Arguments

Norway has successfully implemented AI in healthcare for X-ray analysis, tax administration for fraud detection, and police transcription services, showing practical benefits

Korea’s AI adoption requires innovation in data, infrastructure, and service delivery, plus inclusion through accessibility and capability building

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers highlighted how AI systems often fail to serve non-Western populations effectively due to bias and lack of local data representation, emphasizing the need for locally developed and culturally appropriate AI solutions

Speakers

– Anne Rachel
– Jibu Elias

Arguments

Data scarcity and bias affect AI systems, with only 2% of African-generated data used locally and facial recognition systems performing poorly on African populations

Trust is earned through community co-creation rather than just end-user adoption, requiring locally rooted and people-centered ecosystems

Topics

Human rights principles | Development

Unexpected consensus

The importance of taking time for proper AI implementation rather than rushing

Speakers

– Anne Rachel
– Jungwook Kim

Arguments

Taking time to develop context-appropriate solutions is more important than rushing implementation without proper understanding

Korea’s AI adoption requires innovation in data, infrastructure, and service delivery, plus inclusion through accessibility and capability building

Explanation

It was unexpected to see both a developing country representative (Anne Rachel) and a developed country representative (Jungwook Kim) agree on the importance of patient, gradual AI implementation. This consensus suggests that even advanced countries recognize AI adoption as a long-term journey requiring careful planning rather than rapid deployment

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

The universal challenge of measuring AI benefits in government

Speakers

– Katarina de Brisis
– Seong Ju Park

Arguments

70% of Norwegian state agencies use AI in daily work, but municipalities and benefit assessment tools need further development

AI use cases are unevenly distributed across government functions, with emphasis on automation and personalization of processes

Explanation

Despite Norway’s advanced AI implementation, both speakers acknowledged that even leading countries struggle with measuring AI benefits and achieving even distribution across government functions. This suggests that assessment and scaling challenges are universal, not just issues for developing countries

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on several key areas: the need for international cooperation and practical implementation tools, the importance of inclusive and community-centered approaches, the critical role of data governance and security in government AI, and the recognition that AI implementation is a gradual process requiring patience and proper planning. There was also agreement on the challenges of infrastructure, capacity building, and the need for context-sensitive solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives from different regions and development stages. The agreement spans both technical and social aspects of AI implementation, suggesting a mature understanding of AI governance challenges across different contexts. This consensus provides a strong foundation for international cooperation and the development of practical tools like the OECD AI principles implementation toolkit.

Different viewpoints

Pace and approach to AI implementation

Speakers

– Anne Rachel
– Katarina de Brisis

Arguments

Taking time to develop context-appropriate solutions is more important than rushing implementation without proper understanding

Norway is implementing the EU AI Act and investing in Norwegian language foundational models and computing infrastructure

Summary

Anne Rachel advocates for a patient, time-intensive approach emphasizing the African saying ‘Europeans have watches, we have time’ and warns against rushing AI implementation without proper context understanding. In contrast, Katarina presents Norway’s very ambitious timeline with 80% of public agencies using AI by 2025 and 100% by 2030, representing a rapid deployment approach.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Infrastructure challenges as demonstration vs. systematic barrier

Speakers

– Marlon Avalos
– Anne Rachel

Arguments

Technical connectivity issues demonstrate daily challenges that developing countries face in AI implementation

Only 22% of Africans have broadband access, and 16 African countries are landlocked, creating connectivity challenges

Explanation

While both speakers address infrastructure challenges, Avalos uses his technical difficulties as a real-time demonstration of connectivity issues, suggesting these are manageable obstacles that can be worked around. Anne Rachel presents infrastructure limitations as fundamental systematic barriers requiring substantial structural changes. This represents an unexpected difference in framing the same core issue – whether infrastructure challenges are symptomatic problems or foundational barriers to AI adoption.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus on core principles (inclusion, context-sensitivity, international cooperation) but reveals subtle yet significant differences in implementation philosophy and pace

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic implications. While speakers largely agree on goals, their different approaches to timing, community engagement, and implementation strategies could lead to significantly different outcomes in AI policy development. The disagreements are more about methodology and pace rather than fundamental objectives, but these differences could be crucial for policy effectiveness and adoption success in different regional contexts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the potential of young people and marginalized communities to drive AI innovation when given proper support and tools, highlighting examples of student-led innovations and the importance of capacity building for young populations

Speakers

– Jibu Elias
– Anne Rachel

Arguments

Students and marginalized communities can create global public goods when empowered with ethical frameworks and open tools

AI opportunities exist in healthcare, agriculture, and education, but require addressing infrastructure constraints and capacity building for young populations

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers from developed countries shared experiences of successful government AI implementations with measurable benefits, emphasizing the importance of systematic approaches to AI adoption across multiple government sectors

Speakers

– Katarina de Brisis
– Jungwook Kim

Arguments

Norway has successfully implemented AI in healthcare for X-ray analysis, tax administration for fraud detection, and police transcription services, showing practical benefits

Korea’s AI adoption requires innovation in data, infrastructure, and service delivery, plus inclusion through accessibility and capability building

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers highlighted how AI systems often fail to serve non-Western populations effectively due to bias and lack of local data representation, emphasizing the need for locally developed and culturally appropriate AI solutions

Speakers

– Anne Rachel
– Jibu Elias

Arguments

Data scarcity and bias affect AI systems, with only 2% of African-generated data used locally and facial recognition systems performing poorly on African populations

Trust is earned through community co-creation rather than just end-user adoption, requiring locally rooted and people-centered ecosystems

Topics

Human rights principles | Development

Key takeaways

The OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit, initiated by Costa Rica, will provide practical self-assessment tools and region-specific guidance to help countries implement AI principles through co-creation workshops

Responsible AI development must be inclusive, locally-rooted, and community-centered, with marginalized communities serving as co-creators rather than just end-users

Developing countries face significant challenges including infrastructure limitations, connectivity issues (only 22% of Africans have broadband access), data scarcity, and fragmented policy frameworks

AI applications in government services show practical benefits, with Norway demonstrating success in healthcare, tax administration, and police services, while 70% of Norwegian state agencies already use AI

Trustworthy AI governance requires leadership competence, legal frameworks, employee training, and addressing higher risks in government use compared to private sector applications

International cooperation and knowledge sharing through regional workshops and platforms are essential for bridging AI divides and promoting inclusive AI ecosystems

AI implementation is a long journey with moving targets, requiring strategic investment in innovation, inclusion, and infrastructure development

Resolutions and action items

OECD will launch a comprehensive report on governing with AI and create a dedicated hub for AI in the public sector on oecd.ai

Regional co-creation workshops will be organized, starting with ASEAN countries in Thailand, followed by workshops with African, Central American, and South American countries

Norway aims for 80% of public agencies to use AI by 2025 and 100% by 2030, with investments in Norwegian language foundational models and computing infrastructure

Norway will implement the EU AI Act and establish AI Norway as an arena for sharing experience and regulatory sandbox testing

OECD will conduct a global data collection exercise on AI policies and use cases to be presented through the OECD AI Policy Observatory

Unresolved issues

Many AI use cases remain at piloting stage with governments struggling to scale pilots into wider systems or services

Governments need better tools and methodologies to assess the costs and benefits of AI implementation in the public sector

Inadequate data, skills, and infrastructure in the public sector continue to constrain AI adoption

The need for more actionable guidelines and navigation of rigid regulatory environments remains challenging

Capacity building and workforce development cannot keep pace with the rapid advancement of AI technology

Data bias issues persist, with facial recognition systems performing poorly on African populations and only 2% of African-generated data being used locally

Suggested compromises

Taking time to develop context-appropriate solutions rather than rushing implementation without proper understanding of local needs

Balancing ambitious AI adoption goals with the need for proper training, legal frameworks, and safety measures

Using modular and flexible guidance approaches that can adapt to different resource settings and local contexts

Combining international best practices with local innovation and community-led initiatives

Establishing public-private partnerships to share the burden of AI development and implementation costs

Even a country like Costa Rica, politically stable, technically skilled and internationally connected, face these challenges, then surely other countries like us will too face that challenge.

Speaker

Marlon Avalos

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it reframed the AI development challenge from a Global South perspective. Rather than positioning Costa Rica as disadvantaged, Avalos acknowledged their relative strengths while emphasizing that if even well-positioned countries struggle, the challenges are systemic rather than just resource-based. This created a foundation for genuine international collaboration rather than a donor-recipient dynamic.

Impact

This comment established the legitimacy and urgency of the OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit initiative. It shifted the discussion from theoretical policy frameworks to practical, experience-based solutions and set the tone for other speakers to share their ground-level challenges and innovations.

Don’t just ask who builds AI, ask whose future is it building? Because in countries like ours, trust is not a given, it’s earned. And when communities are trusted as co-creators, not just end users, they don’t just adopt technology, they transform it.

Speaker

Jibu Elias

Reason

This comment was profoundly thought-provoking because it challenged the fundamental approach to AI development and deployment. It shifted focus from technical capabilities to human agency and democratic participation in technology design. The distinction between ‘end users’ and ‘co-creators’ reframes the entire AI governance conversation around empowerment rather than consumption.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion by introducing a philosophical framework that connected all subsequent speakers’ examples. It provided a lens through which the audience could evaluate all AI initiatives – whether they truly involve communities as co-creators or merely as beneficiaries.

We do say Europeans have watches, we have time. So I’m just saying this to plead for, you know, taking the time to do things, because rushing into doing things that are not geared to the context just keeps us behind more than anything, because people do not understand what it is we’re trying to do or where is it that we’re trying to get to.

Speaker

Anne Rachel Ng

Reason

This culturally grounded metaphor was exceptionally insightful because it challenged the prevailing narrative of ‘catching up’ in AI development. It reframed the perceived disadvantage of slower adoption as potentially advantageous, emphasizing that contextual appropriateness and community understanding are more valuable than speed. This perspective counters the technology determinism often present in AI discussions.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful counter-narrative to the urgency often associated with AI adoption. It influenced the discussion by validating deliberate, community-centered approaches and gave other speakers permission to discuss the importance of local context and inclusive processes over rapid deployment.

We found that some functions face particular barriers or complexities, such as particularly stricter rules on data access and sharing, and then stricter requirements for thorough audit trails in public integrity.

Speaker

Seong Ju Park

Reason

This observation was insightful because it revealed that the uneven distribution of AI use cases in government isn’t just about technical capacity or resources, but about institutional and regulatory complexity. It highlighted how governance structures themselves can create barriers to AI adoption, suggesting that policy reform may be as important as technical development.

Impact

This comment shifted the second segment’s focus from success stories to implementation challenges, preparing the ground for more nuanced discussions about the barriers governments face and the need for adaptive governance frameworks.

AI has changed many aspects of our lives, how we communicate, how we seek information. And this is affecting governments as well. This is accelerating digital transformation of public sector, changing how governments work, how government design and deliver policies and services. And it also changed the expectations and needs of the citizens and businesses that they serve.

Speaker

Seong Ju Park

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it positioned AI not just as a tool for government efficiency, but as a transformative force that changes the fundamental relationship between governments and citizens. It suggested that AI adoption creates new expectations and needs, implying that governments must evolve not just their tools but their entire approach to public service.

Impact

This framing influenced the entire second segment by establishing that AI in government isn’t just about automation or efficiency gains, but about fundamental transformation of governance relationships. It set up the subsequent discussions about trust, accountability, and citizen engagement.

So it’s moving targets. Then we need agile measures to take care of the AI safety issues… those ones should be narrated clearly in the AI safety and governance in one specific country.

Speaker

Jungwook Kim

Reason

This comment was insightful because it acknowledged the fundamental challenge of governing rapidly evolving technology while emphasizing the need for country-specific approaches. The ‘moving targets’ metaphor captured the dynamic nature of AI governance challenges, while the emphasis on national narratives recognized that governance solutions must be culturally and institutionally grounded.

Impact

This comment reinforced the toolkit approach discussed in the first segment by validating the need for flexible, adaptive governance frameworks rather than one-size-fits-all solutions. It connected the theoretical framework discussions with practical implementation challenges.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging conventional narratives about AI development and governance. Rather than focusing solely on technical capabilities or resource gaps, the speakers introduced themes of community agency, cultural context, institutional complexity, and adaptive governance. The comments created a progression from recognizing shared challenges (Avalos) to reimagining development approaches (Jibu, Anne Rachel) to understanding implementation complexities (Park, Kim). This elevated the conversation beyond typical policy discussions to address fundamental questions about power, participation, and the purpose of AI in society. The speakers’ insights collectively argued for a more democratic, contextual, and deliberate approach to AI governance that prioritizes community needs and local contexts over rapid technological adoption.

How can we better measure the cost and benefits of AI implementation in the public sector?

Speaker

Katarina de Brisis

Explanation

Many governments struggle to make business cases for scaling up AI efforts due to unknown costs and benefits, making it difficult for policymakers to justify investments

How can we develop better tools and methodologies to assess benefits from AI across various sectors and government levels?

Speaker

Katarina de Brisis

Explanation

While there are documented cases of AI benefits, there’s a need for systematic methodological frameworks to evaluate AI impact across different government functions

How can governments scale AI pilots into wider systems and services?

Speaker

Seong Ju Park

Explanation

Many AI use cases in government remain at piloting stage and struggle to scale up, representing a significant implementation challenge

How can we ensure AI systems work effectively for diverse populations, particularly addressing bias in facial recognition and medical devices for people of different ethnicities?

Speaker

Anne Rachel Ng

Explanation

Current AI systems often perform poorly on African populations due to training on non-representative data, as demonstrated by the oximeter example during COVID-19

How can we develop more actionable guidelines for AI implementation in government?

Speaker

Seong Ju Park

Explanation

There’s a large room for improvement in providing practical, implementable guidance rather than high-level principles

How can we address the infrastructure challenges, particularly for landlocked countries with limited broadband access?

Speaker

Anne Rachel Ng

Explanation

Only 22% of Africans have broadband access, and 16 African countries are landlocked, creating significant connectivity barriers for AI adoption

How can we better coordinate cross-ministerial collaboration for AI policy implementation?

Speaker

Anne Rachel Ng

Explanation

AI implementation requires coordination across multiple government ministries (finance, interior, defense, data protection) but this coordination is often lacking

How can we develop AI governance frameworks that are agile enough to keep pace with rapidly evolving AI technology?

Speaker

Jungwook Kim

Explanation

AI is a moving target requiring real-time and proactive governance measures, but current governance structures may not be agile enough

How can we ensure inclusive AI development that truly involves marginalized communities as co-creators rather than just end users?

Speaker

Jibu Elias

Explanation

Trust in AI systems requires involving communities in the development process, not just as recipients of the technology

How can we address the capacity building challenge when the pace of AI development exceeds the speed at which human capacity can be developed?

Speaker

Anne Rachel Ng

Explanation

With very young populations in developing countries, there’s a mismatch between the speed of AI advancement and the time needed to build adequate workforce capacity

Summary

This discussion focused on advancing data governance across regions, bringing together policymakers and civil society leaders from West Africa, Eastern Partnership, and Western Balkans to explore common challenges and share best practices. The session was moderated by Wairagala Wakabi from CIPESA and hosted by Dr. Ismaila Ceesay, Minister of Information from The Gambia, who outlined his country’s comprehensive digital transformation strategy including national data protection policies and alignment with ECOWAS and African Union frameworks.

Commissioner Milan Marinovic from Serbia emphasized the critical balance between digital advancement and personal data protection, proposing the creation of a global e-association of data protection authorities to facilitate international cooperation. He stressed that digitalization and data protection must develop in parallel, comparing their relationship to natural complementary forces. Regional experts highlighted varying approaches across different areas, with Folake Olagunju from ECOWAS describing West Africa’s focus on harmonization without homogenization, emphasizing multi-stakeholder engagement and evidence-based policymaking.

Dr. Olga Kyryliuk from Southeastern Europe described her region as having “high digital ambition” but facing challenges due to regulatory divides between EU member states and non-EU countries seeking accession. Civil society representatives from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan shared their experiences with digital transformation, emphasizing the importance of civic tech voices in building trust and ensuring inclusive governance. A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the need for harmonization of legal frameworks while respecting national sovereignty and cultural differences.

The panelists identified several practical next steps for strengthening inter-regional cooperation, including establishing continental data governance frameworks, creating controlled test environments for interoperable platforms, and developing formal cooperation channels between data protection agencies. The discussion concluded with emphasis on the critical importance of building cross-border trust, ensuring transparent oversight, and balancing multiple human rights including privacy and freedom of information in the evolving digital landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **National Data Governance Framework Development**: Countries across different regions (The Gambia, Serbia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan) are actively developing comprehensive national data protection and governance frameworks, with many aligning their legislation to GDPR standards and regional frameworks like ECOWAS and African Union policies.

– **Regional Harmonization vs. National Sovereignty**: A central tension emerged around balancing the need for harmonized cross-border data governance standards while preserving national data sovereignty, with speakers emphasizing “harmonization not homogenization” and the importance of mutual recognition frameworks.

– **Cross-Border Data Protection Authority Cooperation**: Significant focus on strengthening cooperation between Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) globally, including proposals for new international associations and formal cooperation channels for audits, incident response, and enforcement coordination.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Engagement and Civil Society Role**: Strong emphasis on the critical importance of involving civil society, private sector, academia, and citizens in data governance processes, with civic tech organizations serving as essential bridges between governments and citizens to ensure transparency and accountability.

– **Balancing Human Rights in Data Governance**: Discussion of the complex challenge of protecting privacy rights while preserving freedom of information and expression, with several countries adopting integrated approaches that combine data protection and access to information oversight under unified commissions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to foster inter-regional dialogue on data governance best practices, challenges, and cooperation mechanisms between policymakers and civil society leaders from West Africa, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, and other regions. The session sought to identify common approaches for building digital cooperation, sharing lessons learned, and developing actionable steps for strengthening international collaboration on data governance standards and frameworks.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and constructive tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and genuine interest in learning from each other’s experiences. The tone was professional yet accessible, with participants openly sharing both successes and challenges. There was a notable spirit of cooperation, with multiple speakers building upon each other’s ideas and offering concrete proposals for future collaboration. The atmosphere became increasingly solution-oriented as the session progressed, culminating in specific actionable recommendations and offers for continued partnership between regions and organizations.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Wairagala Wakabi** – Executive Director of CIPESA (Collaboration on International ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa), Session Moderator

– **Dr. Ismaila Ceesay** – Minister of Information from The Gambia

– **Milan Marinovic** – Commissioner for Access to Public Information of Importance and Personal Data Protection of Serbia (appointed in 2019), former judge

– **Olga Kyryliuk** – Chair of the South Eastern European IGF, expert in digital governance, Internet freedom and international law

– **Meri Sheroyan** – Co-founder of Digital Armenia NGO, IT expert specializing in digital transformation in the public sector

– **Tattugal Mambetalieva** – Director of Civil Initiative on Internet Policy (Kyrgyzstan), initiator and founder of Kyrgyz Forum on Information Technology and Central Asian Forum on Internet Governance

– **Folake Olagunju** – Acting Director of Digital Economy at the Economic Committee of West African States Commission (participated online)

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Inter-Regional Data Governance Dialogue: Sharing Experiences and Building Cooperation

## Session Overview

This inter-regional dialogue brought together policymakers and civil society representatives from West Africa, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, and Central Asia to discuss data governance challenges and share regional experiences. The session was moderated by Wairagala Wakabi from CIPESA and hosted by Dr. Ismaila Ceesay, Minister of Information and Communication Infrastructure from The Gambia.

## Opening Remarks

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay welcomed participants and outlined The Gambia’s digital transformation priorities, emphasizing a whole-of-government approach to data governance. He highlighted three key areas: institutional capacity building, legal reforms including the Data Protection Bill 2023 currently in parliament, and statistical system reform. Dr. Ceesay acknowledged significant challenges including capacity gaps, institutional fragmentation, and digital divide issues affecting rural populations.

Moderator Wairagala Wakabi structured the discussion around key questions about regional approaches to data governance, cross-border cooperation mechanisms, and practical steps for advancing inter-regional collaboration.

## National and Regional Perspectives

### ECOWAS Regional Framework

Folake Olagunju from ECOWAS described West Africa’s approach as “harmonisation not homogenisation,” explaining that ECOWAS revised its Supplementary Act on Personal Data Protection to support cross-border data flows while respecting individual country contexts. She emphasized a “whole-of-society” methodology involving government, civil society, private sector, academia, and citizens in policy development processes.

### Serbia’s Institutional Model

Commissioner Milan Marinovic from Serbia’s Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection described data protection as “one of the most threatened fundamental human rights in today’s era of rapid development of modern technologies.” He proposed creating a global E-association of Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) and highlighted Serbia’s “two-in-one system” that combines data protection and access to information oversight under a unified commission.

### Armenia’s Civil Society Perspective

Meri Sheroyan from Digital Armenia emphasized the role of civic tech organizations as bridges between governments and citizens. She described Armenia’s efforts to build comprehensive legal and technical frameworks for digital transformation, including e-governance platforms and data governance projects, while highlighting the importance of civil society in building public trust.

### Kyrgyzstan’s Distinctive Approach

Tattugal Mambetalieva from Kyrgyzstan explained that her country deliberately avoids data centralization and localization, stating that “centralization of data has risks for data protection and localization of data creates additional burden to business.” This approach differs from neighboring countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, demonstrating diverse policy choices within the region.

### Southeastern European Coordination

Dr. Olga Kyryliuk, Chair of the South Eastern European IGF, described her region as having “high digital ambition” but facing challenges due to regulatory differences between EU member states operating under GDPR and non-EU countries still seeking compliance. She emphasized the role of Internet Governance Forums in facilitating dialogue across different regulatory environments.

## Key Themes and Common Challenges

### Harmonization While Respecting Sovereignty

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of regional cooperation that creates interoperability without imposing identical solutions. The ECOWAS model of harmonization rather than homogenization was cited as an example of balancing common standards with national sovereignty.

### Multi-Stakeholder Engagement

All participants stressed the importance of inclusive stakeholder engagement, though with different emphases. While The Gambia focused on whole-of-government approaches, ECOWAS emphasized whole-of-society participation, and Armenia highlighted the critical role of civil society organizations.

### Capacity Building Needs

Speakers from all regions identified capacity building and institutional strengthening as persistent challenges requiring sustained attention and resources.

### Balancing Rights and Innovation

Participants discussed the need to balance data protection with other rights including freedom of information and expression, as well as supporting digital innovation and economic development.

## Audience Engagement

The session included questions from the audience, including an inquiry about the SOLID protocol and linguistic AI in the context of indigenous language preservation. Dr. Ceesay acknowledged the complexity of language preservation in Africa, noting the continent has over 2,000 languages with some countries having 56 to 200 languages each.

## Action Items and Commitments

In their final one-minute responses, panelists made specific commitments:

– **Commissioner Marinovic** committed to contacting DPAs worldwide within the week to propose his E-association concept

– **Dr. Ceesay** committed to finalizing The Gambia’s data protection legislation by year-end and implementing the planned merger of access to information and data protection oversight functions

– **Folake Olagunju** outlined ECOWAS plans to establish controlled test environments for member states to trial interoperable platforms in sectors such as health, education, and identity systems

– **Dr. Kyryliuk** offered to host a side meeting during CDIG’s October meeting in Athens to advance inter-regional dialogue

– **Meri Sheroyan** emphasized continuing to pilot small-scale cross-border data-sharing initiatives in specific sectors

– **Tattugal Mambetalieva** highlighted the need for intergovernmental agreements on data exchange in Central Asia

## Key Takeaways

The dialogue demonstrated both shared challenges and diverse approaches to data governance across regions. While all participants agreed on fundamental principles such as the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need to balance various rights and interests, their implementation strategies reflect different regional contexts and priorities.

The session highlighted the value of inter-regional dialogue for sharing experiences and identifying potential areas for cooperation, while respecting the diversity of approaches needed to address local contexts and constraints. The concrete commitments made by participants suggest potential for continued collaboration and mutual learning across regions.

The discussion reinforced that effective data governance requires not only technical and legal frameworks but also sustained institutional capacity building, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and mechanisms for regional cooperation that respect national sovereignty while enabling cross-border collaboration.

Wairagala Wakabi: Hello, good afternoon, dear audience, it is my pleasure to moderate this session today, and I’ll begin by introducing myself. My name is Wakabi and I am the Executive Director of CIPESA, which is the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa, a think tank that works on issues at the intersection of technology, human rights, governance, and livelihoods. Today, we are bringing together notable speakers from across various regions to discuss data governance in line with the IGF sub-theme of building digital cooperation. The session aims to contribute to inter-regional dialogue among policymakers and civil society leaders from West Africa, from the Eastern Partnership, and the Western Balkans to leverage common knowledge. I am from East Africa myself, which wasn’t mentioned among those regions, so there’s also some insights that will come out of there. On this note, to kick us off, I would like to invite our host, who is the Minister of Information from The Gambia, to share his welcome remarks. Dr. Ismail Asise, please take the floor.

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay: Thank you very much, Dr. Wakabi, thank you for that introduction. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to join you today for this very important discussion on advancing data governance across regions as we collectively seek pathways. In an increasingly digital world, data is a critical enabler of development, innovation and rights. For The Gambia, harnessing data responsibly is key to driving economic growth, improving service delivery, and protecting the dignity and rights of our people. The Gambia is embracing the digital age with ambition and purpose. We recognize that digital transformation is not just a matter of technological advancement. For us, it is a catalyst for inclusive growth, innovation and good governance. Our national broadband policy, our digital ID initiatives and e-government platforms are all part of a comprehensive strategy to bridge the digital divide, empower citizens and modernize our economy. We have made significant strides in putting data governance at the core of our digital development agenda. We are currently implementing our national data protection and privacy policy, grounded in principles of accountability, transparency and human rights. Steps are also underway to establish an independent data protection authority, which will oversee the enforcement of data governance principles and build trust with citizens, businesses and regional partners. We are also committed to finishing the development of the Gambian national data governance policy, supported by the African Union and the European Union. The Gambia is actively engaged in regional frameworks on the ECOWAS and the African Union, including alignment with the EU data policy framework. We recognize interoperability, regulatory harmonization and mutual trust are essential for effective cross-border data flows in Africa and beyond. We believe that effective cross-border data governance can unlock tremendous value, facilitating trade, strengthening regional integration and enabling secure data flows across borders. We believe that International Cooperation must be fair, inclusive and development-oriented. We are fully aware that no country can do this alone. Advancing data governance across borders requires trust, coordination and shared values. As countries in the Global South, we seek equitable participation in shaping global digital rules, and we emphasize the need for capacity support, infrastructure investments and data governance models that reflect our local realities. The Gambia stands ready to work with partners on the continent and globally to build a data governance ecosystem that is secure, rights-respecting and fit for the digital age. Let us advance together, bridging borders and building trust in the digital world. Thank you.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you, sir, for outlining the Gambia’s efforts in its digital development agenda and also outlining its commitment to cooperative data governance. As Dr. Sisay has touched on, the domestic as well as cross-border assisted governed data effectively is crucial, and so to explore common challenges and valuable experiences from different regions, we are going to hear from our panelists and dive deeper into the varying contexts that can enable us to be able to accelerate responsible, future-ready and rights-based data governance globally. I will therefore introduce our panelists today, beginning next to Dr. Sisay, Milan Marinovic, who was appointed Commissioner for Access to Public Information of Importance and Personal Data Protection of Serbia in 2019. Previously, Mr. Marinovic served as judge in different courts. He has authored various publications and participated in various working groups, drafting and amending legislation in Serbia. Next to him, we have Dr. Olga Kiriliuk, who currently serves as chair of the South Eastern European IGF, leading multi-scope cooperation across 18 countries in the region. She’s internationally recognized as an expert in digital governance, Internet freedom and international law with over 12 years of experience at the intersection of technology, policy and human rights. And to my left, we have Meri Sheroyan, the co-founder of Digital Armenia, an NGO focused on advancing digital transformation through inclusive, user-centered approaches. As an IT expert, she is specializing in digital transformation in the public sector and public administration systems. And she has extensive experience working within government institutions as well as with the development institutions. To the extreme left, we have Tatu Mambetalieva, the Director of Civil Initiative on Internet Policy based in Kyrgyzstan. She’s also the initiator and founder of the public platform Kyrgyz Forum on Information Technology, the annual Central Asian Forum on Internet Governance, which is a regional initiative of the Global Internet Governance Forum created under the auspices of the UN. We also have a participant online who has not been able to join us, and that is Folake Olagunju, the Acting Director of Digital Economy and post at the Economic Committee of West African States Commission, where she leads the Digitalization Directorate. We will now hear from our panelists and set the stage and get a sense of the state of data governance in The Gambia and Serbia. We’ll start with Dr. Sese first. As The Gambia continues to develop its digital infrastructure and data policies, where are the country’s priorities and challenges in developing and implementing effective national data governance frameworks and how they align with the broader strategies of the African Union and the ECOS?

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay: Thank you very much once again, Mr. Moderator. As for our priorities, our number one priority is institutional capacity building. Now, as The Gambia is advancing the development of a comprehensive national data… Digital Governance Framework to support digital government, evidence-based policymaking, and public service delivery. This initiative is supported by UNDESA and includes a series of stakeholder consultations and capacity-building workshops led by the Ministry of Communication and Digital Economy of The Gambia. Our other priorities also focus on legal and regulatory reforms. For example, we have the data protection and privacy legislation, which is currently in parliament. This is building on the National Data Protection and Privacy Policy of 2019. The Gambia has formulated the Data Protection and Privacy Bill 2023, which is currently before the National Assembly. The bill provides a robust legal framework covering data subject rights, controller and processor responsibilities, transborder data flows, processing principles, safeguards, enforcement mechanisms, and sanctions. Under these reforms, we also have the statistical system reform. This is under the National Strategy for the Development of Statistics. The 2025 Statistics Act is being revised to strengthen coordination across the national statistical system. This reform aligns with the National Development Plan 2023-2027, Agenda 2063, the ECOWAS Regional Statistical Strategy, and the UN SDGs. We also have the national data policy reforms, with support from GIZ and UNDESA. The national data policy has been validated and is pending cabinet submission. It aims to harmonize data governance across sectors and establish a foundation for secure, inclusive, and rights-based use. Another priority is the whole-of-government approach. The MOCDE, which is the Ministry Responsible for Digital Economy, is spearheading cross-sectoral coordination to ensure that data governance is embedded across ministries, departments, and agencies. Once adopted, the policy will address data protection, cyber security, open data, and access to information, while balancing freedom of expression with the mitigation of online The National Data Policy is a cornerstone of the Gambia’s broader digital transformation agenda, aligning with the Digital Transformation Strategy 2024-2028, Digital Economy Master Plan 2024-2034, and Government Open Data Strategy 2024-2027. It supports the NDP, SDGs, and Agenda 2063 by promoting data availability, accessibility, and interoperability to drive innovation, transparency, and inclusive development. Our challenges, particularly the persistent ones, one is capacity gaps. Many ministries, departments, and agencies lack the technical and analytical capabilities to manage and utilize data effectively. A second challenge is fragmentation. The national data ecosystem remains siloed with inconsistent standards for data collection, storage, and sharing. Another challenge we are facing is the digital divide, inequities in digital access and literacy, particularly across rural and undeserved populations. This limits inclusive participation in data-driven governance. And finally, our alignments with EU and ECOWAS strategies. The Gambia’s data governance reforms are closely aligned with the African Union’s data policy framework, which emphasizes data sovereignty, cross-border data flows, and inclusive digital economies. At the regional level, the Gambia is also actively engaged in the ECOWAS Supplementary Act on Personal Data Protection, which is expected to be endorsed by heads of state in the upcoming summit. These efforts underscore the Gambia’s commitment to regional harmonization and digital trust.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you very much. That’s a handful of measures that have been implemented to advance data governance, in spite of the challenges, and it would be good here if the challenges are also shared across regions. But I have a follow-up question. The Gambia also recently launched a five-year strategic plan to strengthen good governance. Its pillars include to to improve transparency and access to information to boost public participation and strengthen institutional capacity and good governance. Could you please describe to us what is the role of the Ministry of Information that you lead in building public trust around the governance?

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay: While the Ministry of Digital Economy leads on technical and regulatory aspects, the Ministry of Information, which I lead, plays a critical role in fostering public trust and civic engagement. One of the things we do, and which is our mandate, is public awareness and digital literacy activities. The Ministry is responsible for sensitizing citizens on their data rights, the value of open data, and the safeguards in place to protect personal information. This includes campaigns to demystify data governance and promote responsible digital citizenship. Our initiative and activities we do focus on transparency and access to information. As a key pillar of the 2025-2029 strategic plan, the Ministry is expected to champion proactive disclosure of government-held data, thereby reinforcing transparency and accountability in public institutions. We also engage in media engagement and narrative framing. By collaborating with public and private media, the Ministry also shapes inclusive narratives that build confidence in digital reforms, counter misinformation and disinformation, and promote calm and stability during periods of digital transition. And finally, we also engage in stakeholder dialogue and inclusion. The Ministry serves as a bridge between government, civil society, and the public, facilitating participatory dialogue to ensure that data governance policies reflect citizen concerns and uphold democratic values.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you very much. We’ll hear now from Commissioner Marinovic of Serbia, which has equally made significant progress in developing a rights-based data governance framework with a particular emphasis on the protection of personal data. Commissioner, what have been the recent institutional challenges of balancing compatibility between digital and data systems with the protection of fundamental rights?

Milan Marinovic: Thank you, Mr. Vakabi. Dear all, greetings from Serbia to everyone. First of all, I want to thank GIZ for the invitation to participate in such an important event. Also, with GIZ support, we plan to raise capacities of policy makers and other policy makers and IT experts in the field of data privacy in Serbia. In the early beginning, let me share with you one of my experiences. Every time I find myself at such a large and important event dedicated to digitalization and the use of modern technologies, I, as someone who deals with the protection of personal data, feel like a cat at a dog’s exhibition. It is an extraordinary pleasure and honor, but also a responsibility to be with you today at this fantastic forum. Protection of personal data, as well as the right to privacy in general, is one of the most threatened fundamental human rights in today’s era of rapid development of modern technologies, widespread digitalization and enormous use of artificial intelligence. That is why it is extremely difficult to find the appropriate balance between digital and data systems and the protection of personal data. Difficult, but not impossible. What is most important in creating that balance? Parallel, balanced development of both sides of the same story. This means that the accelerated development of digitalization in all areas of life must be accompanied by the development of personal data protection systems. Digitalization in general, and artificial intelligence in particular, cannot exist without data processing, especially personal data. They feed and depend on data. The processing of data is certainly necessary and useful, and it will be more and more in the future. But as the processing of personal data grows, so must grow protection of this data. Just as a day cannot exist without night, summer without winter, so the processing of personal data cannot exist without its protection. There is a strong link between the processing and protection of personal data. This implies many things, of which I will mention only those which, in my opinion, are the most important. First, strengthening the system and the measures for the protection of personal data. Second, strengthening data protection authorities around the world. Third, strengthening cooperation and collaboration between data protection authorities from all over the world. Fourth, establishing and strengthening the communication and cooperation of the regulatory bodies with the most important controllers and processors of personal data, such as big tech companies and social networks. And fifth, last but not the least, raising the level of awareness of citizens about the importance of personal data protection.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much, Commissioner. I think all DPAs and many of us are always grappling with best ways in which we can be able to balance those two elements. And you’ve said parallel balanced development of… both is the key. But you also mentioned the issue of a deeper cooperation between DPAs in different countries. In your role, where you sit, what kind of cross-border and inter-regional cooperation is happening between different data protection authorities?

Milan Marinovic: Speaking of cross-border and inter-regional cooperation between data protection authorities, I would like to take this unique opportunity to introduce to you an initiative that I promoted this spring at the Privacy Symposium in Venice. My idea is to form an association of DPAs named E-association of DPAs from all over the world on a global level in an online format. I call this future association E-association of DPAs and my idea is that all regulators, regardless of their status in the country they are from, have the opportunity to exchange practices in the field of personal data protection, to exchange their experience, provide mutual legal assistance and solve common problems in a simple, easy and efficient way on bilateral and multilateral level. As a first step in the realization of this idea, I plan next week to send to all DPAs in the world email in which I will explain the idea of creating an association and ask them did they support this idea and if they would like to be members of the future association. Depending on the answer, the activities we will undertake will also depend.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you very much. Great initiative. We hope you will be also partnering and associating with other actors, academia, civil society, etc. and they will not feel like cats and dogs exhibitions. No, I hope so. So thank you our distinguished speakers for those valuable insights into national approaches to foster regulated and inclusive data governance with many lessons learned and a couple of common challenges. We would now like to invite our regional experts to contribute to this discussion by bringing their experience from West Africa and Southeastern Europe. We are going to begin with Folake Olagunju who is online but was introduced. In the region, Folake, there is a lack of reliable data and this can hamper evidence-based policy making that is necessary for well-founded decision making. How is the economic community for West Africa contributing norm-setting and coordination among its members facilitate cross-border data flow and what lessons can be shared with other regional blocks that are willing to follow suit?

Folake Olagunju: Thank you very much Wakani for giving me the floor and I must apologize for the noise. I’m at a conference center so it’s a bit hectic here. Very valid point. We do know that data is something we all struggle with. It’s not just a West African issue. But for us at the ECWAS Commission, we’re looking to ensure that all the policy making we actually do is anchored based on an evidence-based approach. How do we do this? We try and prioritize the data that we get and ensure that there’s inclusive engagement. We always ensure there are many… Member States are right with us from the very beginning all the way to the end. It was interesting that the Minister from The Gambia spoke about the Supplementary Act on Data Protection within West Africa. That is something we’ve just revised and we’re trying to ensure that it is adopted. That process actually went through from Member States all the way through to the Council of Ministers. But before we did that, we actually made sure we do studies with different stakeholder groups across West Africa. So you’ve got your civil society, you’ve got your private sector, every voice matters. Because when you talk about data, it involves every single person. So it’s not just about a whole of government. I understand why The Gambia is doing a whole of government, but for us at the regional perspective, we’re looking at a whole of society because this is absolutely vital. Now one of the things we’ve done with the revision of the Supplementary Act for the Data Protection within ECOWAS is to look at how we can support cross-border data flow. And this is inter-, intra- and across-borders because this is very, very important. It’s about harmonisation at the regional level, but not homogenisation. So yes, we need to harmonise because we’re a regional bloc, we have similarities, but then it needs to be homogeneous in a certain extent so that it’s tailored to the different nuances of each member country. Stakeholder consultation remains absolutely key, and it’s at the cornerstone of everything that we do at the ECOWAS Commission. We need to ensure that whatever we do is data-driven, and decisions need to have inclusive research, we need to ensure we’ve got academia, we need to ensure civil society for accountability, we need to ensure private sector because they bring the money to the table. We need governments because they are the ones that would actually operationalise whatever it is we do at the regional level. We’re also trying to ensure that what we do aligns with the continental frameworks that we have. The Minister spoke about… not just Malaga Convention, but he also spoke about the ADPF. We look at continental frameworks as well. We’re not working in silos. We ensure that what we do is actually of value to our member states, but also puts them in a right position to be able to actually interact with other regions, like you’ve rightly said, Comestas, SADC, and globally across. We’re looking to align all our standards as well, because this is absolutely very important. So that’s what we’re doing at the moment in terms of harmonization, ensuring that we have evidence, frameworks that are backed up with evidence. Like you rightly said, again, data, not easy to find, but I think if you’re able to actually include people across, what’s the word I’m looking, a plethora of people in the process, you will actually see that at the end of the day, you get that buy-in, and hopefully operationalization becomes a dot. Thank you.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you very much. And as a follow-up, how does ECOWAS support the creation of favorable conditions for data governance in the region, and what stakeholders does it take to effectively implement the strategies?

Folake Olagunju: That’s an interesting question. So one of the things we’re looking to do at the moment is actually have a regional instrument in place that will talk about open data. Now, why do we need open data? We’re trying to ensure that all the frameworks that we put in place at the regional level will do three things. Encourage transparency, promote interoperability, because that is absolutely key, and last but not least, but I think the most vital, is responsible data sharing. So data is only as good as who has it and who is willing to share it and how it’s used. So we’re doing that at the regional level. We’re also looking at certain data priorities in the digital sector development strategy that we’ve got, and this is over five years. What we’re trying to do is to ensure that we can define sensitive and non-sensitive data categories for our member countries. What we find is when you ask someone to share data, they’re a bit reluctant because they don’t know which one needs to be, which data needs to be sovereign and which data can be shared. And I think if we’re able to actually elaborate a little bit more on this, this will actually help. Also, we’re looking at technical and infrastructural standards. I know the Honorable Minister from The Gambia mentioned connectivity. That is something we’re also looking at because without connectivity, how do you even begin to share data or even have the conversations that would allow you to, you know, get data and use data? We’re looking at how we can help member countries transform from a more, I don’t want to say analog government to a more interactive government. So we’re looking at quite a number of member countries have static information portals. So we’re trying to see how we can actually elevate those portals so that they become more interactive for their member countries. And it will actually bring more data and it will actually encourage innovation. Because if you’ve got data, you can also innovate. Like I said earlier on, it has to be across, across what’s the word I’m looking at, multi-stakeholder where the IGF, multi-stakeholder collaboration. So we need private sector, private sector are the big guns. They will actually help us build our data driven solutions. We need governments and ICT regulators to actually adapt and adopt these regulations that we’re putting in place and show that they’re domesticated at the national level. We need academia. They’re the ones that will tell us what we need to be looking at two, three years from now. Last but not least, we need our partners. We can’t do it without them. It’s not always about reinventing the wheel. You can actually take what has been done in a different region, bring it here and tailor it to the new nuances of West Africa. And then I want to say we definitely cannot do it without the citizens. If the citizens don’t use data, if the citizens don’t understand the need for data or the citizens.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much, Folake. Much appreciated. That’s what’s happening in Western Africa. So let’s move on and hear from Southeastern Europe. Olga, that region navigates national data ecosystems with broader regional dynamics. How would you describe the current state of data governance in the region? What are the most prominent dynamics within the region? Thank you for the question. When talking about my region, I like to describe Southeastern

Olga Kyryliuk: Europe as a region with high digital ambition. Also, what makes the region truly unique is that it remains divided between the countries that are operating under the EU regulatory framework such as GDPR, for example, Croatia, and the countries who are still in the process of securing full institutional and legal compliance, such as North Macedonia. This regulatory divide has real consequences, especially when it comes to cross-border trust and data sharing. While the EU member states are benefiting from structured oversight and shared enforcement mechanisms, for the neighboring non-EU countries, even those whose laws quite closely mirror the EU standards, it is often still a challenge because very often they are still considered as third countries in terms of data protection guarantees and safeguards. This status itself introduces friction into the data flows, especially when it comes to public health, education, and digital services where cooperation is supposed to be seamless and smooth. As you can see, the region is caught in between fragmentation and convergence. Fragmentation still defines the legal space, the institutional capacity, and the technical infrastructure. There is also a growing convergence of ambition. We know that there are almost all countries in the region who are having either the EU accession ambition or they are trying to integrate into the global digital markets. This is why they are trying to take the example of the European Union and to standardize and harmonize their laws and their enforcement practices in the sphere of data protection and data governance with the European Union model. This moment also presents both a challenge and an opportunity for our region. When we talk about the challenge, this usually comes to bridging the digital-legal divide which stalls the cooperation. So it’s really very important to ensure that the legal frameworks really talk to each other and there are no major discrepancies. But there is also the opportunity which lies in building shared regional trust frameworks which go beyond the simple compliance mechanisms. I think so far our region is doing quite a good job in trying to adopt the legal frameworks which are according to the best safeguarding practices in terms of data governance and data protection. There is of course quite a long way to go for some countries compared to others because, as I said, the region is not uniform but this is also what is making the region unique and an interesting example for sharing the practices and the case studies with other regions in the world.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you very much. I hear a couple of similarities from your region, Eastern Europe and Western Africa. Issues around harmonization and compliance mechanisms, issues around interoperability We are at the IGF, so we cannot not ask about the role of the IGF. Where you sit, you have the regional IGF CDIG. How is it contributing to harmonizing data governance frameworks? Have there been any successful models from the region that I imagine that could serve as a template for others?

Olga Kyryliuk: I believe that IGFs and CDIG in particular have a crucial role to play in this whole process. First of all, we are contributing by identifying shared priorities across the region. We are connecting the in-country stakeholders from across the region and we bring them to the same room and facilitate the dialogue between the stakeholders. As the next step, we also help to improve trust between counterparts from neighboring countries and help them improve coordinating with each other beyond the borders of their nation states. So, of course, CDIG, as any IGF initiative, is not the space that can create the loss, but we are definitely the space that can create the opportunity where the better loss and better cooperation can be shaped and where the new initiatives with some practical value can take the beginning. I would also say that for fragmented regions like ours, usually the very fact of creating the habit of cooperation is an important first step to trusted cooperation throughout the years and I think this is what the initiatives like CDIG are doing. Also, as I mentioned, there is the imagined practice in our region of shaping the convergence between different countries and I think this is important also to have this culture of different stakeholders talking to each other. Of course, during the CDIG meetings which are happening on the annual basis, we repeatedly have the sessions which are touching from different perspectives the issues of data governance and data protection and we usually get a lot of proposals on these specific topics which means that this is something which resonates with the stakeholders in the region and which is truly important to them. And also, for the upcoming meeting this year in October that we will be hosting in Athens, we also have been partnering with the Council of Europe and will be hosting a pre-event to the main meeting gathering the representatives of the media regulatory authorities from Western Balkans which is also a good example to start with some more trusted conversation where they feel more comfortable to share the challenges that they are experiencing on the daily basis but then, of course, they will join the main meeting and will talk to other stakeholders and there will be also the panel hosted so that this can truly shift to the multi-stakeholder conversation. So, I would say this is probably not the solution for everything having the space like IEGF but this is obviously a good beginning where the good initiatives could start.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you for sharing these inputs, very insightful in regional challenges from Western Africa, from Southeastern Europe. The examples illustrate the importance of the work that regional organizations are doing in facilitating data governance among states. We have looked at national and regional perspectives on data governance and would like to get into the conversation. We will begin with Meri Sheroyan. The digital code recently adopted in Kyrgyzstan aims to create a favorable environment for digital services and data processing. From your perspective, how has the national approach to data governance evolved over the recent years and what opportunities and challenges does civil society have when engaging in data policy and implementation processes?

Tattugal Mambetalieva: Thank you. At the regional level, Kyrgyzstan is the first to use an integration gateway for secure and transparent data exchange between the state bodies and the business. This innovative approach is part of Kyrgyzstan’s recent digital code which set a standard for data handling, focusing on legality, minimization of data collection, accuracy and integrity to build a better digital environment. Kyrgyzstan doesn’t use centralization and localization of data. Centralization of data has risks for data protection and localization of data creates additional burden to business. This approach differs from many neighboring countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan where data centralization and localization of data is used. Therefore, challenges for civil society, risks on data protection and ethical use still remain. Very well.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you for that. As a follow-up, what opportunities do you see for civil society to bridge regional and global data governance efforts? Thank you.

Tattugal Mambetalieva: For Central Asia countries, Central Asia countries Data exchanges are economically interdependent, making data exchange crucial for interaction. However, cross-border data exchange raises concerns about ensuring adequate data security. Civil society must primarily monitor the arrangement of data exchange to ensure countries guarantee transparency, accountability and inclusivity.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much. I will now move to Meri quickly. Armenia is navigating digital transformation. Coming from the non-government sector, why is it important to bring civic tech voices into public processes and what role are they playing today in advancing robust data frameworks?

Meri Sheroyan: Thank you very much for the question. You are completely right. Armenia is going toward digital transformation and has made notable progress in recent years by launching e-governance platforms, digitizing public services, initiating important data governance projects. Currently, the country is working on building both legal and technical frameworks that need to support these transformations. These frameworks aim to define how public information is accessed, to set the standards for data collection and processing, as well as to regulate the use and management of databases. But from my perspective, I think that these efforts not only depend on technological advancements or standards or rules or protocols, but also on inclusive and participatory governance. That’s why I think that civic tech voices into public policy processes are essential. Armenia builds trust in public institutions. It needs the insights and oversight of actors. that actually serves as a bridge between citizens and public institutions. And civic tech organizations such as non-profits, such as watchdog groups or data advocates or digital right defenders play a crucial role in the process. And I think our involvement does not only include just monitoring digital projects but also to flag the ethical concerns, to identify the data misuse or to address barriers of the excess of data. And in areas like practically in procurement, in budget or beneficiary transparency, beneficiary ownership platforms that Armenia has, these are the transparency tools that have shown the greatest impact when they are complemented by the engagement and oversight of the public. I can say just for our organizational perspective and experience, we’re just not doing the monitoring but we go beyond simply evaluating an impact and we do outreach projects, we do education for citizens so they can understand how their data is used, why digital systems matter and how government platforms can improve public services for everyone. So in short, the civic tech voices are not just contributors but are essential partners to build digital systems that are ethical, that are inclusive and also serve for the public.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you very much. Could we briefly also maybe look at some of the capacity gaps that organizations you work with face in leveraging data for sector initiatives?

Meri Sheroyan: For someone who worked many years in public sector, then in international organization and now serving from civil society, I see maybe the issues more crystal clear and maybe I can state one issue that is important, has the importance. I think the lack of clear data strategy maybe is the main challenge and I think that without a unified vision of a roadmap on how data supports the missions, the efforts somehow become fragmented in public institutions. So the weak data governance I think often results to unclear ownership and inconsistent data quality controls. So as we run out of the time, I’ll just be short for this question.

Wairagala Wakabi: We have time. No worries. So thanks everybody. A lot of insights. Before we go to the public to give us some comments and questions, we would like for each participant to use just one minute to give something actionable. Considering the many common challenges that we’ve discussed, what practical steps can your regions take in the next 12 months to strengthen inter-regional, international cooperation on data governance, especially around areas like standard setting, data interoperability and oversight mechanisms? We’ll take this, I think, the same way we went, beginning with the Minister and then the Commissioner and then Olga.

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay: Well, thank you very much. I think one of the practical steps that we can consider is to establish a continental data governance framework so that we can finalize and promote adoption of the EU data policy framework across all member states. This will create a shared baseline for data protection, cross-border data flows, but also interoperability across the continent. Another thing we can also consider is to harmonize national data protection laws across the continent so we can encourage countries to align with continental standards like the Malabu Convention but also internationally with the GDPR style protections. This will reduce fragmentation but also promote easier cross-border collaboration and trust in African data systems. Another thing to consider is to engage in global standard setting bodies to increase African representation in ISO, IEEE, UN bodies, for example, the ITU and others. This will ensure Africa’s interest and realities are reflected in global data standards and regulatory frameworks. And then perhaps we can also consider building regional oversight and coordination mechanisms to create or empower sub-regional data governance hubs. This will help us oversee policy compliance, technical cooperation, joint investigations on cross-border data breaches, but also encourage shared accountability and mutual learning. Thank you.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you, Minister. Commissioner?

Milan Marinovic: Thank you. In the next 12 months, in order to strengthen regional and international cooperation in the field of data governance, in our region of the Western Balkans, we plan to hold multilateral and bilateral meetings with DPAs from the region and with relevant representatives of executive authorities, IT companies and other companies. As a good example of those multilateral meetings, I can tell that there is an initiative from 2017 on the initiative of Slovenia, which gathers all DPAs from former Yugoslavia. And it is a very interesting combination because we have two member states of the EU, Slovenia and Croatia, and four which are not members of the EU as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. But from these four, Serbia and recently Bosnia and Herzegovina has a law of personal data protection which is complied with the GDPR and police directive of the EU. Montenegro and North Macedonia has not yet. So it is one particular meeting. And the second is the meeting of data protection authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia on our initiative, how to solve the problem which we have with the META and X according to changing of their private data.

Olga Kyryliuk: I think my job is now much easier, responding to this question after commissioning, because I don’t actually need to reinvent the wheel. I would just align with the idea of having inter-regional dialogue on cross-border data sharing between the data protection authorities. What I can offer from my side, as long as we are going to host our annual meeting in October, which is still pretty much time until that moment, I can suggest to have some side meeting or run the session with the DPAs during the CDIG meeting, so that we can also bring this conversation to the regional community. This will be another step in developing this idea and making sure that what we have mentioned over here is not just staying at the level of ideas, but we actually take the follow-up action on what we are discussing here. I also think that one of the things that could be done is some kind of mapping of the regulatory bottlenecks in cross-border data sharing. This can show us what are still the challenges in terms of regulatory frameworks, infrastructure and interoperability. Then, from there, different DPAs in different regions could take those findings and recommendations to ensure further alignment through bilateral and multilateral meetings.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much. Olga, we’ll go to Folake.

Folake Olagunju: Thank you very much. I’m going to piggyback on the Honourable Minister from Gambia’s words. He’s already spoken about harmonisation and alignment and all that. If that is taking place in the Gambia, by default, hopefully it means it will have moved to Senegal and then hopefully moved to Sierra Leone. The three countries have done all the harmonization the Honorable Minister was talking about. What I would like to see is a setup of a controlled test environment where we can actually get all these member states, the public agencies of member states, to actually trial an interoperable platform. Now, if we’re able to do this for certain sectors, such as health, education, identity systems, and it works, we will be able to then take those lessons and scale up to a regional event. Thank you.

Wairagala Wakabi: Excellent. We’ll now… Okay. Good.

Tattugal Mambetalieva: First of all, I support all proposals, and currently at all international platforms we’re advising an initiative to create an intergovernmental agreement on data exchange among Central Asia countries, open for other countries to join. And this is because data is the new oil, and issues of access are crucial, not only within a country, but also at the regional level.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much. And finally, Meri?

Meri Sheroyan: For Armenia, what I can say is that the country uses international experience in incorporating many initiatives, for instance, in interoperability, like using X-Road, like an Estonian model. And I think that many practical exercises should be done. So it could be like piloting small-scale data-sharing initiatives to understand whether the cross-border public service delivery works or not. And it could be in different areas, and starting with, like, consular or migration or environmental areas. So this would lead to understand…

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much panelists for those great ideas on joint initiatives on what is relevant work on in the future. Would like now to invite any comments or questions and if whoever has any question or comment please, there is a mic over there, please get there and shoot your question or comment. We have one or two videos, going to ask questions, any others please go ahead and ask. You may mention your name and where you come from. If you want a particular individual to answer the question, you may also direct it to them.

Audience: Thank you all and very excellent panelists. And all the points actually you raised is, I mean, to the critical in the points of the data governance, cross-border governance. So there’s one new protocol and a new framework about, it’s called SOLID and social linked data actually can help to address, can help address all the issues and related to the cross-border governance. So currently, because all the panelists actually from, you know, the emerging countries and emerging countries currently also need the language to be supported by large language models and all the language and the culture can be preserved. and the other is that there is a question about the language data sets. Can you tell us how you observed if the language data sets can be owned by your own country but also can be cross-border and with solid protocol and the LingoAI? So LingoAI is working on the whole solution and can address the issues you raised. Actually the proposal was invented by the founding father of the World Wide Web called Sir Tim Berners-Lee and he joined IGF three times. So I would like to know the deployment or awareness of your countries and to the new protocol of our next generation web. And this protocol was invented to take care of the data control and the data ownership and data sovereignty and cross-border issues. And I’m not sure whether your nation, your country or region have adopted or have the awareness of a solid protocol. Thank you.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much. The question we have received, anybody is welcome to respond to it. While speaking about not only the element of awareness of the protocol but what kind of initiatives are underway in order to promote data ownership but also encourage cross-data flows. Who is willing to give us a comment? Yes, Commissioner.

Milan Marinovic: As I know, Serbia didn’t adopt that protocol yet. But when I heard how good is the protocol for data protection, I’m sure that Serbia will adopt soon.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you. Excellent. Other responses?

Meri Sheroyan: Maybe I can add something. I think that Armenia or any other country localize sensitive data such as biometric information or health records. And also for Armenian cases, I know that government working on distinguish between the sensitive data and less sensitive data. And I think that having different kind of protocols or standards internationally recognized could also impact on the cross-border data sharing. But first of all, for countries that are in a process of implementation and adoption of data governance frameworks, first of all, need to distinguish between sensitive and less sensitive data. And then move forward on adopting international standardization. And I am hopeful that countries like Armenia that are landlocked or emerged will step forward to this initiative to make it possible the cross-border public service delivery across country and out of the country.

Audience: Singapore Internet Governance Forum. So I’m the coordinator and the co-founder for SGIGF. And SGIGF like to work with every countries and the representatives and to help to promote and the solid protocol and the lingual AI to help actually protect the data. And the culture for all the emerging countries. Okay, thank you.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much. Useful contextual information. We know where you’re coming from. And I think many of us will be willing to reach out to you. The minister has a response to that as well.

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay: I think the issue with language is a bit complex because Africa has over 2,000 languages. Some countries have 56 languages. Some have 200 languages. So for us, just like Serbia, we haven’t really considered this yet. As a small country, 2.5 million people, we have almost 11 to 12 different languages, which are totally different. So how we really harmonize this with the language, with 2,000 languages, it’s difficult. Yes, I mean, because of the colonial history, we have French Africa, we have Spanish Africa, Portuguese Africa, English Africa. Perhaps this is something we can consider. Using those languages. But not our indigenous languages.

Audience: Yes. Lingua AI is actually designed for the indigenous languages. Because, you know, when AI becomes popular, becomes a commodity, and everyone currently in emerging countries, almost, is using it. All use English as a language and to prompt and to get the, you know, generative AI result. And gradually, the indigenous language will be forget, and especially the culture build on the languages. So, for larger companies, if they want to support indigenous languages, and they are going to collect the data, in this centralized way, the data will be owned by the centralized company. And after the fine-tuning the large network model, the data will be continuously collected to the larger companies. So, the data will run out of your countries, and your people and the country don’t own the data. This is called digital colonization. So, the new protocol and the solid and the lingual AI is helping to anti, you know, this kind of a digital colonization.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much for that clarification. Okay, thank you very much. Data colonization and data sovereignty are key issues in our conversation from where many of us come from. So, it’s good to know there is something that is addressing that. We will reach out to you, but we do have another comment. Thank you, sir.

Audience: Hi, good afternoon. I think my question might be a little premature looking at the landscape in our country, but I will go ahead and ask anyway. Where there is no IGF, no local IOS, where do you suggest this conversation starts in terms of thinking about regulations and guidance and protocol for cross-border data protection? Should it start with the regulator for the sector? Should it be emanating from civil society? Suggestions, I’m open to hear. Some quick guidelines in the two seconds we probably have. Thank you.

Wairagala Wakabi: Would you mind telling us where you’re from?

Audience: The Bahamas.

Wairagala Wakabi: Lucky you. But we have IGF and you don’t, so, you know. All right, we’ll begin with Olga. She has a response.

Olga Kyryliuk: I think it’s not really the problem that you don’t have yet a dedicated space because the dialogue can be created just from the desire to have the conversation. And very often you can have a much more open and trusted dialogue once you talk to stakeholders who are actually having the decision-making and policy-making power. Sometimes even having the decision-making power, but sometimes they might not have the full awareness or might not be that much in full capacity to execute and enforce. And sometimes just some small support and push from outside might be the beginning of a good positive change inside the country. So, I would say if you want something specifically from the DPA, go to DPA. If you want from someone else, go to them. Start maybe from bilateral one-to-one meetings. And once they feel more comfortable to talk to other stakeholders, then you can extend this dialogue.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you very much. Other panelists? Yes, please.

Milan Marinovic: Only a few words. It must be multilateral, not bilateral. So, when I said multilateral, it means data protection authorities, stakeholders, executive bodies, all, and civil society. Thank you very much.

Wairagala Wakabi: We do have another question. Please go ahead.

Audience: Thank you. Good afternoon. I’m Joseph. I’m here for the Wikimedia Foundation. I was very interested in the Serbian Commissioner’s comment about privacy as a human right, which, of course, we completely agree that it is. But, of course, there are many other human rights, the right to freedom of information and expression. And I’d like to ask the entire panel very broadly how, through this process of harmonizing regional data protection laws and implementing such new laws, how we can ensure that all human rights are respected throughout this process and that the right to privacy does not come at the expense of any other potential right.

Wairagala Wakabi: So, we are going, thanks for that question, what we are going to do is that we are going to couple it up with another related questions. Namely, in many countries there is a diversity of legal systems and institutional maturity is different. How can we move also towards mutual recognition of data protection frameworks without undermining national data sovereignty? I would like you to reflect on that for one minute, even as we all answer the question from the participant from Wikipedia. We have one and a half minutes. Tie in your last word as well, please. We will go… This time, let’s start from my left. Then, you know, move on.

Meri Sheroyan: Okay, maybe I can start. I think there is a blurred line between protecting digital rights and the expression of freedom of information and sometimes government need to deal with that, not to ban the freedom of information while also considering how to protect them and how to protect their rights in Internet because in recent years the Internet gives us a broad mass of information which can lead to fake news, which can lead to disinformation and for the government it’s important to underline this line and protect their rights but also not to violate the freedom of information. And concerning the question, I think there should be formal cooperation channels between different countries for data protection agencies in different countries so that they can set clear protocols for audits, incident responses or enforcement coordination, etc. So my perspective is that these formal cooperation channels could lead to the national digital sovereignty and to implement data protection frameworks.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thanks, Mary. Satya, the same for you.

Tattugal Mambetalieva: Continue our previous discussion about synchronization and harmonization of approaches between countries are crucial. We need to create an environment of trust and organize a transparent data exchange making it clear who is using the data and for what purpose, I think.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you so much. We’ll go to Olga and then the Commissioner.

Olga Kyryliuk: So as a lawyer I don’t see the mutual recognition of data protection frameworks as a threat to national sovereignty but it’s rather an issue of legal interoperability. So we often don’t need to create the identical laws but what we really need is to create the trustworthy equivalence and to create the trust which is cross-border trust so that whenever the data is shared there are also some safeguards in place and responsibility which comes for the breach of mishandling of data. But also I would say that it’s important to ensure that there is transparent oversight and independent enforcement whenever it comes to handling the personal data. So once that is in place it’s just a matter of… for Dialogue and Trust between the Borders and between the Nation-States.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thanks, Olga.

Milan Marinovic: When we speak about sovereignty and data protection authority, it is possible because any law which is based as a law in Serbia on GDPR and police directive have exceptions of the principles. So, if there is a national security in question, you have exceptions of ordinary data protection authority. We have two models of data protection authorities, ordinary and specially which made the bodies in that situation like organized crime, national security, etc. And according to the question of the Wikimedia, I must say something. Exist states in Europe and in the world which have two-in-one system, two bodies which protect two rights, two human rights, personal data protection and free access to information of public importance. It is a situation in Serbia. So, I think that it is a good situation because you can measure in any particular case what is stronger, personal data protection or right to know of the public.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you, Commissioner. We’ll go to Folake for one minute and then we’ll end with the Minister.

Folake Olagunju: Thank you very much. Obviously, we all agree that building trust is required around data. For me, I know sovereignty matters. Thank you so much. And we’ll end with Amin.

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay: Yes, I think we were able to solve the problem by we currently have the access to information commission, which has been operationalized. And once we pass the data protection law by the end of this year, we are going to merge these two commissions. So they can be able to fulfill that role of balancing each other like the commissioner from Sabia has said. So that we are going to have one commission responsible for access to information, but also oversight over data protection. And my final words would be, three words will summarize what I’ve been saying. That is harmonization, harmonization, harmonization. We need to harmonize legal and regulatory frameworks and legally binding EU-wide data governance charter, aligned with the Malabu Convention, but also with the GDPR principles and Global Digital Compact. And finally, we need to create uniform standards for consent, privacy, cross-border flows and AI ethics. Thank you.

Wairagala Wakabi: Thank you, Dr. Cisse. Thank you, Commissioner Marinović. Thank you, Meri, Folake, Olga and Tato. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me.

Agreement points

Need for harmonization of data governance frameworks across regions

Speakers

– Dr. Ismaila Ceesay
– Folake Olagunju
– Olga Kyryliuk

Arguments

The Gambia aligns with African Union data policy framework and ECOWAS Supplementary Act on Personal Data Protection

ECOWAS revised the Supplementary Act on Data Protection to support cross-border data flow through harmonization rather than homogenization

Mutual recognition of data protection frameworks is about legal interoperability rather than threat to national sovereignty

Summary

All speakers agree that regional harmonization of data governance frameworks is essential, but emphasize that harmonization should not mean homogenization – allowing for local adaptations while maintaining interoperability

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Multi-stakeholder engagement is crucial for effective data governance

Speakers

– Folake Olagunju
– Meri Sheroyan
– Milan Marinovic

Arguments

ECOWAS prioritizes inclusive engagement ensuring all member states participate from beginning to end with whole-of-society approach

Civic tech voices are essential partners building trust in public institutions and serving as bridge between citizens and government

Proposed E-association of DPAs worldwide to enable exchange of practices and mutual legal assistance in simple online format

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that effective data governance requires involvement of all stakeholders including government, civil society, private sector, academia, and citizens rather than top-down approaches

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Balancing data protection with innovation and other rights is a fundamental challenge

Speakers

– Milan Marinovic
– Meri Sheroyan
– Audience

Arguments

Parallel balanced development of digitalization and personal data protection systems is essential, as they cannot exist without each other

Armenia is building legal and technical frameworks for digital transformation including e-governance platforms and data governance projects

Human rights must be balanced in data protection implementation to ensure privacy doesn’t come at expense of freedom of information and expression

Summary

There is consensus that data protection cannot be implemented in isolation but must be balanced with digital innovation, economic development, and other fundamental rights like freedom of expression

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Capacity building and institutional development are critical priorities

Speakers

– Dr. Ismaila Ceesay
– Tattugal Mambetalieva
– Meri Sheroyan

Arguments

The Gambia prioritizes institutional capacity building, legal reforms, and whole-of-government approach with data protection legislation currently in parliament

Civil society must monitor data exchange arrangements to ensure transparency, accountability and inclusivity

Civic tech voices are essential partners building trust in public institutions and serving as bridge between citizens and government

Summary

All speakers recognize that effective data governance requires significant investment in building institutional capacity, technical capabilities, and oversight mechanisms

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for institutional approaches that balance data protection with transparency and access to information, with dedicated bodies handling both responsibilities

Speakers

– Dr. Ismaila Ceesay
– Milan Marinovic

Arguments

Ministry of Information plays critical role in fostering public trust through digital literacy, transparency, and stakeholder dialogue

Two-in-one system protecting both personal data and free access to public information allows balancing competing rights

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasize the need for practical, incremental approaches to data sharing that start with clear categorization and small-scale pilots before scaling up

Speakers

– Folake Olagunju
– Meri Sheroyan

Arguments

Countries must distinguish between sensitive and less sensitive data categories to facilitate responsible data sharing

Piloting small-scale data-sharing initiatives for cross-border public service delivery in consular, migration, or environmental areas

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers highlight how their regions face challenges from regulatory fragmentation and different approaches to data governance among neighboring countries

Speakers

– Tattugal Mambetalieva
– Olga Kyryliuk

Arguments

Kyrgyzstan avoids centralization and localization of data unlike neighboring countries, reducing risks to data protection

Southeastern Europe faces regulatory divide between EU member states operating under GDPR and non-EU countries still seeking compliance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Digital colonization and indigenous language preservation

Speakers

– Audience
– Dr. Ismaila Ceesay

Arguments

SOLID protocol and LingoAI can address cross-border data governance issues while preserving indigenous languages and preventing digital colonization

Need to establish continental data governance framework and increase African representation in global standard setting bodies

Explanation

There was unexpected alignment between the audience member’s technical solution (SOLID protocol) and the Minister’s call for African representation in global standards, both addressing concerns about digital sovereignty and preventing external control over local data and cultural assets

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Practical implementation through pilot projects and controlled environments

Speakers

– Folake Olagunju
– Meri Sheroyan
– Olga Kyryliuk

Arguments

Controlled test environments for member states to trial interoperable platforms in sectors like health and education

Piloting small-scale data-sharing initiatives for cross-border public service delivery in consular, migration, or environmental areas

IGFs like CDIG contribute by identifying shared priorities and facilitating dialogue between stakeholders across regions

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from different regions converged on the same practical approach of starting with small-scale pilots and controlled environments rather than attempting large-scale implementations immediately

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on fundamental principles of data governance including the need for harmonization (not homogenization), multi-stakeholder engagement, capacity building, and balancing protection with innovation. Speakers consistently emphasized practical, incremental approaches over ambitious large-scale implementations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on principles and approaches, with speakers from different regions facing similar challenges and converging on similar solutions. This suggests that despite different regulatory environments, there are universal principles and practical approaches that can guide effective data governance across regions. The consensus provides a strong foundation for inter-regional cooperation and knowledge sharing.

Different viewpoints

Data localization and centralization approaches

Speakers

– Tattugal Mambetalieva

Arguments

Kyrgyzstan avoids centralization and localization of data unlike neighboring countries, reducing risks to data protection

Summary

Kyrgyzstan explicitly chose not to use data centralization and localization approaches, differing from neighboring countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. This represents a fundamental disagreement on data governance strategy within the Central Asian region.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Scope of stakeholder engagement approach

Speakers

– Dr. Ismaila Ceesay
– Folake Olagunju

Arguments

The Gambia is spearheading cross-sectoral coordination to ensure that data governance is embedded across ministries, departments, and agencies

ECOWAS prioritizes inclusive engagement ensuring all member states participate from beginning to end with whole-of-society approach

Summary

While The Gambia focuses on a ‘whole-of-government’ approach primarily targeting government institutions, ECOWAS advocates for a broader ‘whole-of-society’ approach that includes civil society, private sector, academia, and citizens from the beginning.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Language preservation in data governance

Speakers

– Dr. Ismaila Ceesay
– Audience

Arguments

The issue with language is a bit complex because Africa has over 2,000 languages. Some countries have 56 languages. Some have 200 languages. So for us, just like Serbia, we haven’t really considered this yet

SOLID protocol and LingoAI can address cross-border data governance issues while preserving indigenous languages and preventing digital colonization

Explanation

An unexpected disagreement emerged around the feasibility and priority of preserving indigenous languages in data governance frameworks. While the audience member emphasized the importance of preventing digital colonization through language preservation, the Minister from The Gambia expressed skepticism about the practical implementation given Africa’s linguistic diversity.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement among speakers, with most conflicts centered around implementation approaches rather than core principles. Main areas of disagreement included data localization strategies, stakeholder engagement scope, and practical approaches to cross-border cooperation mechanisms.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers generally agreed on fundamental principles of data governance, human rights protection, and the need for regional cooperation. Disagreements were primarily tactical rather than strategic, focusing on ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ or ‘why’. This suggests a mature policy environment where stakeholders share common goals but may have different preferred pathways to achieve them. The implications are positive for international cooperation, as the shared foundation provides a basis for compromise and collaborative solutions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for institutional approaches that balance data protection with transparency and access to information, with dedicated bodies handling both responsibilities

Speakers

– Dr. Ismaila Ceesay
– Milan Marinovic

Arguments

Ministry of Information plays critical role in fostering public trust through digital literacy, transparency, and stakeholder dialogue

Two-in-one system protecting both personal data and free access to public information allows balancing competing rights

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasize the need for practical, incremental approaches to data sharing that start with clear categorization and small-scale pilots before scaling up

Speakers

– Folake Olagunju
– Meri Sheroyan

Arguments

Countries must distinguish between sensitive and less sensitive data categories to facilitate responsible data sharing

Piloting small-scale data-sharing initiatives for cross-border public service delivery in consular, migration, or environmental areas

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers highlight how their regions face challenges from regulatory fragmentation and different approaches to data governance among neighboring countries

Speakers

– Tattugal Mambetalieva
– Olga Kyryliuk

Arguments

Kyrgyzstan avoids centralization and localization of data unlike neighboring countries, reducing risks to data protection

Southeastern Europe faces regulatory divide between EU member states operating under GDPR and non-EU countries still seeking compliance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

Harmonization of data governance frameworks across regions is critical, but should focus on harmonization rather than homogenization to respect local contexts and nuances

Parallel balanced development of digitalization and data protection systems is essential – they cannot exist without each other and must grow together

Multi-stakeholder engagement involving government, civil society, private sector, academia, and citizens is fundamental to successful data governance implementation

Cross-border data flows require building trust frameworks and legal interoperability rather than identical laws across jurisdictions

Regional organizations like ECOWAS, African Union, and regional IGFs play crucial roles in facilitating dialogue and coordination between member states

Capacity building, institutional strengthening, and bridging digital divides remain persistent challenges across all regions discussed

Data protection authorities need stronger international cooperation mechanisms to address cross-border data governance challenges effectively

Resolutions and action items

Commissioner Marinovic to send emails to all DPAs worldwide next week proposing creation of an E-association of DPAs for global cooperation

CDIG to host a side meeting or session with DPAs during their October meeting in Athens to advance inter-regional dialogue

ECOWAS to establish controlled test environments for member states to trial interoperable platforms in sectors like health, education, and identity systems

The Gambia to finalize data protection legislation by end of year and merge access to information commission with future data protection authority

Central Asia countries to develop intergovernmental agreement on data exchange with openness for other countries to join

Armenia to pilot small-scale cross-border data-sharing initiatives in consular, migration, or environmental areas

African countries to establish continental data governance framework and increase representation in global standard-setting bodies like ISO, IEEE, and ITU

Unresolved issues

How to effectively handle indigenous language preservation and data sovereignty concerns in the context of AI and large language models

Balancing privacy rights with freedom of information and expression rights in harmonized frameworks

Addressing the regulatory divide between EU member states and non-EU countries in Southeastern Europe for seamless data cooperation

Managing the complexity of over 2,000 languages across Africa in data governance frameworks

Establishing clear protocols for distinguishing between sensitive and non-sensitive data categories across different jurisdictions

Creating adequate safeguards against digital colonization while enabling beneficial cross-border data flows

Developing capacity and infrastructure in countries without existing IGFs or mature institutional frameworks

Suggested compromises

Two-in-one system combining data protection and access to information oversight in single authority to balance competing rights (as implemented in Serbia and planned for The Gambia)

Using colonial languages (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese) as interim solution for African language data governance while working toward indigenous language solutions

Creating trustworthy equivalence rather than identical laws for mutual recognition of data protection frameworks

Establishing formal cooperation channels between countries’ data protection agencies with clear protocols for audits and enforcement coordination

Starting with bilateral one-to-one meetings between stakeholders before expanding to multilateral dialogue in countries without established frameworks

Mapping regulatory bottlenecks in cross-border data sharing to identify specific areas for targeted bilateral and multilateral cooperation

Protection of personal data, as well as the right to privacy in general, is one of the most threatened fundamental human rights in today’s era of rapid development of modern technologies… Just as a day cannot exist without night, summer without winter, so the processing of personal data cannot exist without its protection.

Speaker

Milan Marinovic (Commissioner, Serbia)

Reason

This philosophical framing elevated the discussion from technical compliance to fundamental human rights, using powerful metaphors to illustrate the inseparable relationship between data use and protection. It challenged the common view that privacy and innovation are in tension.

Impact

This comment shifted the entire tone of the discussion from technical implementation to rights-based approaches. It influenced subsequent speakers to frame their responses in terms of balancing rights rather than just regulatory compliance, and set up the foundation for later discussions about balancing privacy with other human rights like freedom of information.

My idea is to form an association of DPAs named E-association of DPAs from all over the world on a global level in an online format… I plan next week to send to all DPAs in the world email in which I will explain the idea of creating an association and ask them did they support this idea.

Speaker

Milan Marinovic (Commissioner, Serbia)

Reason

This was a concrete, actionable proposal that moved beyond theoretical discussion to practical implementation. It demonstrated how regional cooperation could scale to global cooperation and showed initiative in creating new institutional frameworks.

Impact

This proposal energized the discussion and influenced other panelists to think more concretely about actionable steps. It led to Olga offering to host a side meeting during CDIG, showing how one concrete proposal can catalyze additional collaborative initiatives.

It’s not just about a whole of government. I understand why The Gambia is doing a whole of government, but for us at the regional perspective, we’re looking at a whole of society because this is absolutely vital… It’s about harmonisation at the regional level, but not homogenisation.

Speaker

Folake Olagunju (ECOWAS)

Reason

This distinction between ‘whole of government’ and ‘whole of society’ approaches was intellectually significant, recognizing that data governance affects everyone, not just government entities. The harmonization vs. homogenization distinction was particularly nuanced, acknowledging the need for common standards while respecting local contexts.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of the discussion to include all stakeholders and influenced how other speakers conceptualized inclusive governance. It also provided a framework for thinking about regional cooperation that respects sovereignty while enabling interoperability.

Kyrgyzstan doesn’t use centralization and localization of data. Centralization of data has risks for data protection and localization of data creates additional burden to business. This approach differs from many neighboring countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan where data centralization and localization of data is used.

Speaker

Tattugal Mambetalieva (Kyrgyzstan)

Reason

This was a bold counter-narrative to the common assumption that data localization equals data sovereignty. It challenged conventional wisdom by arguing that decentralization might actually be better for both privacy and business, offering a different model from regional neighbors.

Impact

This comment introduced complexity to the discussion about data sovereignty approaches and showed that there isn’t one-size-fits-all solution. It prompted reflection on different models and their trade-offs, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of policy options.

So, the data will run out of your countries, and your people and the country don’t own the data. This is called digital colonization. So, the new protocol and the solid and the lingual AI is helping to anti, you know, this kind of a digital colonization.

Speaker

Audience member (Singapore IGF)

Reason

The introduction of ‘digital colonization’ as a concept was provocative and reframed data governance as an anti-colonial struggle. This connected historical power dynamics to contemporary digital issues, particularly relevant for the Global South participants.

Impact

This comment resonated strongly with the moderator and several panelists, as evidenced by the moderator’s response: ‘Data colonization and data sovereignty are key issues in our conversation from where many of us come from.’ It added a critical perspective that connected technical discussions to broader issues of global power and equity.

I, as someone who deals with the protection of personal data, feel like a cat at a dog’s exhibition.

Speaker

Milan Marinovic (Commissioner, Serbia)

Reason

This humorous but insightful metaphor captured the tension that privacy advocates often feel in technology-focused discussions. It acknowledged the challenge of being the ‘voice of caution’ in innovation-driven environments while doing so with self-awareness and humor.

Impact

This comment created a moment of levity that made the discussion more relatable and human. It also established Marinovic as someone who could balance serious concerns with approachable communication, which may have made his subsequent technical proposals more palatable to the audience.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by elevating it from a technical policy exchange to a more philosophical and rights-based dialogue. Marinovic’s human rights framing and metaphors set a tone that influenced how other speakers approached the topic, while his concrete proposal for a global DPA association provided a practical anchor for the theoretical discussions. The ‘whole of society’ vs ‘whole of government’ distinction broadened the scope of consideration, and the digital colonization concept added critical depth about power dynamics. Together, these comments created a multi-layered conversation that balanced philosophical foundations, practical proposals, inclusive approaches, and critical perspectives on global digital governance. The discussion evolved from individual country reports to collaborative problem-solving, with participants building on each other’s insights to develop more nuanced and actionable approaches to cross-border data governance.

How can regions effectively balance harmonization with homogenization when developing cross-border data governance frameworks?

Speaker

Folake Olagunju

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of creating unified regional standards while respecting individual country nuances and sovereignty

What specific mechanisms can be established to create mutual recognition of data protection frameworks between countries with different legal systems and institutional maturity levels?

Speaker

Wairagala Wakabi

Explanation

This explores how countries can work together despite having different levels of development in their data protection systems

How can the proposed E-association of DPAs be structured and implemented to facilitate global cooperation among data protection authorities?

Speaker

Milan Marinovic

Explanation

This follows up on the Commissioner’s initiative to create a global online association of data protection authorities for knowledge sharing and cooperation

What are the practical steps for implementing controlled test environments for interoperable platforms across member states in different sectors?

Speaker

Folake Olagunju

Explanation

This addresses the need for pilot programs to test cross-border data sharing in sectors like health, education, and identity systems

How can countries with over 2,000 indigenous languages effectively implement language-preserving AI and data governance protocols?

Speaker

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay and Singapore IGF representative

Explanation

This explores the challenge of preserving linguistic diversity while implementing modern data governance frameworks

What is the level of awareness and potential for adoption of the SOLID protocol across different regions for addressing data sovereignty and digital colonization?

Speaker

Singapore IGF representative

Explanation

This investigates how emerging technologies can help countries maintain control over their data while enabling cross-border flows

How can countries without established IGFs or local internet governance structures initiate data governance conversations and which stakeholders should lead this process?

Speaker

Participant from The Bahamas

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of starting data governance initiatives in countries with limited existing infrastructure

How can data protection laws be designed to ensure all human rights are respected, particularly balancing privacy rights with freedom of information and expression?

Speaker

Joseph from Wikimedia Foundation

Explanation

This explores the complex challenge of protecting multiple human rights simultaneously without one undermining another

What specific criteria should be used to distinguish between sensitive and non-sensitive data categories at both national and regional levels?

Speaker

Folake Olagunju and Meri Sheroyan

Explanation

This addresses the need for clear categorization systems to facilitate appropriate data sharing while maintaining security

How can small-scale pilot initiatives for cross-border public service delivery be designed and implemented in areas like consular services, migration, and environmental cooperation?

Speaker

Meri Sheroyan

Explanation

This explores practical approaches to testing cross-border data sharing through specific use cases

Summary

This workshop, titled “Elevating Children’s Voices in AI Design,” brought together researchers, experts, and young people to discuss the impact of artificial intelligence on children and how to make AI development more child-centric. The session was sponsored by the Lego Group and included participants from the Family Online Safety Institute, the Alan Turing Institute, and the UN’s Center for AI and Robotics. The discussion began with powerful video messages from young people across the UK, who emphasized that AI should be viewed as a tool to aid rather than replace humans, while highlighting concerns about privacy, environmental impact, and the need for ethical development.

Stephen Balkam from the Family Online Safety Institute presented research showing that, unlike previous technology trends, teens now believe their parents know more about generative AI than they do. The research revealed that while parents use AI mainly for analytical tasks, teens focus on efficiency-boosting activities like proofreading and summarizing. Both groups expressed concerns about job loss and misinformation, though they remained optimistic about AI’s potential for learning and scientific progress. Maria Eira from UNICRI shared findings from a global survey indicating a lack of awareness among parents about how their children use AI for personal purposes, and noted that parents who regularly use AI themselves tend to view its impact on children more positively.

Dr. Mhairi Aitken from the Alan Turing Institute presented research funded by the Lego Group showing that about 22% of children aged 8-12 use generative AI, with significant disparities between private and state-funded schools. The research found that children with additional learning needs were more likely to use AI for communication, and that children showed strong preferences for traditional tactile art materials over AI-generated alternatives. Key concerns raised by children included bias and representation in AI outputs, environmental impacts, and exposure to inappropriate content. The discussion concluded that AI systems are not currently designed with children in mind, echoing patterns from previous technology waves, and emphasized the need for greater transparency, child-centered design principles, and critical AI literacy rather than just technical understanding.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Children’s Current AI Usage and Readiness**: Research reveals that children aged 8-12 are already using generative AI (22% reported usage), but AI systems are not designed with children in mind. This creates a fundamental mismatch where children are adapting to adult-designed systems rather than having age-appropriate tools available to them.

– **Parental Awareness and Communication Gaps**: Studies show significant disconnects between parents and children regarding AI use. While parents are aware of academic uses, they often don’t know about more personal uses like AI companions. Parents who regularly use AI themselves tend to view its impact on children more positively, highlighting the importance of parental AI literacy.

– **Equity and Access Concerns**: Research identified stark differences in AI access and education between private and state-funded schools, with children in private schools having significantly more exposure to and understanding of generative AI. This points to growing digital divides that could exacerbate existing educational inequalities.

– **Children’s Rights and Ethical Considerations**: Young people expressed sophisticated concerns about AI bias, environmental impact, and representation in AI outputs. Children of color became upset when not represented in AI-generated images, sometimes choosing not to use the technology as a result. There’s a strong call for children’s voices to be included in AI development and policy decisions.

– **Design and Safety Challenges**: The discussion emphasized that AI systems need to be designed with children’s wellbeing from the start, not retrofitted later. Key concerns include inappropriate content exposure, emotional dependency on AI companions, and the need for transparency about how AI systems work and collect data.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to elevate children’s voices in AI design and development by presenting research on how AI impacts children, sharing direct perspectives from young people, and advocating for child-centric approaches to AI development. The session sought to demonstrate that children have valuable insights about AI and should be meaningfully included in decision-making processes about technologies that will significantly impact their lives.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently serious yet optimistic tone throughout. It began with powerful, articulate messages from young people that set a respectful, non-patronizing approach to children’s perspectives. The research presentations were delivered in an academic but accessible manner, emphasizing both opportunities and concerns. The panel discussion became increasingly collaborative and solution-focused, with participants building on each other’s insights. The presence of young participants (like 17-year-old Ryan) reinforced the workshop’s commitment to including youth voices, and the session concluded on an empowering note with the quote “the goal cannot be the profits, it must be the people,” emphasizing the human-centered approach needed for AI development.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Online Participants** – Young people from across the UK sharing their views on generative AI (names not disclosed for safety reasons)

– **Dr. Mhairi Aitken** – Senior Ethics Research Fellow at the Alan Turing Institute, leads the children and AI program

– **Leanda Barrington‑Leach** – Executive Director of the Five Rights Foundation

– **Participant** – Multiple unidentified participants asking questions from the audience

– **Maria Eira** – AI expert at the Center for AI and Robotics at the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI)

– **Adam Ingle** – Representative from the Lego Group, workshop moderator and convener

– **Stephen Balkam** – Founding CEO of the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI)

– **Mariana Rozo‑Paz** – Representative from DataSphere Initiative

– **Joon Baek** – Representative from Youth for Privacy, a youth NGO focused on digital privacy

– **Co-Moderator** – Online moderator named Lisa

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ryan** – 17-year-old youth ambassador of the OnePAL Foundation in Hong Kong, advocating for digital sustainability and access

– **Elisa** – Representative from the OnePile Foundation (same organization as Ryan)

– **Grace Thompson** – From CAIDP (asked question online, mentioned by moderator)

– **Katarina** – Law student in the UK studying AI law (asked question online)

# Elevating Children’s Voices in AI Design: A Comprehensive Workshop Report

## Executive Summary

The workshop “Elevating Children’s Voices in AI Design,” sponsored by the Lego Group, brought together leading researchers, policy experts, and young people to address the critical gap between children’s experiences with artificial intelligence and their representation in AI development decisions. The session featured participants from the Family Online Safety Institute, the Alan Turing Institute, and UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute), alongside direct contributions from young people across the UK and internationally.

The discussion revealed a fundamental challenge: whilst children are already using generative AI at significant rates, AI systems are not designed with children’s needs, safety, or wellbeing in mind. This pattern mirrors previous technology rollouts where child safety considerations were retrofitted rather than built in from the start. The workshop established that children possess sophisticated understanding of AI’s implications and valuable insights for its development, emphasizing the need for meaningful youth participation in AI governance.

## Opening Perspectives: Children’s Voices on AI

The workshop opened with compelling video messages from young people across the UK who articulated sophisticated perspectives on AI’s potential and risks. These participants emphasized that AI should be viewed as a tool to aid rather than replace humans, stating: “AI is extremely advantageous when used correctly. But when misused, it can have devastating effects on humans.”

The young participants demonstrated remarkable awareness of complex issues surrounding AI development. They highlighted concerns about privacy, describing it as “a basic right, not a luxury,” and showed deep understanding of environmental impacts, noting that “AI training requires massive resources including thousands of litres of water and extensive GPU usage.” They asserted their right to meaningful participation in AI governance: “Young people like me must be part of this conversation. We aren’t just the future, we’re here now.”

Their perspectives on education were particularly nuanced, advocating that “AI should be taught in schools rather than banned, with focus on critical thinking and fact-checking skills.” This position demonstrated their understanding that prohibition is less effective than education in preparing young people for an AI-integrated world.

The session also referenced the Children’s AI Summit, which produced a “Children’s Manifesto for the Future of AI” featuring contributions from young people including Ethan (16) and Alexander, Ashvika, Eva, and Mustafa (all 11).

## Research Findings: Current State of Children’s AI Use

### Family Online Safety Institute Research

Stephen Balkam from the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI), a 501c3 charitable organization, presented research that revealed an unusual pattern in technology adoption. For the first time, teenagers reported that their parents knew more about generative AI than they did, primarily because parents were learning AI for workplace purposes.

The research revealed distinct usage patterns between generations. Parents primarily used AI for analytical tasks related to their professional responsibilities, whilst teenagers focused on efficiency-boosting activities such as proofreading and summarizing academic work. However, concerning trends emerged showing that students were increasingly using generative AI to complete their work entirely rather than merely to enhance it.

Both parents and teenagers expressed shared concerns about job displacement and misinformation, though they remained optimistic about AI’s potential for learning and scientific progress. Data transparency emerged as the top priority for both groups when considering AI companies.

Stephen also conducted an interactive demonstration with the audience, showing AI-generated versus real images, including examples from Google’s new Veo video generator, to illustrate the increasing sophistication of AI-generated content and the challenges this poses for detection.

### UNICRI Global Survey Insights

Maria Eira from UNICRI’s Centre for AI and Robotics shared findings from a survey published three days prior to the workshop, covering 19 countries across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. The research revealed significant communication gaps between parents and children regarding AI use. While parents demonstrated awareness of their children’s academic AI applications, they often remained unaware of more personal uses, such as AI companions or seeking help for personal problems.

The research identified a crucial correlation: parents who regularly used generative AI themselves felt more positive about its impact on their children’s development. This finding suggested that familiarity with technology shapes attitudes toward children’s use.

Eira’s research also highlighted the need for separate legislative frameworks specifically targeting children’s AI rights, recognizing that children cannot provide the same informed consent as adults and face unique vulnerabilities in AI interactions.

### Alan Turing Institute Children and AI Research

Dr. Mhairi Aitken presented research on children’s direct experiences with AI, funded by the Lego Group. The study found that approximately 22% of children aged 8-12 reported using generative AI, with three out of five teachers incorporating AI into their work. However, the research revealed stark disparities in access and understanding between private and state-funded schools, pointing to emerging equity issues.

The research uncovered particularly significant findings regarding children with additional learning needs, who showed heightened interest in using AI for communication and support. This suggested AI’s potential for inclusive education, though Dr. Aitken emphasized that development must be grounded in understanding actual needs rather than technology-first approaches.

When given choices between AI tools and traditional materials for creative activities, children overwhelmingly chose traditional tactile options. They expressed that “art is actually real” whilst feeling they “couldn’t say that about AI art because the computer did it, not them.” This preference revealed children’s sophisticated understanding of authenticity and creativity.

The research also documented concerning issues with bias and representation in AI outputs. Children of color became upset when not represented in AI-generated images, sometimes choosing not to use the technology as a result. Similarly, children who learned about the environmental impacts of AI models often decided against using them.

## Panel Discussion and Key Themes

### Design and Safety Challenges

The panel discussion revealed that AI systems fundamentally fail to consider children’s needs during development. Stephen Balkam noted that this pattern repeats previous web technologies where safety features were retrofitted rather than built in from the start. Dr. Aitken emphasized that the burden should be on developers and policymakers to make systems safe rather than expecting children to police their interactions.

Particular concerns emerged around AI companions and chatbots, with evidence that young children were forming emotional attachments to these systems and using them for therapy-like conversations. This raised questions about potential dependency and isolation from real community connections.

### Educational Impact and Equity

The research revealed troubling equity gaps in AI access and education. Children in private schools demonstrated significantly more exposure to and understanding of generative AI compared to their peers in state-funded schools, suggesting that AI could exacerbate existing educational inequalities.

However, the discussion also highlighted AI’s potential for supporting inclusive education, particularly for children with additional learning needs who showed interest in using AI for communication support.

### Privacy, Transparency, and Rights

Data protection emerged as a fundamental concern across all speakers. The young participants’ assertion that privacy is a basic right was echoed by researchers who emphasized the need for transparency about AI system operations and data collection practices. Stephen Balkam noted the ongoing challenge of balancing safety and privacy, observing that more safety potentially requires less privacy.

## International Youth Participation

The workshop included international youth participation, notably from 17-year-old Ryan, a youth ambassador of the OnePAL Foundation in Hong Kong, who asked specifically about leveraging generative AI for supporting people with disabilities. Elisa from the OnePile Foundation raised questions about power imbalances between children and AI systems. Zahra Amjed was scheduled to join as a young representative but experienced technical difficulties.

## Areas of Consensus and Ongoing Challenges

Participants agreed on several fundamental principles:

– AI systems must be designed with children’s needs and safety in mind from the outset

– Children must be meaningfully included in AI decision-making processes

– Transparency about data practices and privacy protection are essential requirements

– AI shows significant potential for supporting children with disabilities and additional learning needs

– Environmental responsibility must be considered in AI development

However, several challenges remained unresolved. Maria Eira noted that long-term impacts of AI technology on children remain unclear with contradictory research results. The challenge of creating AI companions that support children without fostering dependency remained unaddressed, and questions about global implementation of AI literacy programs require continued attention.

## Emerging Action Items and Recommendations

The discussion generated several concrete initiatives:

**Immediate Initiatives**: UNICRI announced the launch of AI literacy resources, including a 3D animation movie for adolescents and parent guide, at the upcoming AI for Good Summit.

**Industry Responsibilities**: Technology companies were called upon to provide transparent explanations of AI decision-making processes, algorithm recommendations, and system limitations.

**Educational Integration**: Rather than banning AI in schools, participants advocated for integration with strong emphasis on critical thinking and fact-checking skills.

**Research and Development**: The discussion highlighted needs for funding research on AI literacy programs and designing AI tools with children’s needs prioritized from the start.

**Legislative Approaches**: Participants called for separate legislation specifically targeting children’s AI rights and protections, recognizing children’s unique vulnerabilities in AI interactions.

## Conclusion

The workshop established that the question is not whether children are ready for AI, but whether AI is ready for children. Current systems fail to meet children’s needs, rights, and developmental requirements, necessitating fundamental changes in design approaches, regulatory frameworks, and industry practices.

As Maria Eira emphasized, echoing the sentiment of young participants: “the goal cannot be the profits, it must be the people.” This principle encapsulates the fundamental shift required in AI development—from technology-first approaches toward human-centered design prioritizing children’s rights, wellbeing, and meaningful participation.

The workshop demonstrated that when children’s voices are genuinely heard and valued, they contribute essential perspectives that benefit not only young people but society as a whole. Moving forward, the emphasis must be on meaningful youth participation in AI governance, transparent and child-friendly AI systems, critical AI literacy education, and regulatory approaches that protect children’s rights while respecting their agency.

Adam Ingle: Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining this panel session workshop called Elevating Children’s Voices in AI Design. Sponsored by the Lego Group and also participating is the Family Online Safety Institute, the Almond Turing Institute, and the Center for AI and Robotics at the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. We’ve got a excellent workshop for you today, where you hear all about insights from the latest research on the impact of AI on children, and also hear from young people themselves about their experiences and their hopes. So this is just a quick run of the show. We’re going to start with a message from the children about their views on generative AI, and then we’re going to hear some of the latest research from Stephen Bolcom, who’s the founding CEO of the Family Online Safety Institute. Maria Ira, who’s an AI expert at the Center for AI and Robotics in the UN. Fari Aitken, a Senior Ethics Research Fellow at the Almond Turing Institute. Then we’ll move on to a panel discussion and questions. Please feel free to ask questions. We want to take them from the audience, both in the room and online. We’ll also have a young person, Zahra Amjed, join us to share her insights and ask the panel questions herself. But without further ado, let’s get away, and we’re going to start with this video message from young people across the UK. We’re not disclosing names just for safety reasons, but please play the message and the video when you’re ready.

Online Participants: AI is extremely advantageous when used correctly. But when misused, it can have devastating effects on humans. That’s why we must view AI as a tool to aid us, not to replace us. Right now, students are memorising facts by adaption. while AI is outpacing that system entirely. Rather than banning AI in schools, we should teach students how to use it efficiently. Skills like fact-checking, critical thinking, and quantum engineering aren’t optional anymore, they’re essential. We need to prepare students for a world where AI is everywhere, teaching them to use it efficiently while not relying on itself. I feel that AI can help humanity in the future, but it also can harm, so it must be used in an ethical manner. I find AI really fun, but sometimes it’s not safe for children because it gives bad advice. Privacy is not a luxury, it’s a basic right. The data that AI collects is valuable, and if it’s not protected, it can be used to hurt the very people it’s supposed to help. If gold cannot be profit, it must be people. LLMs include thousands of litres of water during training, and GPT-3 require over 10,000 GPUs over 15 days. Hundreds of LLMs are being developed, and their environmental impact is immense. But all powerful tools, AI must be managed responsibly, or it’s promised to become a problem. The choices that government and AI developers make today will not just affect the technology, but our lives, our communities, and the world that we leave for our next generation. Young people like me must be part of this conversation. We aren’t just the future, we’re here now. Our voices, our experiences, and our hopes must matter in shaping this technology. I think adults should listen to children more because children have lots of good ideas, as well as adults, with AI. Artificial intelligence is a rising tide, but tides follow the shape of the land, so we must shape that land. We must set the direction, and we must act. to decide, together, the kind of world that we want to build. Because if we don’t, that tide may wash away everything that we value most. Fairness, privacy, truth, and even trust. AI holds this incredible promise, but that promise will only be fulfilled if we build it with trust, with care, with respect, and with a clear vision of the kind of world that we want to create, together. Thank you.

Adam Ingle: Well, thank you so much to all the young people there that put together those pretty powerful messages. I mean, from our perspective at the Lego Group, and also I know from all my co-panelists, this is all about elevating children’s voices and not being patronizing to their views, making sure they’re part of decision-making. And it’s great to see such eloquent young people who have real ideas about the future of AI, and we’re here to kind of discuss them more. I’m gonna pass over to Stephen Balkin now to talk about his latest research from the Family Online Safety Institute about the impact of AI on children.

Stephen Balkam: Well, thank you very much, Adam, and thank you for convening us and bringing us here. Really appreciate it. For those of you who are not familiar, FOSI, the Family Online Safety Institute, we are a 501c3 charitable organization based in the United States, but we work globally. Our mission is to make the online world safer for kids and their families. And we work in what we call the three Ps of policy, practices, and parenting. So that’s enlightened public policy, good digital practices, and digital parenting, which is probably the most difficult part of this, where we try to empower parents to confidently navigate the web with their kids. And the web increasingly is AI. infused, shall I say. I want to begin by just saying that two years ago, in 2023, we conducted a three-country study called Generative AI Emerging Habits, Hopes, and Fears. And at the time, we believe it was the first survey done around generative AI, given that ChatGPT had emerged only a few months before. And we talked to parents and teens in the U.S., in Germany, and in Japan, and some of the results surprised us. And you can see in the slide, and I’ll talk to those data points. First thing that we found which surprised us was that teens thought that their parents knew more about generative AI than they did. With previous trends, particularly in the early days of the web, and then web 2.0, and social media, kids were always way ahead of their parents in terms of the technology. But in this case, a large, sizable share of teens in all three countries recorded that their parents had a better understanding than they did. And we dug a little deeper and found that, of course, many of the parents were struggling to figure out how to use gen AI at work, or at the very least, try to figure it out before gen AI took over their jobs. But anyway, that was the first interesting trend. Parents, for their part, said that they used it mainly for analytical tasks, such as using gen AI platforms as a search engine and as a language translator. And that’s only increased over the last couple of years. Teens mostly were looking for it for efficiency boosting tasks, such as proofreading and summarizing long texts. to make them shorter and faster to read. And we’ve already seen some interesting developments in those two years where ChatGPT is actually, instead of just being used to proofread and analyze their work, teens and young people are increasingly using Gen AI to do their work for them, their essays, their homework, whatever. In terms of concerns, job loss was the number one concern for both parents and teens, and also the spread of false information, which has only been accelerating since we did that study. Other concerns, loss of critical thinking skills was the parents’ number three, whereas kids were more concerned about new forms of cyberbullying, again, which is something we’ve been seeing since we did that study. There was a lot of excitement, too. I mean, obviously concerns, but parents and teens both shared an optimism that Gen AI will, above all else, help them learn new things. Very excited also for AI’s potential to bring progress in science and healthcare, and to free up time to reducing boring tasks as well as progress in education. But then when we asked them about who was responsible for making sure that teens had a safe Gen AI experience, interestingly enough, parents believed that they were the most, had to take the greatest responsibility for ensuring their teen’s safety. And this was particularly true in the United States where, I’m afraid to say, we have less trust in our government to guide and to pass laws. Other countries were more heavily reliant on their own governments. and tech companies. And then we asked the question, what do parents and teens want to learn? And what are the topics that would help them navigate these conversations and address their concerns about Gen AI more broadly? And top of the list was transparency of data practices. And secondly, steps to reveal what’s behind Gen AI and how data is sourced and whether it can be trusted was a key element. Another area they felt that industry should take note of, that data transparency is top of mind for parents and teens, and that companies should take strides to be more forthcoming about how users’ data is being collected and used, which I think is something that we’ll hear more about in the next presentation. And then fast forward to this year, we conducted what we call the Online Safety Survey, now titled Connected and Protected, in the United States in the end of 2024 and into 2025. And this was a survey more about online safety trends in general, but we did include questions about Gen AI in the research. And a basic question, do you think that AI will have a positive or negative impact on each of the following areas? And these areas were creativity, academics, media literacy, online safety, and cyberbullying. And in each of these categories, kids were more likely to be optimistic about AI’s impact on society. Think about that. Parents felt more optimistic than their parents that AI was going to have a positive impact. Now parents weren’t necessarily pessimistic. across the board, about half of parents thought that AI would have a positive impact, but 60% of both parents and kids thought AI would have a negative impact on cyberbullying. And this, of course, is where we see stitched together videos, a kid’s face put onto all sorts of awful graphic images that are then spread around the school. When it comes to online safety, parents and kids were split down the middle, with just over half of both groups reporting that AI would have a positive impact on online safety. And when comparing data from wave one of the survey with wave two, we saw that parents in the second wave were much more likely to say that their child had used Gen AI for numerous tasks, including help with school projects, image generation, brainstorming, and more. In the first wave of this survey, we asked participants to identify if images were real or AI generated. Each respondent was presented with three images from a lineup of six to ensure accurate data. Less than half of respondents correctly identified two or more images, and you’re going to see an example of that in a moment. Less than 10% of respondents correctly identified all three images. And we’ll see how well you guys do in a minute. On the bright side, over four or five respondents correctly identified at least one image. And again, this survey was done before Google’s video generator came out, Yeho, which is just mind boggling how fast the developments are in this space. And some of the videos and images that have come out of that video generator are quite astounding. So based on this study, Fossey recommends the following. That technology companies be much more transparent about AI technology, providing families with a clear explanation of why a Gen AI system produced a certain answer, why an algorithm is recommending certain content, and what the limitations of AI tools like chatbots are. Industries should also learn from past mistakes and design AI tools with children in mind, not as an afterthought. And industry needs to fund research and programs that will help children learn AI literacy so they are better able to discern real content from AI-generated content and make informed decisions based on that knowledge. So now I’m going to test you guys on these three images and have a look and just have a show of hands. I don’t know how we’re going to do this online. But how many of you think that the first image is real? Any takers for real? Okay. How many for AI-generated? All right. More real than AI. Okay. Second one. AI? Real? All right. And the last one, real? Or AI? All right. Well, you guys did pretty well. The first one is a real painting. I’ve got the actual citation for you if you want to find out who the artist was. And yes, the second two were both gen A, AI-generated. Interestingly enough in our study, more men than women thought number two was real. Maybe that was wishful thinking. You can make your own conclusions. I think 85 to 90% of women immediately saw that she was not real. And if you look closely, her earrings don’t match, which again, I didn’t see that. So, anyway, back to you.

Adam Ingle: Thanks, Stephen. I performed poorly on that test, I will admit. So next up we’ve got Maria, and she’s an AI expert at the United Nations… Sorry, it’s a complex acronym. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute and their Center for AI and Robotics. Maria, please take it away. She’s joining us online.

Maria Eira: Hello, everyone. Can you hear me and see my slides? Everything is working? Yes. Perfect. Thank you so much, Adam. And good afternoon, everyone. First of all, I would like to thank you, Adam, and the Lego Group for the invitation to be part of this very interesting workshop. So I work at the Center for AI and Robotics of UNICRE. Indeed, it’s a complex, long term for a UN research institute that focuses on reducing crime and violence around the world. And the center has a particular mandate to understand how AI contributes to both reduce crime and also to be… How it can also be used by malicious actors for criminal purposes, for example. And so now I will present you a project that we have together with Walt Disney to promote AI literacy among children and parents. And we focus on AI, but particularly on generative AI. So to start this project, we were trying to understand the parental perspectives on the use and impact of gen AI on adolescents, a little bit as Palsy was doing. So we distributed a survey worldwide and received… The survey was targeting parents and we received replies from 19 countries across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. So, we just published this paper three days ago. The paper includes all the conclusions from this survey. It’s free access and you can access it via the QR code, but I already brought you here the main conclusions from this survey. So we had two main conclusions. So the first one, we understood that there is a lack of awareness from parents and the low communication between parents and their children on how adolescents are using generative AI tools. And we were targeting parents of adolescents of 13 to 17 years old. And so on the left, we have a graph, I don’t know if you can see it, but I will describe a little bit. So this graph is parents’ insights on teenagers’ generative AI use across different activities. And so on the first smaller graph we have, the activity is to search or get information about the topic. And so we can see that more than 80% of parents report that their kids are using generative AI to search information about the topic. And they are also using it quite often to help with school assignments. So for more academic purposes, we can see that parents are aware that their kids are using generative AI. However, for more personal uses, such as using generative AI as a companion or to ask for help to personal or health problems, we can see that the most popular reply was either I disagree. So they feel that their kids never use generative AI for these more personal purposes. And the second most popular reply was, I don’t know. So, this confirms a little bit, although we were saying right now that parents are becoming more aware. But still, we can see that as a worldwide distribution, a lot of parents still don’t know if their children are using generative AI for more personal uses. The second conclusion is we can see here on the graph on the right. And so, we started by, it’s basically, we understood that parents who use, I’m already giving the conclusion. So, parents who use generative AI tools feel more positive about the impact that this technology can have on their children’s development. And so, we can see on the graph on the right, so we have started by dividing parents according to their familiarity with generative AI tools. And so, we divide it into regular users, the ones who use generative AI every day or a few times per week, sporadic users, the ones who use generative AI a few times per month or less, and unfamiliar audience who never tried or never heard about this technology. And so, we can see that the regular users, so the yellow bars here, so feel much more positive on the impact that the technology can have on critical thinking, on their career, on their social work, and also on their general impact that this technology can have on kids’ development. And so, the child and familiar parents, so the blue ones here, were negative in all these fields. So, this shows that when parents are familiar with the technology, when they use the technology, they see it differently. And thinking… And viewing this technology in a positive way also helps children to use it in a more positive way and not fearing this technology so much. And so besides engaging with parents, we also engaged with children and we organized a workshop in a high school to collect the perspectives from the adolescents. And I brought here some interesting comments and feedback from children. So when we asked them where did they learn about generative AI, they mentioned France, they mentioned TikTok, my 20-year-old brother. So we can see that they are not learning how to use these tools in schools or from other trustworthy sources, let’s say. And when we asked them what’s one thing that adults should know about how teenagers are using generative AI, their replies were they use it to cheat in school, kids use AI to make everything, or adults should know more about it. And I think these were also very interesting to see their feedback. And it also helped us a lot to develop the main outcomes of this project. So we basically produced two AI literacy resources that will be launched in two weeks at the AI for Good Summit. So on the left, we have a 3D animation movie for adolescents that explains what AI is, how generative AI works, and very importantly, that not all the answers can be found in this chat box. And on the right, we have a guide for parents on AI literacy to support them in guiding their children to use this technology in a responsible way. So to communicate, so we focus a lot on the communication. which was something that we concluded from the initial survey, focusing on the communication about the potential risks and also to explore the benefits of this technology together to make parents engage with children and to learn together, because we are all learning on this. The technology is really advancing in a very fast pace, so we will all need to be on top of this development. So if you’d be interested, both resources will be available online soon, so if you’d like to receive them, just reach out to me. I’ll leave my email here. Also, if you have any other questions, I’m happy to reply. So thank you for your time and attention.

Adam Ingle: Thanks, Mariel. And now we have Varya Atkin, Senior Ethics Fellow at the Alan Turing Institute, to discuss research that LEGO Group was actually very proud to sponsor.

Dr. Mhairi Aitken: Thank you, Adam, and thank you for the invitation to join this discussion today. I’m really excited to be a part of this really important panel discussion. Yes, as Adam said, I’m a Senior Ethics Fellow at the Alan Turing Institute. The Turing Institute is the UK’s national institute for AI and data science, and at the Turing, I have the great privilege of leading a program of work on the topic of children and AI. The central driver, the central rationale behind all our work in the children and AI team at the Turing is the recognition that children are likely to be the group who will be most impacted by advances in AI technologies, but they’re simultaneously the group that are least represented in decision-making about the ways that those technologies are designed, developed, and deployed, and also in terms of policymaking and regulation relating to AI. We think that’s wrong. We think that needs to change. Children have a right to a say in matters that affect their lives, and AI is clearly a matter that is affecting their lives today and will increasingly do so in the future. So over the last four years, our team, the children and AI team at the Alan Turing Institute have been working on projects to develop and demonstrate approaches to meaningfully bring children and young people into decision-making processes around the future of AI technologies. So we’ve had a series of projects of a number of different collaborations, including with UNICEF. with the Council of Europe Steering Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Scottish Airlines and Children’s Parliament and most recently with the with the Lego Group. So I want to share some kind of headline findings from our most recent research which has looked at the impacts of generative AI use on children and particularly on children’s well-being and also share some messages from the Children’s AI Summit which was an event that we held earlier this year. So firstly from our recent research and this is a project that was supported by the Lego Group and looked at the impacts of generative AI use on children particularly children between the ages of 8 and 12. There were two work packages in this project, the first work package was a national survey so we surveyed around 800 children between the ages of 8 and 12 as well as their parents and carers and surveyed a thousand teachers across the UK. Now this research revealed that around a quarter of children, 22% of children between the ages of 8 and 12 reported using generative AI technologies and the majority of teachers, so three out of five teachers reported using generative AI in their work. But we found really stark differences between uses of AI within private schools and state-funded schools and this is in the UK context, with children in private schools much more likely both to use generative AI but also report having information and understanding about generative AI and this points to potentially really important issues around equity in access to the benefits of these technologies within education. We also found that children with additional learning needs or additional support needs were more likely to report using generative AI for communication and for connection and also from the teacher survey we find that there was significant interest in using generative AI to support children with additional learning needs. This was also a finding that came out really strongly in work package two of this research. Work package two was direct engagement with children between the ages of 9 and 11 through a series of workshops in primary schools in Scotland and throughout these workshops we found that children were really excited about the opportunity to learn about generative AI and they were really excited about the ways that generative AI could potentially be used to support them in education and again there was a strong interest particularly in the ways that generative AI could be used to support children with additional learning needs. But we found also that in these workshops where we invited children to take part in creative activities and we gave them the option of using either generative AI tools or more traditional tactile art materials, we found overwhelmingly that children chose to use traditional tactile hands-on art materials. You’ll see on the quote at the bottom, one of the sentiments that was expressed very often in these workshops was this feeling that art is actually real and children felt that they couldn’t say that about AI art because the computer did it, not them. And I think this reveals some really important insights into the choices that children make about using digital technologies and a reminder that those choices are not just about the digital technology, but about the alternative options available and the context and environments in which children are making those choices. Through the research, children also highlighted a number of really important concerns that they had around the impacts of generative AI. And I just want to flag some of these briefly now. One of the major themes that came out through this work was a concern around bias and representation in AI models and the outputs of AI models. Over the course of six full day workshops in schools in Scotland, we were using generative AI tools. And in this case, it was OpenAI’s ChatGPT and DALI to create a range of different outputs. And we found that each time children wanted an image of a person, it would by default create an image of a person that was white and predominantly a person that was male. Children identified this themselves and they were very concerned about this. They were very upset about this. But particularly for children of colour who were not represented through the outputs of these models, we found that children became very upset when they didn’t feel represented. And in many cases, children who didn’t feel represented by the outputs of models chose not to use generative AI in the future and didn’t want to use generative AI in the future. So it’s not just about the impact on individual children. It’s also about adoption of these tools and how representation feeds into that. Another big area of concern was the environmental impacts of generative AI. And this is something that we found has come out really consistently through all the work we’ve done engaging children and young people in discussions around AI. Where children have awareness or access to information about the environmental impacts of generative value models, they often choose not to use those models. And we found that in these workshops, that where children learnt about the environmental impact, particularly the water consumption of generative value models and the carbon footprint of generative value models, they chose not to use those models in the future. And they also pointed to this as an area in which they wanted policy makers and industry to take urgent action to address the environmental impacts of these models, but also to provide transparent, accessible information about the environmental impacts of those models. Finally, there were also big concerns around the ways that generative value models can produce inappropriate and sometimes potentially harmful outputs. And children felt that they wanted to make sure that there were systems in place to ensure that children had access to age-appropriate models and that wouldn’t risk exposure to harmful or inappropriate content. Now, finally, I just wanted to also share some messages from the Children’s AI Summit, which was an event that we held in February of this year. This was an event that my team at the Alan Turing Institute ran in partnership with Queen Mary University of London, and it was supported by the Lego Group, Elevate Great and EY. The event brought together 150 children and young people between the ages of 8 and 18 from right across the UK for a full day of discussions, exploring their hopes and fears around how AI might be used in the future, and also setting out their messages for what they wanted to see on the agenda at the AI Action Summit in Paris. From the Children’s AI Summit, we produced the Children’s Manifesto for the Future of AI, and I’d really urge, encourage you to look it up and have a read. It’s written entirely in the words of the children and young people who took part, and it sets out their messages for what they want world leaders, policymakers, developers to know when thinking about the future of AI. I just want to finish with a couple of quotes from the children and young people who took part in the Children’s AI Summit, and their message is really for you all here today about what needs to be taken on board when thinking about the role of children in these discussions. So firstly from Ethan, who is 16, and he says, Hear us, engage with us, and remember, AI may be artificial, but the consequences of your choices are all too real. And secondly, we have a quote from Alexander, Ashvika, Eva, and Mustafa, who were all aged 11, and they presented jointly at the Children’s AI Summit. And they said, we don’t want AI to make the world a place where only a few people have everything and everyone else has less. I hope you can make sure that AI is used to help everyone to make a safe, kind, and fair world. And I think that sums up the ethos of the Children’s AI Summit perfectly, and is also a mission that we really all need to get behind and make a reality. Thank you.

Adam Ingle: Thanks, Fahri, and to Stephen and Maria as well for just some really exciting research findings. We’re going to move towards a panel session now. So we’ll take questions from the audience, both in person and online. So if you’d like to think about some questions, feel free to then ask them. If you’re online, you can ask the online moderator, Lisa, who will ask those questions for you. I’ve got a few myself, though, and we’re actually waiting for Zahra, our young representative, to join. I think there’s been some technical difficulties there, so hopefully she’ll be joining us soon so we can hear directly from her. But to start things off, I think we heard a lot in the research. Kids are already using AI. Children are already using AI across multiple different contexts for multiple different purposes. I think I just want to take a step back and just ask, are children ready for AI, or is AI ready for children? Just as an open question to all the panellists here.

Dr. Mhairi Aitken: I’ll give that one a go. I mean, I think some of the big challenges that we’re finding so far is that these tools, we know that children of all ages are already interacting with AI on a daily basis. And that starts with infants, preschool kids, playing with smart toys and smart devices in the home, through to generated technologies and the ways that AI is also used online on social media. And a lot of the problems here is that these tools are being used by children and young people of all ages, but they’re not designed for children and young people. And we know that the ways that children interact with AI systems are often very different from how adults engage with those tools, or digital technologies more generally, and often very different from how the designers or developers of those systems anticipate that those tools might be used. And now I think there’s possibly a risk that we then put the kind of the burden or the expectation on children and young people themselves to kind of police those online interactions to take approaches to be safe online, whereas actually, the burden has to be on, you know, the developers, the policymakers and the regulators to make sure that those systems are safe, and that there is, there are age appropriate tools and systems available for children to access and benefit from.

Stephen Balkam: Yeah, this feels like deja vu all over again, I was very much involved in the web 1.0 back in the mid 90s. And it became very clear that the World Wide Web was not designed with kids in mind. And we had to sort of retrofit websites and create parental controls for the first time, but never really caught up. And then web 2.0 came along around 2005 2006. And sites like Myspace, and then Facebook, again, just took off first in colleges, then in high schools, then all the way down to elementary grade school level. Once again, not with kids in mind. And we’re just repeating that one more time with this AI revolution. And there’s a great deal of concern, particularly around the amount of what kids will do in terms of trusting chatbots, for instance, we’re seeing a lot of emotional attachments of quite young kids talking to chatbots, thinking that they are real, and sort of unloading their own personal thoughts to them. And for older teens, and for college based kids. the fact that they’re using Gen AI for doing their work, doing their homework, doing their projects and essays, meaning that they’re not developing critical thinking skills, but going straight to Gen AI for results. And for that, that probably is of greater concern.

Adam Ingle: Thank you, Steven. Maria, do you have any contributions to that question?

Maria Eira: Yeah, I agree, yeah, definitely with everyone that was said. Just adding that not just the AI systems are not ready or the kids are not ready for the AI, but the whole environment. So in terms of AI literacy, most of the people don’t really understand what is AI, how does it work, is it like a type of magic, but at the end of the day, it’s actually just computations and statistical models. And so it’s not just the technology that was not developed, but it’s the whole environment. So in terms of AI literacy in schools and so on.

Adam Ingle: Thank you. I’ve definitely got some more questions, but I can see we have someone in the audience that would like to ask a question. So please introduce yourself and ask the panel.

Mariana Rozo‑Paz: Thank you. Hi, everyone. I’m Mariana from DataSphere Initiative. I hope you can hear me well. Okay. So we are the DataSphere Initiative. We have a youth project that has been engaging young people for a couple of years. And I wanted to thank you all for the amazing presentations and the amazing work that you’re doing. And I think it’s actually very, very important that we have all of these stats, numbers, stories, experiences, and thank you also for starting with a video from children and closing up with quotes. And this introduction is just to say that we’re restarting a new phase in our project and we’re starting to focus on influencers. and not just kids that are becoming influencers, children that are being sometimes turned into influencers by their parents that have also mind-blowing stats. Adults that are becoming influencers and that are directly influencing children, not only to consume and buy their products or other products, but we’re also looking into AI agents as influencers in this digital space and that as I think one of the girls that was sharing her story was saying, it’s not just that they’re influencing or that are generally affecting their lives, digital lives, but it’s actually their very concrete lives and the relationships that they have with each other. So I just wanted to ask, and I think that Stephen was already mentioning a bit around the influence of other children and the maybe even like social media and if you had any questions or research done around how are influencers shaping the space and how children and youth are experiencing social media in general and then how did you start or if you started to ask about AI agents and how is that influencing particularly the relationships that they have in real life again? I think that was a bit of like a lot of questions, but thanks again so much.

Stephen Balkam: Yeah, I’ll try to respond to part of what you were saying. I mean, the technology is moving so fast that it’s incredibly hard for the research to keep up is number one. No, we haven’t yet asked about AI bots being an influencing factor, although we are anecdotally seeing kids, teens, young adults and adults using AI for therapy. I mean, literally talking through on hours at a time deep emotional issues that they have and getting responses from chat GPT and others in a way that is… Very positive and self-reinforcing, but also extremely, potentially dangerous in the sense that an artificial intelligence bot will not know, is not human, and will not be able to pick up on body cues and all the rest of it, and may not actually be able to challenge you in a way that a physical, a real human therapist will. One other point I’ll get to quickly, the whole influencing world, there’s new legislation that’s been popping up in the United States at least, that will at least compensate kids who’ve been part of a family, you know, vlog all their childhood, a bit like kid movie stars were back in the 30s. So now at least they’re getting compensation and a right to delete their videos that they had no true consent to be a part of when they turn 18. But there’s a broader societal question about monetizing our kids. We are not in favor of that, particularly because there’s no way that a 7, 8, 9-year-old can give consent. Yes, please film me every day and post this online so that I can go through college and you don’t have to pay, mom and dad. So anyway, maybe we’ll talk later because you had a lot of different points in there.

Dr. Mhairi Aitken: Maybe I could just pick up on, I guess, how this relates to the growth of AI companions and gender divide in this context. I suppose influence isn’t necessarily something that we’ve looked at so much in our research, which is mostly focused on 8 to 12-year-olds, not to say that they’re not already been influenced and many of them are beginning, certainly 12-year-olds, beginning to be on social media. But AI companions, I think, is an area that we really need to urgently get to grips with. There are more and more of these AI companions, AI personas that are clearly being marketed. towards children and young children and we don’t really yet know what the impacts of that might be but there’s growing research, we need more, we need more action to be taken on this, including AI companions that are marketed as addressing challenges of loneliness but then potentially creating a dependence or a connection to something that is very much kind of outside of society and community and potentially exacerbating those challenges which bring us a particular set of risks to address. In the Children’s AI Summit, which were again children and the Children’s AI Summit between the ages of 8 and 18 and among teenagers at Children’s AI Summit there was a lot of interest in potentially using AI companions to support children in terms of supporting them with mental health and there was a lot of interest in how that could be done but but unfortunately what would it mean to design that and develop these tools in ways that are age-appropriate that are safe, that have children’s well-being and children’s mental health as part of the design process, as a key element in the design process. At the moment the risk is that these tools are being developed and promoted that without children’s well-being and children’s interests in mind in the development process but they are increasingly being relied on and used for those purposes. So I think yeah it’s an area that we’re seeing a lot of interest from from children and young people but with a recognition that this needs to be done responsibly, safely and cautiously. Thanks.

Leanda Barrington‑Leach: Leander, I see you’ve got a question. Please. Hello everyone, I’m Leander Barrington-Leach, Executive Director of the Five Rights Foundation. Thank you so much for the presentations and for the research you’re doing which is absolutely fabulous. I could ask lots of things and I could comment on lots of things but I just wanted to take the opportunity given what you’re saying indeed about the importance of designing AI with children’s rights in mind from the start of raising awareness that there are regulatory and technical tools out there to do this. and in particular the Children and AI Design Code, which the Alan Turing Institute also contributed to, which was work that brought AI experts and children’s rights experts and many others together over a very long period of time to develop a technical protocol for innovation that puts children’s rights at the center. So I just wanted to draw awareness to this to say that we all agree that it’s so important, but to know that there are actually tools out there to make it happen. Thank you.

Co-Moderator: Thanks, Leander. Lisa, I think we’ve got an online question. We do indeed. Katarina, who is studying law in the UK, AI law specifically, you’re asking a question. Should AI ethics for children be separated from general AI ethics? That’s the first question. Second question, do you think there should be state-level legislation or policies for AI systems targeting specifically children? Thank you.

Adam Ingle: Maria, I’ll pass to you first if you want to answer either of those questions.

Maria Eira: Yes, sure. Thank you for your question. It’s very relevant indeed. And definitely, yes. Children should have separated legislation. Separate legislation should target children because children don’t have exactly the same consent. Let’s say, for example, the awareness of consent. There are several principles that cannot be fully applicable from adults to children, so we definitely need to have the child’s rights in mind when developing this legislation.

Adam Ingle: Thanks, Maria. Stephen or Mari, do you want to comment on, just one of you will, because we’ve got a few questions and I do want to get everyone to agree.

Dr. Mhairi Aitken: Yeah, I mean, I would agree that children have particular rights, they have particular needs, unique needs and experiences that should be addressed. I guess one other part of it is that if we design this well for children and if we get the regulatory requirements, policy requirements right for children, this benefits well beyond children as well. An AI system that’s designed well with children in mind is also going to have benefits in terms of other vulnerable users and wider user groups. So I think yes, there are unique perspectives, unique considerations that should be addressed, but the benefits go beyond that.

Adam Ingle: So before I go to other questions in the room, I just got really quick responses from the panel. Leander mentioned the age-appropriate AI design code, which is a tool to help companies think about how to build AI in a child rights and well-being way. What do you think are the research gaps? We’ve got tools like this. What is the one, to your mind, outstanding research gap that needs to be addressed before we can really be confident that there is a child-centric approach to AI development? Just a quick question. Maybe reflect on that as we take some other questions, and then I’ll come back later because I do want to think about the research gaps and a path forward to really understanding how to do this responsibly. So let’s take a question from this gentleman here.

Joon Baek: Hello, my name is June Beck from Youth for Privacy. We are a youth NGO focused on digital privacy. So we want to ask about a lot of children’s rights in AI. At least in the context of privacy, there has been some legislation, for example, where under the aim of protecting children’s data, for example, or safeguarding children online, there’s been concerns about those kind of laws having some privacy issues. I was wondering if, would there be some things that under the aim of protecting children when it comes to AI, for example, that could be some other kind of rights that could be in question or violated? So do you suppose there would be anything that we should be aware of?

Adam Ingle: So, you’re talking about the trade-off between protecting children’s rights and maybe some other issues that might be developing. Yeah. Stephen, why? Maria?

Stephen Balkam: Pretty much, you know, I went back to 1995. I mean, we’ve been struggling with the dichotomy between safety and privacy since the beginning of the web. In other words, the more safe you are, perhaps the more you’re giving up in terms of private information. Or the more private you are, maybe you’re not as safe as you could be. So trying to find a way that balances both has been at the core, certainly, of the work of my organization, but many others, and it is extremely hard for lawmakers to get that balance right. And then if you come from the U.S., you then have this other axis, which is called free expression, which adds another layer of complexity, too, because you want people to be private, you want people and kids to be safe, but you also want one of the five rights, by the way, is the right to say what you want to be able to say. So it’s just going to be something which I don’t think will ever completely get right. And we’re going to constantly have to compromise. But I don’t think it’s beyond our ability to reach those compromises.

Adam Ingle: Just noting time, I might move on to this gentleman here.

Participant: Hi, my name is Ryan, I’m 17 years old, and I’m a youth ambassador of the OnePAL Foundation in Hong Kong. So we’re advocating for digital sustainability and access in Hong Kong. So thank you for the wonderful presentations. My question is, AI for people with learning disabilities was raised at a significant prospect of AI by children from 8 to 12 years old. So how can generative AI be further leveraged for the support and inclusion of people with disabilities? Thank you.

Adam Ingle: Thank you. And I’m just wondering, depending from your research, Fari, if you want to elaborate.

Dr. Mhairi Aitken: Yeah, it’s come out really strongly from all the work we’ve done engaging children and young people, that this is an area where they’re really excited about the potential and they want to see AI developed in ways that will support children with additional learnings, additional support needs and with disabilities. And I guess what’s important, I mean particularly in the education context, supporting children with additional learning needs, there’s huge promise here and teachers in our study recognise that, children in our study recognise that, but again I think some of the challenges or current limitations is that there’s a lot of kind of edtech tools that are being pushed and promoted that are not necessarily beginning with a sound understanding of the challenges that they’re seeking to address or a sound understanding of the needs of children with additional learning needs. I think we need to start developing these technologies from that place, you know, if we want to develop something to support children with additional learning needs, it has to be grounded in a sound understanding of what those needs are and what the challenges are. And then maybe generative AI provides tools that provides a solution, but not always, not necessarily. I think we have to start with, you know, identifying the problems and challenges and develop those tools responsibly to effectively address those challenges. That requires having expertise from teachers, from children, from specialists in these areas to guide the development of those tools and technologies. But it’s definitely an area where there’s huge promise and where it could be used really effectively and really valuably.

Adam Ingle: Thank you. Great to have a youth representative at the IGF. I mean, my gosh, I was probably playing unsafe video games when I was 17, rather than going to international forums. So incredibly impressive. Lisa, you’ve got a question from online. I do indeed. So I have a question from Grace

Co-Moderator: Thompson from CAIDP, who’s asking, how is UNICRI, thank you, and the other entities represented in the panels working with national government officials on capacity building to school principals, counseling teams, and the entire ecosystem to prepare adults in protecting our children and adolescents?

Adam Ingle: Maria, I think that’s one for you.

Maria Eira: Yeah, sure. Thank you for your question, Grace. So as I was showing before, we are developing AI literacy resources for parents. So we will try to disseminate this as much as possible. So it’s basically recommendations for parents to guide their children on the use of this technology. So this is one thing. Then we are also trying to work with governments and particularly with the judges, law enforcement, to promote AI literacy, basically. So we do a lot of capacity building to law enforcement officers worldwide to explain what is AI, how to use AI in a responsible way. So we have guidelines developed with Interpol. So this is more on the law enforcement side. And we would love to explore more to other representatives from the government and try to implement AI literacy workshops and programs in schools. So we have started this workshop in a school in the Netherlands, which was also to collect adolescents’ perspectives, but we also had a component on explaining what AI is, what are the risks, what are the benefits, and some best practices to use it in the best way. And we would love to scale up this. And we are right now in conversations with the Netherlands and with other countries to see, to understand if we can really develop a full program that can be implemented in schools. But everything is being developed. The technology is really recent. Everyone is trying to be prepared for this. And, yeah, we are still working on that.

Adam Ingle: Thanks, Maria. We’ll take one final question from the room, and then I will do a quick lightning round among the panelists. to answer what’s one research area we still need to explore to move towards child-centric AI, and what’s one thing companies can do right now to make AI more appropriate for children. Quick answers to those two questions, but please, the lady here.

Participant: Hello, my name is Elisa. I’m also from the OnePile Foundation, just like Ryan. I see a big issue in children communicating with AI about their personal issues as children are in a way more vulnerable situation and position, and AI is the bigger person in that conversation. So my question is, how can we design AI so that it doesn’t increase that power imbalance between the child and the all-known AI? I didn’t quite get the end of that question. Sorry, just repeat your question. My question is, how can we design AI that the independency of the child is increased and that there is no power imbalance between the child and the AI? You want to try that?

Dr. Mhairi Aitken: Yeah, I mean, I think in all these interactions, one thing that’s absolutely crucial is the transparency around the nature of the AI system. Transparency also around how data might be being collected through those interactions and potentially being collected by the model or used to train future model or collected by the organization, the company developing and owning those models. And if I can tie it into your question around what’s needed, because I think it is actually related, it’s that kind of critical AI literacy. We hear a lot about the importance of AI literacy and increasing understandings of AI, but what I think is really important is it’s that critical literacy. So improving understandings of not just technically how these systems work, but actually the business models behind them. how it affects children’s rights and the impact that those systems have. So I think that that’s where we need more research but also what’s needed to enable children to make informed choices about how they use those systems.

Adam Ingle: Love to hear you tie it in the answer to both questions. They’ve already saved us a lot of time. Stephen, 15 seconds. Know what she said. That’s easy. Maria, one thing we can do in research or one thing companies can do right now?

Maria Eira: Yeah, so in research we are still understanding the long-term impact of this technology. We still don’t know and the literature also reflects this. We have very contradictory results. Some papers saying that AI can improve critical thinking. Others saying that AI can actually decrease critical thinking. I think we are still in a period where we are trying to understand exactly what will be the long-term impact of this technology. And so, yeah, again, what companies should do. I think the girl in the video in the beginning said exactly everything. So the goal cannot be the profits, it must be the people. So I think if companies really focus on the children and developing these tools, targeting and having the children in mind, we can actually develop good tools for everyone.

Adam Ingle: Thanks, Maria. The goal should not be the profit, it should be the people. I think that is a great lesson coming out of this session. That’s what we have time for. Thank you so much for joining us in the room and online. And please, if you’ve got any more questions, feel free to approach Stephen and Varya or get in contact with Maria. And thank you to all the young people that engaged with this session. And thank you from the LEGO Group as well. So we’ll end it there and we’ll see you soon. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

AI systems are not designed with children in mind and require child-centric development from the start

Speakers

– Dr. Mhairi Aitken
– Stephen Balkam
– Adam Ingle

Arguments

The burden should be on developers and policymakers to make systems safe rather than expecting children to police their interactions

AI systems are not designed with children in mind, requiring retrofitting for safety like previous web technologies

Children are already using AI and the question is whether children are ready for AI or AI is ready for children

Summary

All speakers agree that current AI systems are developed without considering children’s needs and safety, repeating historical patterns from previous web technologies. They emphasize that responsibility should lie with developers and policymakers rather than children themselves.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Children must be meaningfully included in AI decision-making processes

Speakers

– Online Participants
– Dr. Mhairi Aitken
– Adam Ingle

Arguments

Young people must be part of AI conversations as they are affected now, not just in the future

Children are the group most impacted by AI advances but least represented in decision-making about AI development

The workshop aims to elevate children’s voices in AI design without being patronizing to their views

Summary

There is strong consensus that children should have meaningful participation in AI governance and development decisions, as they are currently affected by these technologies and have valuable perspectives to contribute.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Data transparency and privacy protection are fundamental concerns for AI systems used by children

Speakers

– Online Participants
– Stephen Balkam
– Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Arguments

Privacy is a basic right, not a luxury, and AI data collection must be protected

Data transparency is top priority for parents and teens regarding AI companies

Transparency about AI system nature and data collection is crucial for child interactions

Summary

All speakers emphasize that transparency about data practices and privacy protection are essential requirements for AI systems that children use, viewing privacy as a fundamental right rather than optional feature.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

AI has significant potential to support children with additional learning needs and disabilities

Speakers

– Dr. Mhairi Aitken
– Online Participants

Arguments

Children with additional learning needs show particular interest in using AI for communication and support

More research is needed on AI’s role in supporting children with disabilities while ensuring proper understanding of their needs

Summary

There is agreement that AI shows promise for supporting children with additional learning needs, though this must be developed with proper understanding of their specific requirements and challenges.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Environmental impacts of AI are significant concerns that influence children’s usage decisions

Speakers

– Online Participants
– Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Arguments

AI training requires massive resources including thousands of liters of water and extensive GPU usage

Children who learn about environmental impacts of AI models often choose not to use them

Summary

Both young people and researchers recognize the substantial environmental costs of AI development and note that awareness of these impacts influences children’s decisions about using AI technologies.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for distinct legal and ethical frameworks for children’s AI use, recognizing that children have unique vulnerabilities and cannot provide the same informed consent as adults.

Speakers

– Maria Eira
– Co-Moderator

Arguments

Children should have separate AI legislation because they cannot give the same consent as adults

There should be separate AI ethics and legislation specifically targeting children rather than applying general frameworks

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both experts express concern about children developing unhealthy emotional dependencies on AI systems, particularly AI companions and chatbots used for personal or therapeutic purposes.

Speakers

– Stephen Balkam
– Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Arguments

Young children are forming emotional attachments to chatbots and using AI for therapy-like conversations

AI companions marketed to children raise concerns about dependence and isolation from real community

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both researchers emphasize the need for deeper understanding of AI’s impacts on children, going beyond technical literacy to include critical analysis of business models and rights implications.

Speakers

– Dr. Mhairi Aitken
– Maria Eira

Arguments

Critical AI literacy focusing on business models and rights impacts is needed beyond technical understanding

Long-term impacts of AI technology on children remain unclear with contradictory research results

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Parents’ superior knowledge of AI compared to children

Speakers

– Stephen Balkam
– Maria Eira

Arguments

Teens thought their parents knew more about generative AI than they did, contrary to previous technology trends

Parents who regularly use generative AI feel more positive about its impact on their children’s development

Explanation

This finding is unexpected because historically children have led technology adoption. The reversal occurred because parents were learning AI for work purposes, creating an unusual dynamic where parents had more AI knowledge than their children for the first time in digital technology evolution.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Children’s preference for traditional materials over AI tools in creative activities

Speakers

– Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Arguments

Children chose to use traditional tactile hands-on art materials over generative AI tools, feeling that ‘art is actually real’ while ‘AI art because the computer did it, not them’

Explanation

Despite children’s general interest in AI, when given the choice between AI and traditional creative tools, they overwhelmingly chose traditional methods. This unexpected preference reveals important insights about children’s values regarding authenticity and personal agency in creative expression.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Equity concerns creating barriers to AI adoption in education

Speakers

– Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Arguments

Stark differences exist between AI use in private schools versus state-funded schools, pointing to equity issues

Explanation

The emergence of AI creating new forms of educational inequality was unexpected, as it suggests that AI could exacerbate existing disparities rather than democratize access to educational tools. This finding highlights how technological advancement can inadvertently increase rather than reduce educational inequities.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers on fundamental principles: AI systems need child-centric design from the start, children must be included in AI governance decisions, privacy and transparency are essential rights, and AI shows promise for supporting children with additional needs while requiring careful attention to environmental impacts and bias issues.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with implications for urgent need for coordinated action across policy, industry, and research domains. The agreement suggests a clear path forward requiring collaboration between technologists, policymakers, educators, and children themselves to ensure AI development serves children’s best interests and rights.

Different viewpoints

Balance between safety and privacy in AI regulation

Speakers

– Stephen Balkam
– Joon Baek

Arguments

There’s an ongoing struggle to balance safety and privacy, with more safety potentially requiring less privacy

Privacy protection laws aimed at safeguarding children may inadvertently violate other rights

Summary

Stephen Balkam presents this as an inevitable trade-off that requires compromise, while Joon Baek raises concerns about unintended rights violations from protective measures, suggesting a more cautious approach to safety-focused legislation

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Approach to AI literacy and education

Speakers

– Online Participants
– Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Arguments

AI should be taught in schools rather than banned, with focus on critical thinking and fact-checking skills

Critical AI literacy focusing on business models and rights impacts is needed beyond technical understanding

Summary

Young people emphasize practical skills like fact-checking and efficient AI use in schools, while Dr. Aitken advocates for deeper critical literacy that includes understanding business models and rights impacts

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Children’s preference for traditional materials over AI tools

Speakers

– Online Participants
– Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Arguments

AI should be taught in schools rather than banned, with focus on critical thinking and fact-checking skills

Children who learn about environmental impacts of AI models often choose not to use them

Explanation

While young people in the video advocated for AI integration in education, research findings showed children often chose traditional tactile materials over AI tools and avoided AI when learning about environmental impacts. This reveals a gap between advocacy for AI education and actual usage preferences

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on core principles – that children need protection, representation, and age-appropriate AI design – but revealed nuanced differences in implementation approaches and priorities

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on fundamental goals. The main tensions were methodological rather than philosophical, focusing on how to achieve shared objectives rather than disagreeing on the objectives themselves. This suggests a mature field where stakeholders agree on problems but are still developing optimal solutions

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for distinct legal and ethical frameworks for children’s AI use, recognizing that children have unique vulnerabilities and cannot provide the same informed consent as adults.

Speakers

– Maria Eira
– Co-Moderator

Arguments

Children should have separate AI legislation because they cannot give the same consent as adults

There should be separate AI ethics and legislation specifically targeting children rather than applying general frameworks

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both experts express concern about children developing unhealthy emotional dependencies on AI systems, particularly AI companions and chatbots used for personal or therapeutic purposes.

Speakers

– Stephen Balkam
– Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Arguments

Young children are forming emotional attachments to chatbots and using AI for therapy-like conversations

AI companions marketed to children raise concerns about dependence and isolation from real community

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both researchers emphasize the need for deeper understanding of AI’s impacts on children, going beyond technical literacy to include critical analysis of business models and rights implications.

Speakers

– Dr. Mhairi Aitken
– Maria Eira

Arguments

Critical AI literacy focusing on business models and rights impacts is needed beyond technical understanding

Long-term impacts of AI technology on children remain unclear with contradictory research results

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Children are already using AI extensively (22% of 8-12 year olds) but AI systems are not designed with children in mind, requiring urgent action to prioritize child-centric development

There is a significant communication gap between parents and children about AI use, particularly for personal applications, with parents who use AI themselves being more positive about its impact

AI literacy education focusing on critical thinking, fact-checking, and understanding business models behind AI systems is essential and should be integrated into schools rather than banning AI

Significant equity issues exist in AI access and education, with stark differences between private and state-funded schools creating potential digital divides

Children show strong concerns about bias and representation in AI outputs, environmental impacts, and inappropriate content, often choosing not to use AI when these issues are present

AI shows particular promise for supporting children with additional learning needs, but development must be grounded in understanding actual needs rather than pushing technology solutions

The burden of ensuring AI safety should be on developers, policymakers, and regulators rather than expecting children to police their own interactions

Children have a fundamental right to participate in AI decision-making processes that affect their lives, as they are the most impacted group but least represented in development decisions

Resolutions and action items

UNICRI and Disney are launching AI literacy resources (3D animation movie for adolescents and parent guide) at the AI for Good Summit in two weeks

Technology companies should provide transparent explanations of AI decision-making, algorithm recommendations, and system limitations

Industry should fund research and programs to help children develop AI literacy and content discernment skills

AI tools should be designed with children in mind from the start, not as an afterthought, learning from past mistakes with web technologies

Companies should focus on people rather than profits when developing AI tools for children

Separate legislation specifically targeting children’s AI rights and protections should be developed, recognizing children’s unique consent and awareness limitations

Unresolved issues

Long-term impacts of AI technology on children remain unclear with contradictory research results on effects like critical thinking development

How to effectively balance safety and privacy rights in AI systems for children without compromising either

Addressing the environmental impact of AI models and providing transparent information about resource consumption to users

Developing age-appropriate AI companions that support mental health without creating dependency or isolation from real communities

Scaling AI literacy programs globally and implementing them effectively in school systems across different countries

Addressing the power imbalance between children and AI systems in personal conversations and interactions

How to ensure AI systems designed for children with disabilities are grounded in actual needs rather than technology-first approaches

Preventing the monetization and exploitation of children through AI-powered influencer marketing and family vlogging

Suggested compromises

Accepting that perfect balance between safety, privacy, and free expression may never be achieved, requiring constant compromise and adjustment

Designing AI systems well for children will benefit other vulnerable users and wider user groups, creating broader positive impact

Starting with problem identification and user needs assessment before applying AI solutions, rather than technology-first approaches

Combining transparency about AI system nature and data collection with critical AI literacy education to enable informed choices

Developing AI literacy resources that target both children and parents simultaneously to improve communication and understanding

AI is extremely advantageous when used correctly. But when misused, it can have devastating effects on humans… Young people like me must be part of this conversation. We aren’t just the future, we’re here now.

Speaker

Online Participants (Young people from across the UK)

Reason

This opening statement immediately established the central tension of the discussion – AI as both opportunity and threat – while assertively claiming young people’s right to participate in decision-making. The phrase ‘we aren’t just the future, we’re here now’ powerfully challenges the common dismissal of children’s voices as merely preparatory for future relevance.

Impact

This comment set the entire tone for the workshop, establishing children as active stakeholders rather than passive subjects of protection. It influenced all subsequent speakers to frame their research and recommendations around meaningful youth participation rather than paternalistic approaches.

teens thought that their parents knew more about generative AI than they did. With previous trends, particularly in the early days of the web, and then web 2.0, and social media, kids were always way ahead of their parents in terms of the technology. But in this case, a large, sizable share of teens in all three countries recorded that their parents had a better understanding than they did.

Speaker

Stephen Balkam

Reason

This finding fundamentally challenges the conventional wisdom about digital natives and technology adoption patterns. It suggests a significant shift in how AI technologies are being introduced and adopted, with workplace necessity driving adult adoption ahead of youth exploration.

Impact

This observation reframed the entire discussion about digital literacy and family dynamics around AI. It led to deeper exploration of how AI literacy should be approached differently from previous technology rollouts and influenced subsequent speakers to consider intergenerational learning approaches.

art is actually real… children felt that they couldn’t say that about AI art because the computer did it, not them.

Speaker

Dr. Mhairi Aitken (quoting children from her research)

Reason

This insight reveals children’s sophisticated understanding of authenticity, creativity, and personal agency in relation to AI. It challenges assumptions that children will automatically embrace AI tools and shows their nuanced thinking about what constitutes genuine creative expression.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from focusing on AI capabilities to considering children’s values and choices. It introduced the important concept that technology adoption isn’t just about functionality but about meaning and identity, influencing how other panelists discussed the importance of providing alternatives and respecting children’s preferences.

parents who use generative AI tools feel more positive about the impact that this technology can have on their children’s development… when parents are familiar with the technology, when they use the technology, they see it differently.

Speaker

Maria Eira

Reason

This finding reveals a crucial insight about how personal experience with technology shapes attitudes toward children’s use of that technology. It suggests that fear and resistance may stem from unfamiliarity rather than inherent dangers, pointing toward education as a key intervention.

Impact

This observation led to discussion about the importance of adult AI literacy as a prerequisite for supporting children’s safe AI use. It influenced the conversation toward considering family-based approaches to AI education rather than child-focused interventions alone.

children are likely to be the group who will be most impacted by advances in AI technologies, but they’re simultaneously the group that are least represented in decision-making about the ways that those technologies are designed, developed, and deployed

Speaker

Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Reason

This statement crystallizes the fundamental injustice at the heart of current AI development – those most affected have the least voice. It frames the entire discussion in terms of rights and representation rather than just safety or education.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical considerations to fundamental questions of democracy and rights. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider not just how to protect children from AI, but how to include them in shaping AI’s development.

the goal cannot be the profits, it must be the people

Speaker

Maria Eira (quoting from the children’s video)

Reason

This simple but profound statement cuts to the heart of the tension between commercial AI development and human welfare. Coming from children themselves, it carries particular moral weight and clarity about priorities.

Impact

This comment served as a powerful conclusion that tied together many threads of the discussion. It reinforced the moral imperative for child-centered AI development and provided a clear principle for evaluating AI initiatives.

Should AI ethics for children be separated from general AI ethics?

Speaker

Katarina (online participant studying AI law)

Reason

This question forced the panel to articulate whether children’s needs are fundamentally different from adults’ or simply a subset of universal human needs. It challenged the assumption that child-specific approaches are necessary while opening space to consider the broader implications of child-centered design.

Impact

This question prompted important clarification from panelists about why children need specific consideration while also acknowledging that good design for children benefits everyone. It helped crystallize the argument for child-specific approaches while avoiding segregation of children’s interests from broader human rights.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing children as active stakeholders rather than passive subjects, challenging conventional assumptions about technology adoption and digital literacy, and elevating the conversation from technical considerations to questions of rights, representation, and values. The opening statement from young people set a tone of empowerment that influenced all subsequent speakers to frame their research in terms of meaningful participation rather than protection. The research findings about reversed technology adoption patterns and children’s sophisticated value judgments about authenticity added nuance and complexity to common assumptions. The discussion evolved from a focus on safety and education to encompass broader questions of democracy, representation, and the fundamental purposes of AI development. The interplay between research findings and direct youth voices created a rich dialogue that moved beyond typical adult-centric approaches to technology policy.

How are influencers (including AI agents as influencers) shaping children’s experiences with AI and social media, and how does this affect their real-life relationships?

Speaker

Mariana Rozo-Paz from DataSphere Initiative

Explanation

This addresses a gap in current research about the influence of AI agents and human influencers on children’s digital experiences and their concrete impact on real-world relationships

What are the long-term impacts of generative AI use on children’s development and well-being?

Speaker

Maria Eira

Explanation

Current research shows contradictory results about whether AI improves or decreases critical thinking skills, indicating need for longitudinal studies

How can AI companions be designed responsibly to support children’s mental health without creating dependency or exacerbating loneliness?

Speaker

Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Explanation

There’s growing interest from children in using AI companions for mental health support, but current tools aren’t designed with children’s well-being in mind

How can generative AI be further leveraged for the support and inclusion of people with disabilities?

Speaker

Ryan (17-year-old youth ambassador)

Explanation

Children showed strong interest in AI supporting those with additional learning needs, but development needs to be grounded in understanding actual needs and challenges

How can AI be designed to reduce power imbalances between children and AI systems, particularly in personal conversations?

Speaker

Elisa from OnePile Foundation

Explanation

Children are in vulnerable positions when communicating with AI about personal issues, requiring design approaches that maintain child agency and independence

How can we develop critical AI literacy that goes beyond technical understanding to include business models and rights impacts?

Speaker

Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Explanation

Current AI literacy efforts focus on technical aspects, but children need to understand the broader implications including data collection, business models, and rights impacts to make informed choices

What are the impacts of using AI bots for therapy, particularly regarding emotional attachments and potential risks?

Speaker

Stephen Balkam

Explanation

Anecdotal evidence shows children and adults using AI for therapeutic conversations, but research is needed on the safety and effectiveness compared to human therapy

How can we address equity gaps in AI access and education between private and state-funded schools?

Speaker

Dr. Mhairi Aitken

Explanation

Research revealed stark differences in AI access and understanding between private and state schools, pointing to important equity issues that need addressing

How can we better understand and address parental awareness gaps regarding children’s personal use of generative AI?

Speaker

Maria Eira

Explanation

Research showed parents are aware of academic AI use but lack knowledge about personal uses like AI companions or seeking help for personal problems

What regulatory approaches can protect children’s rights in AI without violating other rights like privacy?

Speaker

Joon Baek from Youth for Privacy

Explanation

There are concerns that legislation aimed at protecting children in AI contexts might inadvertently compromise other rights, requiring careful balance

Summary

This discussion focused on parliamentary approaches to regulating harmful online content while balancing digital safety with freedom of expression and human rights. Parliamentarians from Pakistan, Argentina, Nepal, Bulgaria, and South Africa shared their experiences with digital legislation and the challenges of creating effective regulatory frameworks.

Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan from Pakistan highlighted the urgent need for social media platforms to respond more quickly to content removal requests, particularly regarding AI-generated harassment content targeting women and girls. She emphasized that delayed responses can have devastating consequences, including suicide, and called for platforms to be more culturally sensitive. Franco Metaza from Argentina’s Mercosur Parliament discussed harmful content including “fatphobia” that promotes eating disorders among young girls, and shared how disinformation led to an assassination attempt on a political leader, demonstrating the real-world dangers of fake news.

Yogesh Bhattarai from Nepal stressed the importance of regulating rather than controlling digital platforms while strengthening democratic institutions and maintaining constitutional protections for freedom of expression. Tsvetelina Penkova from Bulgaria outlined the European Union’s comprehensive legislative approach, including the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, and GDPR, emphasizing human-centric digital transformation and the challenges of enforcement across 27 member states.

Ashley Sauls from South Africa discussed how disinformation about his country affected international relations and highlighted the need for balanced approaches that don’t infringe on privacy and human rights. The discussion also addressed youth engagement in policymaking, cybercrime legislation challenges, and the role of private sector companies in content moderation and capacity building. Participants emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, international cooperation, and the recognition of digital rights as a potential fourth generation of human rights.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Platform accountability and content moderation challenges**: Multiple speakers highlighted the struggle with social media platforms’ responsiveness to government requests for harmful content removal, particularly regarding gender-based violence, harassment, and culturally sensitive content. Pakistan’s experience showed platforms treating regulatory requests as optional rather than legally binding.

– **Balancing freedom of expression with protection from harm**: Parliamentarians emphasized the need to protect vulnerable groups (especially women, children, and minorities) from online harassment, disinformation, and harmful content while preserving democratic freedoms and human rights. This tension between regulation and liberty was a central theme across different regions.

– **Legislative frameworks and enforcement challenges**: Speakers shared experiences with cybercrime laws, digital services acts, and content regulation, noting that having laws is insufficient without proper enforcement mechanisms and capacity. The EU’s comprehensive approach (DSA, DMA, GDPR, AI Act) was contrasted with implementation challenges in smaller countries.

– **Youth engagement and digital literacy**: The discussion emphasized involving young people in policymaking processes and the critical need for digital literacy programs to help users identify misinformation, develop critical thinking skills, and navigate online spaces safely.

– **Multi-stakeholder cooperation and capacity building**: Speakers called for enhanced collaboration between governments, civil society, private sector, and international organizations, with particular emphasis on the need for capacity building for parliamentarians and public officials to understand emerging technologies like AI.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to facilitate knowledge sharing among parliamentarians from different regions about their experiences with digital governance, content regulation, and creating safer online environments while maintaining democratic principles and human rights protections.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with speakers sharing both challenges and solutions from their respective contexts. While there were moments of criticism directed at tech platforms and concerns about enforcement gaps, the overall atmosphere remained professional and solution-oriented. The tone became slightly more technical and urgent when discussing specific harms (suicide, harassment, disinformation affecting democracy) but concluded on a forward-looking note emphasizing cooperation and shared responsibility.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan** – Former Minister for Technology (Pakistan), worked on cybercrime legislation including the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016

– **Sorina Teleanu** – Session moderator/chair

– **Franco Metaza** – Parliamentarian from Mercosur (regional parliament of South America covering Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia)

– **Yogesh Bhattarai** – Member of Parliament representing the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal

– **Tsvetelina Penkova** – Member of the European Parliament representing Bulgaria

– **Ashley Sauls** – South African parliamentarian

– **Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel** – Member of the Philippine House of Representatives

– **Bibek Silwal** – Advocate for youth in policy from Nepal

– **Olga Reis** – Private sector representative from Google, covers AI opportunity agenda for emerging markets

– **Anne McCormick** – Private sector representative from Ernst & Young (EY)

– **Amy Mitchell** – Representative from Center for News Technology and Innovation (United States)

– **Audiance** – Honorable representative from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kinshasa

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Parliamentary Approaches to Digital Governance: Balancing Online Safety with Democratic Freedoms

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion brought together parliamentarians from across the globe to examine the complex challenges of regulating harmful online content whilst preserving fundamental democratic principles. The session, moderated by Sorina Teleanu, featured representatives from Pakistan, Argentina, Nepal, Bulgaria, South Africa, and the Philippines, alongside private sector voices and civil society advocates. The dialogue revealed both shared concerns and divergent approaches to digital governance, with particular emphasis on protecting vulnerable populations, enhancing platform accountability, and fostering international cooperation.

## Key Themes and Regional Perspectives

### Platform Accountability and Cultural Sensitivity

The discussion opened with a powerful intervention from Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan, Pakistan’s former Minister for Technology, who articulated a fundamental challenge facing governments worldwide. She emphasised that the core issue is not a geopolitical struggle between East and West, but rather “a fight between revenue generation entities versus a revenue curbing request.” This economic framing of platform behaviour resonated throughout the session, highlighting how social media companies prioritise profit over cultural sensitivity and public safety.

Khan explained that “every single post on the social media platform is a revenue generating mechanism,” which creates inherent conflicts with content moderation requests. She shared disturbing examples of platforms’ inadequate responses to government requests for content removal, particularly regarding AI-generated harassment targeting women and girls. She noted that delayed responses can have devastating consequences, including suicide, and called for platforms to demonstrate greater cultural awareness in their content moderation decisions.

Khan also highlighted Pakistan’s innovative approach to AI governance, including an AI-powered Senate chatbot project. She referenced Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which was developed over two years starting in 2014 and enacted in 2016. Her frustration was palpable as she declared: “We are now tired of waiting and I would urge and request all the other parliamentarians to come together to make a joint strategy where we can collectively speak to the social media platforms.”

Franco Metaza from Argentina’s Mercosur Parliament—the regional parliament of South America comprising Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia with 100 parliamentarians—reinforced these concerns with specific examples of harmful content. Speaking in Spanish as he announced he would do, he detailed how platforms promote “racism, xenophobia, homophobia, explicit violence, banalization of the use of drugs, and fatphobia.” He provided particularly disturbing examples of “fatphobia” affecting young girls, noting that 13-14-year-old girls in Brazil are seeking aesthetic surgeries due to harmful content promoting unrealistic body standards.

Metaza also shared how disinformation led to an assassination attempt on a political leader, demonstrating the real-world dangers of inadequately moderated content. He offered a compelling metaphor, comparing unregulated social media consumption to “going at full speed with a vehicle without knowing what is in front of us or without having a traffic light,” which helped frame regulation as a safety necessity rather than freedom restriction.

### Legislative Frameworks and Implementation Challenges

The discussion revealed significant variation in legislative approaches across different regions. Tsvetelina Penkova from Bulgaria outlined the European Union’s comprehensive strategy, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA), GDPR, the European Democracy Action Plan, Media Freedom Act, and the emerging AI Act. Despite criticism of the AI Act, she defended it as “probably the best one which protects people” while ensuring “innovation and growth” alongside “protecting citizens’ rights.” She emphasised the EU’s commitment to human-centric digital transformation whilst acknowledging the substantial challenges of enforcement across 27 member states with different legal traditions and capacities.

In contrast, Yogesh Bhattarai from Nepal advocated for a more collaborative approach, arguing that “digital platforms should be regulated, not controlled.” He stressed the importance of cooperation and collaboration rather than strict governmental control, whilst ensuring constitutional compliance with freedom of speech guarantees. Nepal’s approach involves engaging youth through national and internet governance forums in legislative processes. Bhattarai noted Nepal’s linguistic diversity, with “125 languages and 125 castes,” which adds complexity to content moderation challenges.

Ashley Sauls from South Africa provided multilingual greetings and highlighted his country’s multi-faceted legislative response, including the Protection of Personal Information Act, Cyber Crimes Act, and Fullerman Publications Act. He emphasised the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and warned against policies that might infringe on privacy and human rights. Sauls also introduced the concerning concept of “digital apartheid,” highlighting how AI training can perpetuate historical biases and discrimination.

Sauls shared a powerful example of how disinformation about “white minority genocide in South Africa” affected US government decisions and led to the cancellation of a rugby match between Atlanta Secondary School and Liff Burra Grammar School due to safety concerns. He quoted the Minister of Sport’s philosophy that “a child in sport is a child out of court,” emphasising sport’s role in social cohesion. He also noted South Africa’s recent transition from majority government to a “government of national unity.”

The Philippines’ experience, as shared by Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel from the House of Representatives, provided a cautionary tale about legislative overreach. He criticised the country’s Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, particularly its cyber libel provisions that have been misused against journalists and teachers, demonstrating how well-intentioned legislation can be weaponised against legitimate expression.

### International Cooperation and Human Rights Framework

A particularly thought-provoking intervention came from the representative from the Democratic Republic of Congo, who proposed that the United Nations should recognise digital rights as a fourth generation of human rights. Speaking in French, he argued that such recognition would provide a common framework for national legislation, similar to existing human rights generations, and could lead to constitutional incorporation in many countries.

This proposal received immediate support from Tsvetelina Penkova, who acknowledged it could resolve many enforcement challenges currently faced by individual nations. The suggestion elevated the discussion from practical policy implementation to fundamental questions about the nature of rights in the digital age.

### Youth Engagement and Digital Literacy

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the critical role of young people in digital policymaking. Franco Metaza argued that “youth participation should be transversal across all policy-making rather than segregated into youth-only discussions,” advocating for integrated rather than separate consultation processes.

Bibek Silwal, an advocate for youth in policy from Nepal, emphasised that young people serve as “positive catalysts in policy implementation” and should be involved from initial policymaking through public outreach. He highlighted the importance of digital literacy programmes and critical thinking skills development to help users identify misinformation.

Tsvetelina Penkova noted that young people understand the economic implications of poor regulation, recognising that “the digital economy will shrink without proper regulation.” This insight challenged assumptions about youth attitudes towards digital governance, suggesting greater sophistication in their policy preferences than often assumed.

### Private Sector Responsibility and AI Governance

The session included notable contributions from private sector representatives, creating moments of both tension and unexpected consensus. Olga Reis from Google presented current content moderation efforts, citing statistics about video removal from YouTube, with “55% removed before being watched, 27% removed with less than 10 views.” She also mentioned Google’s AI Campus programme, which has already trained “500,000 officials” in AI literacy.

Anne McCormick from Ernst & Young highlighted the private sector’s need for clarity on AI liability frameworks as adoption spreads beyond large technology companies to smaller economic actors. She emphasised the importance of independent oversight and transparency mechanisms throughout the AI lifecycle.

The discussion revealed interesting tensions in platform relationships. Franco Metaza both praised YouTube Kids as a successful model of controlled digital ecosystems for children whilst simultaneously criticising Google for allowing defamatory content in search results. He specifically cited how searching for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner showed “ladrona de la nación argentina” (thief of the Argentine nation) in Google’s knowledge panel, demonstrating inconsistent standards across different Google services.

## Areas of Consensus and Disagreement

### Strong Agreements

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus on several fundamental principles. All speakers agreed that social media platforms need to take greater responsibility for content moderation and harm prevention. There was universal acknowledgement that protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children and women, must be a priority in digital governance frameworks.

Youth engagement emerged as another area of strong agreement, with all speakers supporting meaningful integration of young people into policymaking processes. Similarly, there was consensus on the necessity of multi-stakeholder approaches involving government, civil society, private sector, and international organisations.

### Key Disagreements

Despite broad agreement on principles, significant disagreements emerged regarding implementation approaches. The most notable tension concerned decision-making authority for content removal, with Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan advocating for stronger government authority whilst Tsvetelina Penkova insisted on judicial oversight to prevent government overreach.

Speakers also disagreed on the appropriate level of regulation, with Yogesh Bhattarai emphasising light-touch regulation focusing on cooperation, whilst Franco Metaza supported stronger parliamentary regulation comparable to traffic laws. These disagreements reflect deeper tensions between national sovereignty and international coordination.

## Unresolved Challenges and Future Directions

### Implementation and Enforcement

The discussion highlighted persistent challenges in translating legislative frameworks into effective enforcement. Multiple speakers noted that having laws is insufficient without proper implementation mechanisms and capacity. Cultural sensitivity in content moderation remains particularly challenging, with platforms making uniform decisions without considering local contexts that could have severe consequences for users.

### Capacity Building and Education

Several speakers emphasised the critical need for capacity building amongst parliamentarians and public officials to understand emerging technologies like AI. Digital literacy emerged as equally important for general populations, with speakers calling for educational campaigns to help users identify misinformation and develop critical thinking skills.

### Economic and Social Justice Considerations

Ashley Sauls’s introduction of the “digital apartheid” concept highlighted how AI systems can perpetuate historical injustices and create new forms of discrimination. This concern extends beyond technical bias to fundamental questions about who benefits from digital transformation and who bears its costs.

## Recommendations and Action Items

### Immediate Actions

Parliamentarians agreed on the need to create joint strategies for collectively addressing social media platforms, recognising that individual national approaches lack sufficient leverage against global technology companies. Educational initiatives emerged as a priority, with speakers calling for campaigns to teach young people to identify fake news and develop critical thinking skills.

### Medium-term Developments

The proposal for UN recognition of digital rights as a fourth generation of human rights represents a significant medium-term objective that could provide clearer frameworks for national legislation. Platform accountability mechanisms need strengthening, with the YouTube Kids model suggested as a template for broader child protection measures.

### Long-term Structural Changes

The discussion pointed towards the need for coordinated international frameworks rather than individual national approaches. The integration of digital rights into constitutional frameworks could provide more robust protection against governmental overreach whilst ensuring consistent protection standards.

## Conclusion

This parliamentary discussion revealed both the urgency and complexity of digital governance challenges facing democracies worldwide. The session’s most valuable contribution was its reframing of digital governance from technical issues to fundamental questions about power, economics, and human rights in the digital age. Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan’s characterisation of the struggle as one between “revenue generation entities versus revenue curbing requests” identified core tensions that must be addressed.

The proposal for digital rights as a fourth generation of human rights offers a potential framework for achieving balance between competing interests, but implementation will require unprecedented levels of international coordination. As parliamentarians continue to grapple with these challenges, the experiences shared provide valuable insights into both successful approaches and cautionary tales about legislative overreach.

The path forward requires sustained commitment to multi-stakeholder dialogue, international cooperation, and innovative approaches that can balance platform accountability with democratic freedoms whilst protecting the most vulnerable members of society.

Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan: But there is this responsibility that goes with the governments that the digital progress is upholding human dignity. It is upholding democratic freedom and giving access to everybody. So we experience that in Pakistan, for example, that even if when we made the law, the social media platforms continue to govern our request as if we were two kilometers not above the ground, not impacted by the law. And they decided to choose what content they were going to remove and what content they were going to keep on the social media platforms. So there has been and is a continuous issue in our country that when the regulator sends out the request to remove the content, and I will give you by example that this content relates to a girl and she’s a university student and she’s being harassed by somebody and they have created a content on AI or any other means which looks like real. By the time that content is removed, the life of that girl is gone. So when I was legislating, I had dozens of examples of girls actually jumping off the wall, killing themselves, committing suicide and stuff like that. And in my country, even an aspersion on a girl is good enough to kill her. So even if they would not die physically, but they are dead emotionally. So we need to be very careful of the fact that the culture in which we are living, the social media platforms have to be sensitive about that culture. And this is the real challenge, how to make the social media platforms sensitive to the cultures. For them, it’s a revenue. Every single post on the social media platform is a revenue generating mechanism. It’s not a fight between East or the West. It’s a fight between revenue generation entities versus a revenue curbing request. So we need and we expect that this platform today, where the UN enters with the IGF, we can together use the technology platforms without fearing that these technology platform contents are going to be harmful for our children, for our girls, for our women, for the vulnerable. And believing in technology and being a former minister for technology, we all believe that we have to explore and we promise and we want to ensure that we are going to use the technology for shaping the future of the legislation, transparency and bringing more efficiency and effectiveness in the functioning of the way the parliamentarians work. So in the Senate of Pakistan, for example, advancing the vision of technology adaption, the chairman of the Senate has for the first time taken a concrete step towards developing an AI-powered Senate chatbot. It’s a virtual assistant designated to support lawmakers, secretariat staff and citizens with real-time access to legislative data, procedural guidance and multilingual services. This project proposes full-scale design, development and institutional deployment of the Senate chatbot, transforming it from a promising prototype into a high-impact digital parliamentary assistance tool. So we are working using technology at the same time. My concern and your question would still take us again back to this discussion table, that for how long are we going to continue to wait for the use and absorption of the technology positively when abused online, to continue to be abused online by the vested stakeholders and how long would social media platforms would take to listen to the governments and their requests to remove objectionable content and to secure the vulnerable groups and the non-vulnerable groups equally online. And we are now tired of waiting and I would urge and request all the other parliamentarians to come together to make a joint strategy where we can collectively speak to the social media platforms and help our vulnerable citizens in our respective countries to ensure that their offline rights are as secure online. This is what my humble request is. Thank you.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you so much for bringing to the table so many issues. If I may ask a follow-up question, you mentioned you work on a cybercrime law. Was that law passed already in the parliament? Sorry, Ms. Rahman? If I may ask a follow-up question. No, I have to, your voice is actually echoing, yes. Yeah, you have to listen. Yeah. Let me also remove this. So, if I may ask a follow-up question. You mentioned you were working on a cybercrime law. Was it passed in the parliament? Is it approved?

Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan: Yes, it was made in 2016. I started working on it in 2014. It took me two years to bring in a collaborative effort, bringing all the parliamentarians on board, listening to the civil society, listening to the NGOs, listening to the independent groups, listening to the media, because, as I said, the Internet is perceived, anything that will happen on the Internet is perceived as an activity, as if it is going to curb the freedom of expression, which is not the case. So, it is not about curbing the freedom of expression. We believe in it and we uphold it. It’s about protecting children, women, girls, and all vulnerable segments, and in this case, men and boys are equally vulnerable. Because the dignity of a natural person is extremely important to protect. So, this is what we made the media to understand, that we are not targeting electronic media. We are not targeting print media. We are talking about social media, which is full of misinformation, propaganda, and fake news. And we need to protect our citizens from this, because it leads to harassment and it leads to other kinds of vulnerable situations, which need to be looked at and criminalized in our law. So, in 2016, we made the cybercrime law. It’s called the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, and it’s a consensus document of the entire 240 million people representation in the parliament by their MPs in both the National Assembly and the Senate.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. I’ll get back later to you with one more question, but let me give the floor to Mr. Metaza to share your experiences.

Franco Metaza: Hello. Good afternoon to everybody. I’m going to speak in Spanish, which is one of the official languages of my regional parliament. I want to start by thanking the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, the Parliament of Norway, and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the UIP, for organizing this important parliamentary tracking in the framework of the Forum for Global Internet Governance. My parliament is the Parliament of the Marcosur, it’s the regional parliament of South America. It’s made up of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia. It’s finishing its internal legislation to be able to be a full member. We are 100 parliamentarians, and we are having a very, very heated debate at the moment in our region regarding these topics. To answer one of the questions that Sorina asked at the beginning of this panel, well, the harmful content that we see with a lot of concern in our region, we are starting to list them and to be able, in some way, to encode what they are about. We are talking about racism, we are talking about xenophobia, we are talking about homophobia, we are talking about explicit violence, banalization of the use of drugs, and one in particular, as you asked for examples, Sorina, I’m going to give an example of a project that I presented in my parliament regarding something that perhaps does not have an exact translation in the world of the speaker. We are talking about fatphobia. What we are proposing is that there is content that is so harmful on social media, specifically on Instagram, specifically on TikTok, that leads young girls, the general population, but we are very concerned about young girls, to have behaviors that lead to anorexia and bulimia, that lead to what we call eating disorders. In this sense, we are very concerned about what the images generate. We have done tests and registering you on social media, saying that you are a 13-year-old girl, the content they bombard you with is content, images. In some real cases, in other fake cases, made with artificial intelligence of extremely skinny bodies, impossible to achieve in a natural way, and then advice to have extreme diets, and then advice or advertisements about surgeries. In Brazil, for example, 13-14-year-old girls have started going to the doctor on their own to consult for the possibility of having aesthetic surgeries. We are entering a very, very complex situation in terms of harmful content. And this dichotomy that exists between, well, regular or freedom of expression, I want to tell you that it seems to me that the regulations, when they are given in parliaments where all the social statements are represented, all the political expressions, will never go against freedom because the regulations express the will of the majority. I give you an example. There began to be cars, motor vehicles, in our societies, in the real world. We had to put a speed limit. We had to prohibit children from driving. And that was not against anyone’s freedom. Well, I think that today the permanent scrolling that we are all subjected to is as much or more harmful as going at full speed with a vehicle without knowing what is in front of us or without having a traffic light. And finally, I want to pick up something that I heard a lot yesterday, that I heard this morning, and it seems to me that it is a concern that we all have. At least, well, here there are many stakeholders in the auditorium, but perhaps it is something that I heard, especially from parliamentarians, and it is how the other issue, which is disinformation and fake news, affect our democracy. Democracy that we, as parliamentarians, have the obligation to protect and take care of. Look, I’m going to give you an example. In my country, in Argentina, a fake news began to circulate systematically about one of the leaders of my country, who was president twice and who is the main leader of the opposition, whose name is Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, about corruption, with many hate messages, and this went viral all over the networks. What ended up happening? Well, a person who consumed so many hate messages appeared at the door of the house and shot him in the head. Fortunately, the bullet did not come out, but look how far fake news and disinformation can go. Today, he has been arrested by the current president, in the framework of a great confusion of fake news and disinformation. So, we have the obligation, as parliamentarians, to put a stop to it, or at least nuance what social networks are, what Internet without government is, as the senator said here, to protect our democracies. It is not fair that our democracies, which is the last thing we have left, in this complex moment, where at any time a nuclear bomb explodes, the only thing we have left to safeguard humanity are democracies. Let’s please take care of democracies. Thank you.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you also, including for bringing up some of the metaphors you raised. I like the one about having rules for the use of social media, similar to having rules for driving a car on the road. We can unpack that a little later. One curiosity, within the parliament of Mercosur, are you having these kind of debates, and are you looking into doing something collaboratively across the countries in dealing with harmful online content and creating more safe online? Again, not necessarily only in terms of legislation, but also looking at how to build more awareness, more capacity among users themselves, so they can be better prepared to deal with harmful content. Because, I guess, not all the answers are in passing a law and then expecting for it to be applied, but also seeing how you can prepare people to deal with these kind of things. Any reflections?

Franco Metaza: Yes, Sorina, what you ask is important. Today, in the parliament of Mercosur, if there is something in which we have consensus, it is that companies can do more than what they are doing. That they have the budget, that they have the money, and that they are not making enough efforts to be able to put a stop to harmful content, harmful content and fake news. In that we are absolutely in agreement. We believe that we have to go there. Thank you.

Sorina Teleanu: I think I’m already seeing a common thread about more responsibility for the private sector. And I know we have some private sector in the room and I think we will want to hear from them as well, but later on that. All right, let us continue. And let’s hear from Mr. Bhattarai, please.

Yogesh Bhattarai: Thank you very much, Sorina. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, fellow parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen, friends from media. Good afternoon. It is a profound honor to be here today. Representing the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, I extend my sincere gratitude to the organizers, especially the UN and the government of Nauru, for creating this space where we can share our experiences and the collective Sikh wisdom. The topics before us, building the healthy information ecosystem, is one of the defined challenges of our era. This is not only the technical issues. It is a milestone for our ongoing democratic journey. Like many of you, we have witnesses to transformative power of the digital age. The Internet and social media have opened up avenues for the experiences, connected our diverse communities, and given a powerful platform to citizens to engage in the civic life of our nation. It has been a remarkable force for democratization. However, this progress is accompanied by complex challenges. We grapple with the very real harms of disinformation that can fear our social fabric, and the rise of online harassment that seeks to silence vulnerable voices. These are legitimate concerns that a very responsible government must address. In Nepal, we are currently in the midst of a profound national conversation about how to best delegate the balance between upholding the freedom of experience and protecting our citizens from harm. This debate is reflected in the legislative proposal currently under discussion, including the proposal Social Media Bill and the Information Technology Bill. This proposal streams for the genuine desire to create a safe digital environment. As a parliamentarian committed to the universal values of human rights and people-based democracy, I believe we must proceed with utmost care. The Constitution of Nepal guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19 establishes the right to information and communication as fundamental rights. Parliament will not accept any law that contradicts the provision of the Constitution. In Nepal, we have a National Information Commission and the Press Council Nepal as an independent oversight agency. Myself and other MPs have been participating in the program organized by the Civil Society Organization, where there are discussions on the right to information and communication. We are concerned about the negative impact of misinformation and disinformation on society. Everyone should be aware of the possibility that it can divide society by spreading the confusion about caste, religious, racism, gender, and professions. Misinformation and disinformation are also having an impact on the tension and war taking place in different parts of the world today. This has also become the challenge for national security. I am convinced that only civil liberties, human rights, open societies, democratic competition, equal access, and citizen resilience can make the state accountable to its citizens. The challenges brought about by the revolution in the digital sector should strengthen the sovereignty of the nation and the people. It should support world peace and humanity. For this, digital platforms should be regulated, not controlled. Cooperation, collaboration, and solidarity should be strengthened. I am firmly convinced that the most effective and sustainable path forward lies in the empowerment and strengthening of democratic institutions. We believe that only a healthy information ecosystem can make healthy democratic practices strong and accountable. I believe that the Internet and digital platforms will connect the people’s hearts. It will make life easier. It will bring marginalized communities into the mainstream. Let us reform our collective commitment to this principle. Let us share not just our challenges, but our highest aspirations. I am confident that through the collaboration and the shared dedication to human rights, we can build a digital future that is not only safe and orderly, but also open, vibrant, and fundamentally free.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you so much. I took quite a lot of notes while you were speaking, and I would like to get back to some points, maybe also later. But right now, I like how you said that we need responsible governance, and that states can and should be accountable to their own citizens. I think those are important points to keep in mind also when you work on legislation. And because you said that social media has to be regulated but not controlled, my question would be, how are you interacting with technology platforms as you’re working on this legislation in the country? you have any discussions with them, how is the relation being?

Yogesh Bhattarai: Yeah. Recently, the government submitted the bill about social media and digital platform, and we discussed with so many stakeholders and the different part and different organization, and the government requested the suggestion from the different stakeholder. It is ongoing, but not in the conclude. So, I hope we make the more effective law about social media and internet access, and especially in the cyber security also.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. Moving on to Ms. Penkova. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you, Serena. I will touch upon the question about the specific legislations, because we heard a lot of many examples, but we have the strong belief that Europe is still playing the leading role when we are speaking about digital legislation. Of course, we are at the stage of implementation still, but let’s keep in mind that when we speak about the EU legislations, we are representing 27 member states. So, if you allow me, I would start by emphasizing on some of the key and the most important EU legislations, and of course, it’s not going to surprise many people in the room, as it was mentioned many times. I’m starting with the Digital Services Act, which is the flagship EU legislation when we’re speaking about the regulation of the digital space. So, basically, the DSA is meant to be tackling a lot of the issues and problems that were already mentioned throughout the whole day’s discussion, at least today. So, we’re speaking about protecting minors and vulnerable groups, tackling cyber violence, tackling harmful content and disinformation. So, everything, more or less, is part of the content of this very key and important legislative framework of the EU. But, of course, it cannot act on its own, so we need some supportive legislations, and that’s where we come to the Digital Markets Act, for instance, which needs to complement the DSA by ensuring a fair competition in the digital economy. I mean, we believe that this is key, so the DMA does promote greater choice for consumers and the interoperability of the digital service providers. Here, I will also have to mention the data governance and the GDPR. Those are key legislations to reinforce individuals’ control over their data, while at the same time it promotes a trustworthy data sharing. So, we are speaking about protecting human rights in the digital space. When I mention GDPR, I’m sure this is probably one of the most popular legislations of the EU and the most controversial one, but it also needs approves, updates, additions. Only last week, for instance, in the EU Institution, we finished the negotiations of the procedural rules for handling cross-border cases. So, when we’re speaking about digital legislations, you have to be very pragmatic that the problems that we’re resolving today would be very different in tomorrow’s reality. So, we have to be very flexible and that has been extremely challenging for the regulators across the world, I would say, that you cannot always foresee the challenges in such a fast-growing and developing segments of the economy as it’s the digital field. I’ve spoken a lot about the human protection and the main legislative framework that the EU provides, but allow me to mention two other key legislations that we are working on. One of them is still a work in progress, but they’re focusing on the media freedom. So, the European Democracy Action Plan, it’s a plan actually, not a legislation necessarily. It needs to strengthen media freedom, but at the same time promoting pluralism. So, basically, it combats disinformation in very specific cases that we’ve been observing happening quite a lot, especially in the context of elections, for instance, and foreign interference. So, those are quite significant global challenges that we see at the moment. Of course, the Media Freedom Act, which is at the moment under negotiations, of course, tries to protect the independence of media freedom, transparency in media ownership and advertisement as well. So, there are many, many specific examples which are trying to resolve all the common problems that we are facing across the globe, but if you ask me to summarize the four key priorities which we’re having as members of the European Parliament, when we’re working on those legislations, I’ll probably focus on, I mean, there are many more than four, but I’ve chosen to focus on four main ones for today’s session. The first one, we really try to keep with the human-centric digital transformation. So, digital transition while protecting citizens’ rights. The second, combating online hate and disinformation. I’ve mentioned again, the DSA’s probably main goal is to ensure that there are stronger enforcement mechanisms against cyber violence, and we can get in more details if we need to. Third, it was mentioned many times, digital literacy and resilience. Without resolving and tackling this issue, none of those legislation or enforcements would be perceived, accepted and successful. So, the EU strategy at the moment is focused quite significantly on digital education. And last, but not least important, of course, is the children online safety. There are many sessions dedicated to this in the IGF. Tomorrow, we’re having one with the Utah IGF, and the younger generation really has a very significant role to play in ensuring that this protection is actually targeted to the most vulnerable and to the minors. And if you allow me the last 30 seconds, because when I’m speaking from the EU perspective, as I said, we have to take into account that we have 27 member states. So, each one of them has a very different experience in enforcing those legislations. In the last 30 seconds, I will just share, I’m from a small member state, actually, I’m from Bulgaria. So, we’re still struggling, actually, to enforce and implement all those legislations that I’ve listed. But we have a very active civil society sector that at the moment, for instance, is launching a lot of campaigns on teaching the youth generation to identify fake news and to be a bit more aware of the critical thinking. What I mean by that is basically try to allocate or analyze the sources of the information, where the information is coming, because we have observed that the younger generation lacks that question. So, they just see the information and they perceive it. I just wanted to mention that example because, yes, we do face a lot of challenges. Some of those legislations are very, very complicated, but once you have the state support, the regional governance and the active civil society, nothing is impossible.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you so much for raising, I think, two important points. First of all, being the one on enforcement, it’s one thing to have laws in place, but then are authorities at the national level, as you’re saying, empowered to actually put that law into practice? I’m from your neighboring country, Romania, and I’m seeing the same challenges. It’s not easy to put in place all of that. Excellent points on literacy and capacity building and education and building critical thinking in young users, but also all of us. I think we would all benefit from a bit more critical thinking when we interact with digital technologies. If I may add one more thing that you might want to reflect on, how is the AI Act also connecting to all of these when it comes to more safe online environments and more transparency from the side of the private actors, for instance?

Tsvetelina Penkova: I’m sure maybe some people would not agree with me, but I think the AI Act as it stands in the European legislation is probably the best one which, again, protects the people, and of course we’ve seen a lot of criticism, but what we want to do is ensure that there is innovation and growth, but of course the first thing is protecting citizens’ rights and ensure that there is enough time for the consumers to understand all the risks and challenges before we put a technology for very wide use. I think this was a bit the protection mechanism and the way of thinking of the European Parliament when we were working on that legislation, and that’s why it did face a lot of criticisms.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. I think we can also come back to that later. All right, let’s hear from our… Final, but not the least, speaker, Mr. Ashley Sauls, please.

Ashley Sauls: Thank you very much, Serena. Esteemed parliamentarians, distinguished guests and fellow stakeholders in the realm of digital governance, being from a country where our constitution protects religious freedom, in line with my faith, I want to greet you in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and in my First Nation Indigenous Bushman mother tongue, at the brink of extinction, Mwenke Awunneki. It is with great honour, thank you, it is with great honour that I address you today at this pivotal forum where we converge to deliberate on the future of digital policy practices. As we navigate the complexities of our increasingly interconnected world, South Africa stands as a testament to the transformative potential of digital technologies while simultaneously confronting unique challenges that demand thoughtful and inclusive policy frameworks. A practical example is the recent disinformation about white minority genocide in South Africa where an executive decision by the US government was largely made based on online information. The ripple effect of that was also a fuelled narrative about my race classified as coloured, as a violent and gangster-ridden group. As a result, a local school, as an example, Atlanta Secondary School, had to host Liff Burra Grammar School from the UK in South Africa for a rugby match this July, but it was cancelled, and it was cancelled because parents feared for what was said in the White House about our country. Our current Minister of Sport says a child in sport is a child out of court. My fellow parliamentarians in the UK, maybe you guys can help us convince management and parents to contribute to a different narrative through sport by ensuring that that match actually takes place. I hope somebody is listening to me about that. In South Africa, we recognise the profound impact of the digital landscape on our socio-economic fabric with over 60% of our population accessing the internet. We see an unparalleled opportunity to enhance educational outcomes, stimulate economic growth and promote social inclusion. However, these opportunities are accompanied by significant obstacles, including the digital divide issues, cyber security threats and the need for robust regulatory frameworks that protect the rights of all citizens. Thus far, we have enacted the Protection of Personal Information Act, the Cyber Crimes Act and the Fullerman Publications Act that regulates these platforms. To effectively enhance our digital policy practices, we adopted a multi-stakeholder approach that engages government, civil society, the private sector and the public. This collaborative model is essential for fostering an inclusive digital economy where benefits are equitably distributed and innovation is harnessed to address local challenges. Moreover, as we advocate for robust cyber security measures, we must ensure that they do not infringe upon the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. South Africa is committed to aligning its digital policies with international standards, promoting a balanced approach that safeguards both security and fundamental human rights, as we would say in my mother tongue, goutes moet balance. By leveraging our position as a member of the African Union, we aim to encourage a continental dialogue that addresses common challenges and fosters regional cooperation in the realm of digital policy. In conclusion, the South African experience underscores the need for a proactive rather than the current reactive approach to digital governance. As we gather here today, let us reaffirm our commitment to a digital future that is inclusive, secure and respects the rights of all citizens. Together, we can craft policies that not only uplift our respective nations but also contribute to a more equitable global digital landscape that expresses the heart of politics, that prioritizes people above profits. Eyo. Thank you. Siyabonga kakulu.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you as well. Also for highlighting what some of the previous speakers have mentioned, the fact that there can be and there should be a balance between protecting safety and security and also ensuring protection of human rights. And we don’t have to give one up to protect the other and the other way around. So thank you for highlighting that again. You mentioned the African Union, so my follow-up question to you would be, are there any examples of initiatives or discussions or projects being implemented or even put in place right now at the African Union level dealing with these issues that you might want to share with everyone? Sorry, again, I’m doing that. Apologies.

Ashley Sauls: Well, not specific programs. I don’t think it is as aggressive as one would want it to be. But I’d like to rather touch on the IGF approach. We have the South African Internet Governance Forum. And on that level, regionally and also continentally, there’s a lot of programs and initiatives around that. And which, for the first time, I think, because of that approach, we now have us as parliamentarians participating, I think it’s for the first time, that we actually join in the forum. And it is because of those engagements on that level.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. I’m glad to have you on board. All right. We’re kind of running out of time. And there are interventions that want to be made from the room. So let’s see. If you could introduce yourself, please. Thank you, Sorin.

Bibek Silwal: My name is Vivek Silwala and I’m from Nepal. I’m an advocate for youth in policy. So thank you very much to all of the member of parliament, senators. I think it was very enlightening in terms of what other work that has been going, not just across the region, but across the continents. And, you know, very much different focus areas and different reasons. So my question is regarding the involvement of youth in digital policymaking or, let’s say, just policymaking. You know, each and every processes where youth are involved, I think it amplifies the impact of the policymaking, whether is it in terms of implementations or whether in terms of the policymaking in the initial process. Youth are always the positive catalyst of reaching out to the end mile. So my question is to all of the parliaments in your region. How have you been involving youths in the days to come in policymaking or just, let’s say, a public outreach program where awareness, how do you plan to engage and indulge the youth in your specific events or policy? Thank you.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. Let’s take the second question as well.

Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel: Hello to fellow parliamentarians. I’m Raul from the Philippines, member of the Philippine House of Representatives. I’d like to ask for your ideas or maybe concrete experiences about combating cybercrime because in the case of the Philippines, we’ve had the Cybercrime Prevention Act in 2012. Unfortunately, it contained a cyber libel provision that we already flagged years ago. We have foreseen that it can be used by abusive or repressive leaders and it turned out that it was actually used in recent times to go after journalists, even teachers who just had opinions that contradict those of the government of the day. So right now, we are discussing possible review and amendments to the cybercrime law that we have and you really are very guarded with that process. So there might be thoughts coming from fellow parliamentarians. Thank you.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you as well. Shall we take these two questions and then continue? Anything on youth engagement and experiences with cybercrime law? Anyone would like to share?

Franco Metaza: Well, regarding young people, in the case of my country, we have a lot of encouragement for the participation of young people. You can vote from the age of 16 and we are proud to have a large number of young parliamentarians in our two chambers, in the House of Representatives as well. So we understand the participation of young people from a transversal point of view. Every time we make a law, when we listen to all parties, we obviously listen to young people. What we don’t like is to segregate young people. I mean, well, young people talk among young people and solve the problems of young people and the rest of the world follows separate paths. For us, youth must be transversal to political construction in society.

Tsvetelina Penkova: So they had many key messages, but the ones I remember were like, the digital economy will shrink if we don’t regulate it. So the young generation understands that and they want to be involved and they want to be asked and they want to be part of the conversation. Children, they do require protection. that is something which is limiting their rights. An interesting point that they brought, actually, was that the bloggers are not restricted in terms of the content that they’re publishing, so this is something that regulators should pay attention. They signaled about that. So the young generation is very much ahead of many of the legislators when it comes to the new trends, and they are an active stakeholder in that, so it’s not a matter if they want to be involved, it’s a matter of us going there and reaching out and asking them. And the comment on the cyber crime, I’m just going to give an example again how it is dealt with in the DSA, for instance, when we’re speaking about cyber violence. So illegal content has to be taken without a delay from the platforms once it’s detected, and this decision has to be taken by the judge, not by the government, so this is one way to tackle the specific example that was given.

Yogesh Bhattarai: In Nepal, you know, Nepal is a very specific country, because we have so many languages, like 125 languages and 125 castes, different castes, and Nepal is between China and India, you know, the very big countries, so that issue is very special for us also. And the youth engagement, it is very important. We have a national internet governance forum, and also the youth internet governance forum in Nepal, so our parliamentarians are engaged with them to make the law and other legislative process. And second thing, which is the cyber crime issues, we have a cyber crime law, and there is a branch within the police, police have a cyber crime branch, and they investigate the issues about the cyber crime, and they submit any case in the court, and the court maybe judge about the cyber crime.

Ashley Sauls: Thank you, Sorina. I think maybe I should start off by saying, let me be honest and transparent that in South Africa, we haven’t really had an emphasis on youth involvement as much, but with the dawn of the shift of our governmental structure nationally, that’s beginning to change. Many of you would know that we had a majority government, one party majority government, since 1994, and now there’s what is called the government of national unity, it’s a coalition government, and so there’s different lines, different approaches coming together, forming one government, and this has assisted to make it practical. We’ve got two, the leaders of the South African IGF, both the chairperson and the deputy chairperson are young people, they are here at the conference, and like I said, this is the first time that us as parliamentarians are forming part of this, and that is because of this different approach to government, which now includes the voices of young people, and because we listen, I’m here today. So I think that’s a good step in the right direction for South Africa.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you, everyone, for sharing the experiences. I think there were a few more points, if you would like to get back to the mic before we wrap up the session. There’s a mic next to you.

Audiance: Merci beaucoup, Madame. Je suis l’honorable voie de la République démocratique du Congo, Kinshasa. J’aimerais aborder une question, je ne sais pas, I want to speak in French, please. Je peux? I can? Je voudrais aborder une question un peu plus technique et vraiment intense, parce que à chaque fois que l’on parle de la législation et des droits humains, on sait tous que c’est vrai que nous sommes des législateurs, mais ne votent pas ou bien n’écrit pas une loi qui veut. Et ça a été dit ici que la plupart des parlementaires ne sont pas outillés, mais j’aimerais évoquer ici le rôle que les Nations Unies ont joué sur la reconnaissance des droits humains. Lorsque les Nations Unies ont compris les réalités du monde, vers 1945-1948, ils ont parlé des droits civils et politiques. Ils les ont reconnus comme la première génération des droits humains. Ensuite, il y a eu les droits liés à l’économie, au travail. Ils ont créé la deuxième génération des droits humains, les droits économiques et sociaux, et sociales, si on peut le dire ainsi. Ensuite, en parlant de l’écologie, les Nations Unies ont reconnu les défis du moment. Ils ont créé la troisième génération des droits humains, les droits collectifs liés à l’environnement. Mais ici, il est clair que, concrètement, les Nations Unies n’ont pas encore reconnu les droits numériques comme étant, faisant partie de la quatrième génération des droits humains. Pourquoi je le dis ? Parce que lorsqu’on lit les constitutions de notre pays, on va voir qu’il y a beaucoup de travaux, beaucoup des pays ont repris les travaux des Nations Unies, donc comme droits fondamentaux. Il est clair qu’ici, si on parle des droits civils et politiques, nous savons de quoi nous parlons. Si nous parlons des desques droits économiques, nous savons de quoi nous parlons, effectivement. Mais lorsqu’il s’agit des droits numériques, on parle des droits humains, on parle des légiférés, mais en réalité, on ne s’est pas encore mis autour d’une table pour dire, en effet, que les droits numériques faisaient partie de la quatrième génération des droits humains. Si les Nations Unies passent cette étape, vous allez remarquer que beaucoup de pays vont enjamber et peut-être ça sera même inscrit dans nos constitutions et dans nos lois. Parce que je l’ai dit tout à l’heure, légiférer, c’est bien, c’est un vœu, mais il faut avoir la technique pour légiférer. Et il est clair que notre contribution en tant que parlementaire est qu’il faut que nous ayons un élément, un instrument commun comme on l’a avec les trois générations des droits humains et avec la génération des droits numériques. Merci.

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. We’ll get back to that. And the second point, please.

Olga Reis: Thank you so much. My name is Olga Reis and I represent the private sector here. I work at Google and I cover AI opportunity agenda for the region of emerging markets. I wanted, first of all, thank you so much for this insightful conversation. And I wanted to highlight a couple of points and then maybe react to some of the points that were raised during the panel discussion. We at Google look at such technologies as AI as a really transformative technology once in a generation opportunity, especially for the region of emerging markets. But we also recognize that such technology should be developed and deployed boldly, responsibly and together with international community, with public sector, with civil society and our users. And one of the ways of how I believe this technology should be used in the context of content regulation, because there was a great deal of discussion around content regulation during the session, is that we as a company that manages YouTube platform utilize AI to tackle bad content on our platform. And I just pulled out statistics as we were talking about content moderation in the first quarter of 2025, so January, February, March this year, we pulled down or took down 8.6 million videos on YouTube that didn’t comply either with our own policies or with respective policies on the markets where we operate. And 55% of this 8.6 million videos were removed before they were watched at all, meaning that they were uploaded by content creators but not published and we detected them automatically. And further 27% of this bad content was removed with less than 10 views. So that just shows the scale of how we can actually use such technology as AI to tackle bad content on our platforms. However, I wanted to use this opportunity to speak not to talk about content, but I felt compelled to bring up these statistics, but about the need, I would say, of companies like Google to actually work on capacity building of public officials and parliamentarians, including around the use of AI for their work, but also around how AI can contribute to driving economic growth, especially in emerging markets. And just two points to highlight or two programs to highlight that we as a company are doing. Next week, we’re actually gathering a number of regulators from the MENA region and our London office to talk for three days about, you know, regulations, challenges around regulations, including on AI and cloud and content issues. This is something that we’ve been doing for many years already. And we have similar programs around the world, especially in emerging markets. And there is a second program that I wanted to highlight that is actually available for everyone. And specifically built for public officials. This is a program that is called AI campus that we as a company built in cooperation with a political which is an NGO based out of UK and This is a program that is built specifically for public officials to upskill them on AI issues we have already seven courses available on different aspects of AI and 500,000 officials have already gone through this online training and I would encourage and invite all public officials that are present in this room to You know to make use of this of this content and we will make sure that we actually update and develop it Because the technology does move and involve in the world very quickly. Thank you so much once again

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. Also, and we have one more point Okay, a few more points if we can be quick, otherwise I will be taken down here

Anne McCormick: Hello, I’m Anne McCormick from Ernst & Young EY. Also private sector, but a different perspective. It’s very important not to simplify private sector small and big enterprises innovators, but also Organizations we work with clients across very different sectors across almost all the countries in this room we see there is a need for Clarity on what is reliable AI the liability gets transferred to more and more Economic actors in the economy small and big as we adopt embed and deploy AI So I would urge policymakers legislators to look at the health and dynamism of their economy and Consider the different aspects of the private sector not just the large tech companies that are the ones in the headlines but the similar and in some cases very different needs and very different interests of Economic players and companies that are adopting and embedding AI and who are increasingly concerned about AI governance we see company leaders board members, but also investors and insurance companies Asking about how do you know that the AI that you’re buying no matter what its brand, right? How do you know its limits its risks? Are you potentially liable? How are you going to deploy it with confidence? How are you going to make sure that your employees your own clients your reputation as a company? Right is maintained. So it is very important not to over regulate it Irregulate, but it is important that there are the right mechanisms to Encourage disclosure Encourage transparency not the black box encourage accountability through the life cycle of an AI with independent oversight possibly independent assurance or assessments so that everybody can use this extraordinary technology with Confidence and we get the best out of it. There are multiple economic voices The private sector has many different facets and I really want to emphasize this as adoption grows. Thank you very much

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. And there was one more point if we can be very fast, please

Amy Mitchell: Thank you so much, I’ll be fast Amy Mitchell with Center for News technology and innovation in the States and I had a quick follow-up thought and question I guess if you have a second to to respond to it on The digital information space and it was great to hear topics of the freedom of expression of thinking about the balance of Safeguarding as well as maintaining freedom of expression and then media freedom specifically and in the new EU initiative that’s being passed and I’m curious as to the thoughts that are in place on How one puts definitional language around those things as we know The public access to information Is is vast today and the range of those that are producing journalism moving from the very traditional space to all kinds of different Producers including in some cases citizens themselves that can be need of that safeguard and protection of freedom so I’d be curious as you’re developing these acts the thought around the definitional language and then also on Safeguarding in the enforcement side so that things like that cannot per later government structures as we know government Governments can change over time inside a country To be sure that they don’t end up being any used in a way that can be used to harm. Thank you

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you. I’m looking at the hosts I just say it and I feel asking if we can take one more minute per speaker to try to reflect on the Points. Okay. Thank you so much Let’s try to reflect on some of these issues

Franco Metaza: Bueno, dos remarks para la ejecutiva de Google What’s your name? Olga Una buena y una mala. I’m going to speak in Spanish. Sorry una buena y una mala Creo que la experiencia de YouTube kids es una experiencia muy muy virtuosa porque genera un ecosistema digital distinto Las redes sociales no, no lo tienen. Esto es como si en la vida real nosotros permitiéramos que los niños entren al casino. Bueno cuando entran a Instagram es como un niño entrando a un casino o a una discoteca La experiencia de YouTube kids de generar un ecosistema distinto con un algoritmo absolutamente controlado me parece muy exitosa Y para que le podamos exigir al resto de las empresas. Y después una crítica Yo no sé si usted se acuerda Olga Pero en el año agosto del 20 en el panel de conocimiento de Google de Argentina cuando usted buscaba el nombre de quien era la vicepresidenta de ese momento Cristina Fernández de Kirchner figuraba ladrona de la nación argentina Ladrona. Eso en el panel de conocimiento hubo un juicio al respecto. Bueno, este tipo de cosas si le pasan a una persona que es la vicepresidenta del país y le pasa a una empresa tan grande como Google Imagínense la desprotección que hay hacia abajo, ¿no? Lo que ha generado el sentido común en la sociedad argentina para que hoy el presidente Milley haya osado ponerla en prisión siendo la principal líder opositora. Gracias

Ashley Sauls: I think just on the AI element from a African perspective There should be a balance also around the importance of the well-being of people and profits My country is known for an apartheid history and And we’ve realized that in the AI training That there is Still the presence of a risk of what I would call digital apartheid And this is quite a unique danger for us and there is no attention given especially by The private sector on the importance and on the importance of this in terms of even profiling based on historic racial desperation where if AI Just to make it practical if an AI like me. I look around the room. I’m like the darkest in the room and if AI picks up they differentiate between even on that level a Darker profiling for someone that looks like me and If that’s a repeat now Then we cannot rejoice for a digital future. We should be concerned that that digital future is repeating an Ugly history. Thank you

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you as well

Tsvetelina Penkova: Just very very briefly on the remark for the for a generation of rights and the need for a common approach Absolutely agree because I Actually believe that this is probably gonna resolve the enforcement issues Well, because you’ve made a very valid point on the fact that it’s very difficult to enforce something Which is not not defined or not. Well understood so point taken

Sorina Teleanu: Just to add quickly on the point on digital rights, it’s true We don’t really have new you an instrument dealing with them But there are quite a few Human Rights Council resolutions for instance Which say clearly the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online So at least we can use that as a starting point. We’ve taken 15 more minutes of everyone’s time. Thank you so much Thank you so much to all of you for contributing and for still being in the room We hope this has been useful as a last session of the parliamentary track. I know something will still happen in this room So please do not leave and my colleagues will be telling you a bit more Thank you so much, and good luck with the rest of the IGF You You

Agreement points

Social media platforms need to take greater responsibility for content moderation and harm prevention

Speakers

– Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan
– Franco Metaza
– Olga Reis

Arguments

Social media platforms prioritize revenue over cultural sensitivity and fail to respond adequately to government requests for content removal, leading to serious harm including suicide cases

Companies like Google can do more than they are currently doing to tackle harmful content, as they have the budget and resources but are not making sufficient efforts

AI technology is being used effectively for content moderation, with 8.6 million videos removed from YouTube in Q1 2025, 55% before being viewed

Summary

All speakers agree that social media platforms have both the capability and responsibility to do more in addressing harmful content, though they approach it from different perspectives – regulatory demands, parliamentary consensus, and industry acknowledgment of current efforts.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Sociocultural

Balance between freedom of expression and safety protection is essential and achievable

Speakers

– Yogesh Bhattarai
– Tsvetelina Penkova
– Ashley Sauls
– Sorina Teleanu

Arguments

Digital platforms should be regulated but not controlled, requiring cooperation and collaboration rather than strict control

Digital transition must be human-centric while protecting citizens’ rights, requiring balance between innovation and protection

Policies must safeguard both security and fundamental human rights without infringing on privacy and freedom of expression

Safety and security protection can coexist with human rights protection without requiring trade-offs

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that protecting safety and security does not require sacrificing freedom of expression or human rights, and that balanced regulatory approaches can achieve both objectives simultaneously.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Youth engagement in digital policymaking should be meaningful and integrated

Speakers

– Franco Metaza
– Tsvetelina Penkova
– Yogesh Bhattarai
– Ashley Sauls
– Bibek Silwal

Arguments

Youth participation should be transversal across all policy-making rather than segregated into youth-only discussions

Young people understand that the digital economy will shrink without proper regulation and want to be actively involved in policy conversations

Nepal engages youth through national and youth internet governance forums in legislative processes

South Africa is beginning to emphasize youth involvement more with the new government of national unity structure

Youth serve as positive catalysts in policy implementation and should be involved from initial policymaking through public outreach

Summary

All speakers agree that youth should be meaningfully integrated into digital policymaking processes rather than marginalized, recognizing their unique insights and catalytic role in policy implementation.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder approaches are necessary for effective digital governance

Speakers

– Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan
– Ashley Sauls
– Olga Reis
– Sorina Teleanu

Arguments

Parliamentarians should create joint strategies to collectively address social media platforms and protect vulnerable citizens globally

Multi-stakeholder approach engaging government, civil society, private sector, and public is essential for inclusive digital economy

AI development should be bold, responsible, and collaborative with international community, public sector, and civil society

Technology platforms should engage in discussions with legislators during the law-making process

Summary

Speakers consistently advocate for collaborative approaches involving multiple stakeholders rather than unilateral action by any single actor, recognizing the complexity of digital governance challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from developing countries (Pakistan and Argentina) share concerns about social media platforms’ inadequate response to harmful content that leads to real-world violence and harm, particularly affecting vulnerable populations.

Speakers

– Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan
– Franco Metaza

Arguments

Social media platforms prioritize revenue over cultural sensitivity and fail to respond adequately to government requests for content removal, leading to serious harm including suicide cases

Disinformation can lead to real-world violence, as seen with assassination attempts on political leaders fueled by fake news and hate messages

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize the risk of cybercrime laws being abused by governments and emphasize the need for judicial oversight to prevent misuse against legitimate expression and press freedom.

Speakers

– Tsvetelina Penkova
– Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel

Arguments

Cyber violence decisions should be made by judges rather than governments to prevent abuse of regulatory power

The Philippines’ Cybercrime Prevention Act (2012) contains problematic cyber libel provisions that have been misused against journalists and teachers

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the need for responsible AI development that considers broader societal impacts beyond profit motives, with attention to equity and clear governance frameworks.

Speakers

– Ashley Sauls
– Anne McCormick

Arguments

There should be balance between people’s well-being and profits, with attention to preventing digital apartheid and racial profiling

Private sector needs clarity on reliable AI and liability frameworks as AI adoption spreads across different economic actors

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Development

Unexpected consensus

Private sector acknowledgment of need for greater responsibility

Speakers

– Franco Metaza
– Olga Reis

Arguments

Companies like Google can do more than they are currently doing to tackle harmful content, as they have the budget and resources but are not making sufficient efforts

AI technology is being used effectively for content moderation, with 8.6 million videos removed from YouTube in Q1 2025, 55% before being viewed

Explanation

It’s unexpected to see a Google representative (Olga Reis) essentially agreeing with parliamentary criticism by acknowledging current efforts while implicitly accepting that more can be done, rather than defending current practices as sufficient.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Economic

Recognition of digital rights as fundamental human rights requiring formal framework

Speakers

– Audiance
– Tsvetelina Penkova

Arguments

UN should recognize digital rights as the fourth generation of human rights to provide common framework for legislation

Digital transition must be human-centric while protecting citizens’ rights, requiring balance between innovation and protection

Explanation

The consensus between a civil society representative calling for formal UN recognition of digital rights and an EU parliamentarian’s human-centric approach suggests growing recognition that digital rights need formal international frameworks similar to other human rights generations.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several key areas: the need for greater platform responsibility, balanced approaches to regulation that protect both safety and freedom, meaningful youth engagement, and multi-stakeholder governance. Speakers consistently emphasized human-centric approaches to digital governance.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles, with differences mainly in implementation approaches rather than core objectives. This suggests potential for collaborative international action on digital governance frameworks, particularly around platform accountability, youth engagement, and balanced regulatory approaches that protect both safety and human rights.

Different viewpoints

Approach to youth engagement in policymaking

Speakers

– Franco Metaza
– Bibek Silwal

Arguments

Youth participation should be transversal across all policy-making rather than segregated into youth-only discussions

Youth serve as positive catalysts in policy implementation and should be involved from initial policymaking through public outreach

Summary

Franco Metaza argues against segregating youth into separate discussions, preferring transversal integration across all policy areas. Bibek Silwal advocates for dedicated youth involvement and specialized engagement processes.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Level of regulation needed for digital platforms

Speakers

– Yogesh Bhattarai
– Franco Metaza

Arguments

Digital platforms should be regulated but not controlled, requiring cooperation and collaboration rather than strict control

Regulation through democratic parliaments representing all social and political expressions will never go against freedom, similar to traffic laws for vehicles

Summary

Bhattarai emphasizes light-touch regulation focusing on cooperation, while Metaza supports stronger parliamentary regulation comparing it to necessary traffic laws.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Decision-making authority for content removal

Speakers

– Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan
– Tsvetelina Penkova

Arguments

Social media platforms prioritize revenue over cultural sensitivity and fail to respond adequately to government requests for content removal, leading to serious harm including suicide cases

Cyber violence decisions should be made by judges rather than governments to prevent abuse of regulatory power

Summary

Khan advocates for stronger government authority over content removal decisions, while Penkova insists judicial oversight is necessary to prevent government overreach.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Private sector engagement and criticism

Speakers

– Franco Metaza
– Olga Reis

Arguments

YouTube Kids provides a successful model of controlled digital ecosystem for children that other platforms should emulate

AI technology is being used effectively for content moderation, with 8.6 million videos removed from YouTube in Q1 2025, 55% before being viewed

Explanation

Unexpectedly, Metaza both praised Google’s YouTube Kids as a virtuous model while simultaneously criticizing Google for allowing defamatory content about Argentine political leaders in search results. This shows complex relationship between acknowledging good practices while holding companies accountable for failures.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Human rights

Constitutional vs. practical approaches to digital rights

Speakers

– Yogesh Bhattarai
– Audiance

Arguments

Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech must be upheld while addressing legitimate concerns about harmful content

UN should recognize digital rights as the fourth generation of human rights to provide common framework for legislation

Explanation

While both support strong digital rights protection, they disagree on whether existing constitutional frameworks are sufficient (Bhattarai) or whether new international frameworks are needed (Audiance). This represents a fundamental disagreement about legal foundations for digital governance.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on regulatory approaches (light-touch cooperation vs. stronger parliamentary control), decision-making authority (government vs. judicial oversight), youth engagement methods (integrated vs. specialized), and legal frameworks (existing constitutional vs. new international instruments).

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications. While speakers share common goals of protecting vulnerable groups and balancing rights with safety, their different approaches could lead to incompatible policy frameworks. The disagreements reflect deeper tensions between national sovereignty and international coordination, government authority and judicial independence, and regulatory approaches across different legal and cultural contexts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from developing countries (Pakistan and Argentina) share concerns about social media platforms’ inadequate response to harmful content that leads to real-world violence and harm, particularly affecting vulnerable populations.

Speakers

– Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan
– Franco Metaza

Arguments

Social media platforms prioritize revenue over cultural sensitivity and fail to respond adequately to government requests for content removal, leading to serious harm including suicide cases

Disinformation can lead to real-world violence, as seen with assassination attempts on political leaders fueled by fake news and hate messages

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize the risk of cybercrime laws being abused by governments and emphasize the need for judicial oversight to prevent misuse against legitimate expression and press freedom.

Speakers

– Tsvetelina Penkova
– Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel

Arguments

Cyber violence decisions should be made by judges rather than governments to prevent abuse of regulatory power

The Philippines’ Cybercrime Prevention Act (2012) contains problematic cyber libel provisions that have been misused against journalists and teachers

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the need for responsible AI development that considers broader societal impacts beyond profit motives, with attention to equity and clear governance frameworks.

Speakers

– Ashley Sauls
– Anne McCormick

Arguments

There should be balance between people’s well-being and profits, with attention to preventing digital apartheid and racial profiling

Private sector needs clarity on reliable AI and liability frameworks as AI adoption spreads across different economic actors

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Development

Key takeaways

Social media platforms prioritize revenue over cultural sensitivity and public safety, often failing to respond adequately to government requests for harmful content removal

Effective content moderation requires a balance between protecting vulnerable groups and preserving freedom of expression, with decisions ideally made by judicial rather than governmental authorities

Legislative frameworks must be developed through multi-stakeholder collaboration including parliamentarians, civil society, NGOs, and media to ensure comprehensive protection while upholding democratic values

Youth engagement in digital policymaking should be transversal across all policy areas rather than segregated, as young people understand digital challenges and want active involvement in solutions

International cooperation and joint parliamentary strategies are essential for addressing global digital challenges that transcend national boundaries

AI technology shows promise for automated content moderation but requires responsible development with attention to preventing digital discrimination and ensuring transparency

Digital rights may need formal recognition as a fourth generation of human rights to provide a common international framework for legislation

Capacity building for parliamentarians and public officials is crucial for effective digital governance and understanding emerging technologies

Resolutions and action items

Parliamentarians should create joint strategies to collectively address social media platforms and protect vulnerable citizens globally

UN should consider recognizing digital rights as the fourth generation of human rights to provide common legislative framework

Private sector should increase efforts and investment in tackling harmful content despite having adequate resources

Governments should engage with technology platforms during legislation development processes

Educational institutions and civil society should launch campaigns teaching youth to identify fake news and develop critical thinking skills

Capacity building programs for public officials should be expanded, including Google’s AI Campus training program

YouTube Kids model of controlled digital ecosystem should be adopted by other social media platforms for child protection

Unresolved issues

How to make social media platforms more culturally sensitive and responsive to local government requests for content removal

Enforcement challenges at national levels for implementing comprehensive digital legislation frameworks

Definitional language around media freedom and journalism in the digital age as content creators diversify beyond traditional media

Prevention of legislative abuse by future governments that might use cybercrime laws to suppress opposition voices

Addressing digital apartheid and racial profiling risks in AI training and deployment

Balancing innovation and economic growth with necessary protective regulations

Establishing liability frameworks for AI adoption across different economic sectors beyond large tech companies

Creating effective mechanisms for cross-border enforcement of digital rights and content moderation

Suggested compromises

Digital platforms should be regulated but not controlled, emphasizing cooperation and collaboration over strict governmental control

Cybercrime legislation should focus on protecting vulnerable groups while ensuring judicial rather than governmental oversight of content decisions

AI development should proceed boldly but responsibly through collaboration between private sector, government, civil society and international community

Content moderation should combine automated AI systems with human oversight to balance efficiency with cultural sensitivity

Legislative frameworks should align with international standards while addressing local cultural and social contexts

Private sector should engage in capacity building and transparency initiatives while maintaining innovation and competitive dynamics

It’s not a fight between East or the West. It’s a fight between revenue generation entities versus a revenue curbing request.

Speaker

Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan

Reason

This comment reframes the entire debate about content moderation from a geopolitical or cultural clash to an economic one. It cuts through diplomatic language to identify the core tension: platforms prioritize profit over cultural sensitivity and user safety. This insight is particularly powerful because it moves beyond abstract discussions of rights to concrete economic incentives.

Impact

This comment established a recurring theme throughout the discussion about private sector responsibility. Multiple subsequent speakers referenced the need for platforms to do more, and it influenced Franco Metaza’s later assertion that ‘companies can do more than what they are doing’ and his criticism of revenue-driven content decisions.

I think that today the permanent scrolling that we are all subjected to is as much or more harmful as going at full speed with a vehicle without knowing what is in front of us or without having a traffic light.

Speaker

Franco Metaza

Reason

This metaphor brilliantly captures the unregulated nature of social media consumption and its potential dangers. By comparing social media scrolling to reckless driving, it makes the abstract concept of digital harm tangible and relatable, while also providing a framework for understanding why regulation isn’t about restricting freedom but ensuring safety.

Impact

This metaphor was specifically noted by the moderator and became a reference point for discussing the legitimacy of digital regulation. It helped shift the conversation from whether regulation is needed to how it should be implemented, making the case that just as we accept traffic rules for safety, we should accept digital rules.

Digital platforms should be regulated, not controlled. Cooperation, collaboration, and solidarity should be strengthened.

Speaker

Yogesh Bhattarai

Reason

This distinction between regulation and control is crucial in the digital governance debate. It acknowledges the need for oversight while respecting democratic principles and avoiding authoritarian overreach. The comment provides a nuanced middle ground between laissez-faire and heavy-handed government intervention.

Impact

This comment influenced the moderator’s follow-up questions about how countries interact with tech platforms and helped establish a framework for discussing responsible governance approaches. It contributed to the overall theme of finding balance between protection and freedom.

We are now tired of waiting and I would urge and request all the other parliamentarians to come together to make a joint strategy where we can collectively speak to the social media platforms.

Speaker

Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan

Reason

This call for collective action represents a shift from individual national approaches to coordinated international pressure on tech platforms. It recognizes that platforms operate globally while governments act locally, creating an inherent power imbalance that can only be addressed through cooperation.

Impact

This comment sparked discussion about regional cooperation, with Franco Metaza confirming consensus in Mercosur about platform responsibility, and influenced later questions about African Union initiatives. It helped establish the theme of multilateral approaches to digital governance.

Si les Nations Unies passent cette étape, vous allez remarquer que beaucoup de pays vont enjamber et peut-être ça sera même inscrit dans nos constitutions et dans nos lois… il faut que nous ayons un élément, un instrument commun comme on l’a avec les trois générations des droits humains et avec la génération des droits numériques.

Speaker

Honorable from Democratic Republic of Congo

Reason

This intervention fundamentally challenges the current human rights framework by proposing digital rights as a fourth generation of human rights. It’s intellectually rigorous, drawing on the historical evolution of rights recognition, and identifies a systemic gap in how we conceptualize digital governance within established human rights frameworks.

Impact

This comment prompted immediate agreement from Tsvetelina Penkova, who acknowledged it would resolve enforcement issues. It elevated the discussion from practical policy implementation to fundamental questions about the nature of rights in the digital age, representing one of the most conceptually ambitious contributions to the session.

There should be a balance also around the importance of the well-being of people and profits… we’ve realized that in the AI training that there is still the presence of a risk of what I would call digital apartheid.

Speaker

Ashley Sauls

Reason

This comment introduces the concept of ‘digital apartheid’ and connects AI bias to historical injustices, making the discussion more concrete and urgent. It challenges the tech industry’s narrative of progress by highlighting how AI systems can perpetuate and amplify existing inequalities, particularly affecting marginalized communities.

Impact

This was one of the final substantive comments and served as a powerful counterpoint to the earlier private sector presentation about AI benefits. It grounded the abstract discussion of AI governance in lived experience and historical context, emphasizing that technological advancement without equity considerations can reproduce historical injustices.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond surface-level policy debates to deeper structural questions. The session evolved from individual country experiences to systemic analysis of power dynamics between governments and platforms, the need for international cooperation, and the fundamental question of how to conceptualize rights in the digital age. The economic framing of platform behavior, the traffic regulation metaphor, and the digital apartheid concept provided concrete ways to understand abstract policy challenges. The call for collective action and the proposal for a fourth generation of human rights elevated the discussion to consider both practical coordination mechanisms and foundational legal frameworks. Together, these comments created a progression from problem identification to systemic analysis to potential solutions, while maintaining focus on protecting vulnerable populations and democratic values.

How long will social media platforms continue to take to listen to governments and their requests to remove objectionable content and secure vulnerable groups online?

Speaker

Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan

Explanation

This addresses the ongoing challenge of platform responsiveness to government content removal requests, particularly for protecting vulnerable populations like women and children from harassment and harmful content.

How can social media platforms be made more sensitive to different cultural contexts when making content moderation decisions?

Speaker

Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan

Explanation

This highlights the need for culturally-aware content moderation, as platforms currently make uniform decisions without considering local cultural sensitivities that could have severe consequences for users.

How can parliamentarians develop a joint strategy to collectively speak to social media platforms about protecting vulnerable citizens?

Speaker

Anusha Rahman Ahmad Khan

Explanation

This suggests the need for coordinated international parliamentary action to increase leverage when dealing with global technology platforms on content moderation issues.

Are there collaborative efforts across Mercosur countries to deal with harmful online content through awareness and capacity building, not just legislation?

Speaker

Sorina Teleanu

Explanation

This explores whether regional parliamentary bodies are taking comprehensive approaches beyond just legal frameworks to address online harms through user education and preparedness.

How are countries interacting with technology platforms while working on digital legislation?

Speaker

Sorina Teleanu

Explanation

This addresses the important process question of stakeholder engagement and dialogue between governments and platforms during the legislative development process.

How is the AI Act connecting to creating safer online environments and increasing transparency from private actors?

Speaker

Sorina Teleanu

Explanation

This explores the intersection between AI regulation and content safety, particularly regarding platform transparency obligations and automated content moderation systems.

Are there examples of African Union-level initiatives dealing with digital governance and online safety issues?

Speaker

Sorina Teleanu

Explanation

This seeks to understand regional cooperation mechanisms in Africa for addressing digital policy challenges at a continental level.

How can youth be more effectively involved in digital policymaking processes across different regions?

Speaker

Bibek Silwal

Explanation

This addresses the need for meaningful youth participation in policy development, recognizing that young people are both primary users of digital technologies and key stakeholders in implementation.

What are concrete experiences and best practices for combating cybercrime while avoiding abuse of cybercrime laws by repressive governments?

Speaker

Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel

Explanation

This addresses the critical balance between effective cybercrime legislation and preventing authoritarian misuse of such laws to suppress dissent and free expression.

Should the UN recognize digital rights as a fourth generation of human rights to provide clearer framework for national legislation?

Speaker

Representative from Democratic Republic of Congo

Explanation

This proposes a systematic approach to digital rights recognition that could provide clearer guidance for national constitutional and legal frameworks worldwide.

How should definitional language around journalism and media freedom be developed in digital legislation to account for diverse content producers?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of defining protected journalistic activity in an era where content production has expanded beyond traditional media to include citizen journalists and diverse digital creators.

How can enforcement mechanisms be designed to prevent future governments from misusing digital legislation for authoritarian purposes?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Explanation

This addresses the need for robust institutional safeguards that can withstand changes in government and prevent the weaponization of digital laws against civil society.

How can AI training and deployment address risks of digital apartheid and historical bias, particularly affecting marginalized communities?

Speaker

Ashley Sauls

Explanation

This highlights the critical need to address how AI systems may perpetuate or amplify existing social inequalities and discrimination, particularly in post-apartheid contexts.

Summary

This discussion focused on protecting vulnerable groups online, bringing together parliamentarians, regulators, and advocacy experts from various countries to examine legislative and regulatory responses to digital harm. The panel explored how marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, face unique online safety challenges that existing frameworks often fail to address adequately.

Neema Iyer from Uganda highlighted research showing that one in three African women experience online violence, often leading them to delete their digital presence due to lack of awareness about reporting mechanisms and fear of not being heard by authorities. She emphasized how intersecting inequalities, language barriers, and the normalization of abuse create complex challenges that narrow legislative frameworks cannot fully address. Raul Manuel from the Philippines discussed recent legislative measures including extraterritorial jurisdiction for child exploitation cases and expanded anti-violence bills, while noting the economic factors that drive children into exploitation.

Malaysian Deputy Minister Teo Nie Ching outlined her country’s holistic approach combining digital inclusion, robust legal frameworks, and multi-stakeholder collaboration, but acknowledged enforcement challenges with major platforms like Meta and Google refusing to comply with licensing requirements. Nighat Dad from Pakistan described the rise of AI-generated deepfake content and highlighted disparities in platform responses between Global North and South users, noting that non-public figures receive delayed or no response to abuse reports.

Arda Gerkens from the Netherlands discussed balancing human rights with content removal powers, revealing concerning trends of hybrid threats where terrorist groups target vulnerable children through mental health channels. Sandra Maximiano from Portugal introduced behavioral economics perspectives, explaining how cognitive biases affect online decision-making and can be leveraged to promote safer behaviors through design interventions and nudges.

The discussion revealed consensus that content takedowns alone are insufficient, with panelists advocating for greater platform transparency, algorithmic accountability, proactive design measures, and coordinated international responses. The session concluded with calls for global cooperation among regulators and recognition that protecting vulnerable groups online requires addressing both technological and human factors through multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Unique challenges faced by marginalized communities in the Global South**: Discussion of intersecting inequalities, digital literacy gaps, language barriers, normalization of abuse, and how existing laws are often weaponized against the very groups they’re meant to protect, particularly women and marginalized communities.

– **Legislative and regulatory responses across different jurisdictions**: Panelists shared specific examples from the Philippines, Malaysia, Netherlands, Pakistan, and Portugal, highlighting both successful measures (like extraterritorial jurisdiction for child exploitation) and enforcement challenges, particularly with major tech platforms refusing to comply with local regulations.

– **Platform accountability beyond content takedowns**: Extensive discussion on the need for platforms to be more proactive, including algorithm transparency, improved reporting mechanisms, design friction to prevent harmful content sharing, and the importance of addressing root sources rather than just reactive content removal.

– **Behavioral economics and human-centered approaches**: Introduction of how cognitive biases affect online behavior and how regulators can use behavioral insights to nudge safer online practices, along with emphasis on addressing offline social structures and community-based solutions.

– **Need for coordinated global response**: Strong consensus that individual countries lack sufficient negotiating power with tech giants, leading to calls for regional blocs (like ASEAN) and international cooperation through networks like the Global Online Safety Regulators Network (GOSRN).

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to bring together diverse stakeholders (parliamentarians, regulators, and advocacy experts) to examine how to better protect vulnerable groups online, share experiences across different jurisdictions, and develop more targeted, inclusive, and enforceable policy responses to online harms.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with panelists building on each other’s insights rather than debating. There was a shared sense of urgency about the challenges, but also cautious optimism about potential solutions. The tone became increasingly focused on practical cooperation and concrete next steps toward the end, culminating in calls for international coordination and the promotion of existing collaborative networks.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Alishah Shariff** – Moderator, works at Nominet (the .UK domain name registry)

– **Neema Iyer** – Founder of Policy, a feminist organization based in Kampala, Uganda; works on feminist digital rights issues including online violence, gender disinformation, and AI impact on women; member of Meta’s Women’s Safety Board

– **Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel** – Elected member of Parliament in the Philippines, representing the Youth Party; former student government and union activist

– **Teo Nie Ching** – Deputy Minister of Communication, Malaysia; appointed in December 2022; previously served as Deputy Minister of Education in 2018; mother of three

– **Nighat Dad** – Founder of Digital Rights Foundation, a woman-led organization based in Pakistan; focuses on digital rights, gender justice, online safety, and freedom of expression; serves on the Meta Oversight Board

– **Arda Gerkens** – President of the regulatory body of online content, terrorist content, and child sex abuse material (ATKM) in the Netherlands; former member of Parliament (8 years) and senator (10 years)

– **Sandra Maximiano** – Chairwoman of ANACOM, the Portuguese National Authority for Communications; digital service coordinator; economist specialized in behavioral and experimental economics

– **Anusha Rahman Khan** – Former Minister for Information Technology and Telecommunications; enacted cyber crime law in 2016; currently chairs standing committee on information technology

– **Andrew Campling** – Runs a consultancy; trustee of the Internet Watch Foundation

– **Audience** – General audience member asking questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **John Kiariye** – From Kenya; made comments about human-centered design and community-based approaches

# Protecting Vulnerable Groups Online: A Multi-Stakeholder Discussion on Digital Safety and Platform Accountability

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion brought together parliamentarians, regulators, and digital rights advocates from across the globe to examine the complex challenges of protecting vulnerable groups in digital spaces. Moderated by Alishah Shariff from Nominet (.UK domain name registry), the panel featured diverse perspectives from Uganda, the Philippines, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Kenya, highlighting both the universal nature of online harm and the unique contextual challenges faced by different regions.

The conversation revealed that while online platforms have transformed communication and access to information, they have simultaneously created new vectors for harm that disproportionately affect marginalised communities, particularly women and children. Key challenges identified included the inadequacy of reactive content moderation, geographic inequalities in platform responses, the rise of AI-generated harmful content, and the weaponisation of protective legislation against the very groups it aims to protect. The discussion moved beyond traditional approaches to explore innovative solutions rooted in behavioural economics, community-based interventions, and coordinated international responses.

## Opening Context and Participant Introductions

The session, titled “Click With Care, Protecting Vulnerable Groups Online,” was part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and featured interpretation services in English, Spanish, and French. Participants represented a diverse range of expertise and geographic perspectives:

– **Neema Iyer** from Uganda, representing Pollicy and speaking from her experience in digital rights advocacy

– **Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel**, representing the Youth Party in the Philippine Parliament

– **Deputy Minister Teo Nie Ching** from Malaysia’s Ministry of Communications

– **Anusha Rahman Khan**, former Minister for Information Technology and Telecommunications in Pakistan (served for five years)

– **Arda Gerkens**, President of ATKM (Authority for the Prevention of Online Terrorist Content and Child Sexual Abuse Material) in the Netherlands

– **Sandra Maximiano**, an economist specialized in behavioral and experimental economics from ANACOM (Portuguese National Authority for Communications)

– **John Kiariye** from Kenya, representing community-based perspectives

## Research Findings on Online Violence Against Women and Children

### Stark Statistics from Africa

Neema Iyer opened the substantive discussion with sobering research findings that framed the entire conversation: “One in three women across Africa experience online violence, and many of them end up deleting their digital presence because they don’t have adequate support systems and they feel like they’re not going to be heard by authorities.”

This statistic illuminated a broader pattern of digital exclusion, where those who could benefit most from online participation are driven away by harassment and abuse. Iyer explained how intersecting inequalities create complex barriers to digital safety: “There are large gaps in digital literacy and access, and platforms often don’t prioritise smaller markets or local languages.”

### The Weaponisation of Protective Laws

Perhaps most troubling was Iyer’s observation about how protective legislation can be turned against its intended beneficiaries: “The laws that do exist, especially in our context, have actually been weaponised against women and marginalised groups. So many of these cybercrime laws or data protection laws have been used against women, have been used against dissenting voices, against activists, to actually punish them rather than protect them.”

This paradox challenges fundamental assumptions about the relationship between legislation and protection, suggesting that legal frameworks alone are insufficient without proper implementation and safeguards against misuse.

## Country-Specific Legislative and Regulatory Approaches

### The Philippines: Comprehensive Legal Framework

Manuel outlined several legislative initiatives demonstrating the Philippines’ comprehensive approach to online safety. The country passed Republic Act 11930, addressing online sexual abuse of children, and the House of Representatives approved an expanded anti-violence bill that “defines psychological violence through electronic devices as violence against women.”

Additionally, amendments to the Safe Spaces Act set higher standards for government officials, recognising their particular responsibility in online spaces. However, Manuel highlighted enforcement challenges: “Social media platforms initially refused to attend Philippine parliamentary hearings, claiming no obligation due to lack of physical office presence.”

The scale of internet usage in the Philippines adds urgency to these efforts: “An average Filipino spends around eight hours and 52 minutes, or roughly nine hours per day, on the internet,” Manuel noted, emphasising the significant exposure to potential online harms.

### Malaysia: Multi-Faceted National Strategy

Deputy Minister Nie Ching outlined Malaysia’s comprehensive approach, which combines legislative updates, platform regulation, and extensive public education. After 26 years, Malaysia amended its Communication and Multimedia Act, increasing penalties for child sexual abuse material and grooming.

Malaysia developed a code of conduct for social media platforms with over 8 million users and established “900 national information dissemination centres” alongside a “national internet safety campaign targeting 10,000 schools.” The campaign uses a modular approach for different age groups, recognising that safety education must be age-appropriate.

However, significant enforcement challenges remain. Nie Ching revealed that while “only X, TikTok, and Telegram have applied for licenses” under the new framework, “major platforms like Meta and Google have not applied for licenses.” This resistance led to a crucial insight: “Individual countries lack sufficient negotiation power when engaging with tech giants, requiring coordinated bloc approaches like ASEAN.”

### Pakistan: Balancing Protection and Rights

Anusha Rahman Khan, who served as Pakistan’s Minister for Information Technology and Telecommunications for five years, enacted Pakistan’s cyber crime law in 2016, introducing “28 new penalties criminalising violations of natural person dignity.”

Khan emphasised the ongoing challenges in balancing commercial interests with protection needs: “Commercial interests and revenue generation priorities conflict with civil protection needs, requiring stronger international coordination.”

### The Netherlands: Addressing Hybrid Threats

Arda Gerkens introduced the concept of hybrid threats that combine multiple forms of online harm. Her organisation has unique powers to identify and remove terrorist content and child sexual abuse material, but faces increasingly complex challenges as different forms of harmful content become intertwined.

“We see more and more hybridisation of these types of content mixed together,” Gerkens explained. “We’re finding within the online terrorist environments lots of child sex abuse material. And we find that certainly vulnerable kids at the moment are at large online… these terrorist groups or extremist groups are actually targeting vulnerable kids.”

This hybridisation represents a fundamental challenge to traditional regulatory approaches that treat different forms of harm in isolation. Gerkens noted that terrorist groups are “increasingly targeting vulnerable children through platforms discussing mental health and eating disorders for grooming and extortion.”

## Platform Accountability and Geographic Inequalities

### Inadequate Response Systems

The discussion revealed significant problems with current platform accountability mechanisms. Nie Ching highlighted practical limitations: “Built-in reporting mechanisms are ineffective, requiring even verified public figures to compile links and send to regulators for content removal.”

She provided a specific example involving “Dato Lee Chong Wei,” Malaysia’s famous badminton player, whose image was used in scam posts. Despite his verified status, removing the fraudulent content required regulatory intervention rather than effective platform mechanisms.

### Geographic Disparities in Platform Response

Nighat Dad from Pakistan’s Digital Rights Foundation, which has handled over 20,000 complaints since 2016, highlighted stark inequalities in platform responses: “Platforms respond quickly to cases involving US celebrities but delay response to cases from Global South, highlighting inequality in treatment.”

This disparity is exacerbated by recent changes in platform policies. Dad noted that Meta’s scaling back of proactive enforcement systems “shifts burden of content moderation onto users, particularly problematic in regions where reporting systems are in English only.”

### The Rise of AI-Generated Harm

Dad also highlighted an emerging threat that exemplifies how technological advancement can amplify harm: “We are seeing a rise of AI-generated deepfake content, causing reputational damage, emotional trauma, and social isolation, with some cases leading to suicide.”

This technology democratises the creation of sophisticated abuse material while making it more difficult for victims to prove the falsity of harmful content, representing a qualitative shift in the nature of online harm.

## Behavioural Economics and Human-Centred Approaches

### Understanding Cognitive Vulnerabilities

Sandra Maximiano introduced a novel analytical framework through behavioural economics. “Users are affected by cognitive biases like confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, and optimism bias that influence online behaviour and decision-making,” she explained.

Maximiano emphasised that “vulnerable groups including children and people with disabilities suffer more from these biases, requiring regulators to account for this in policy design.” This insight suggests that effective protection requires understanding not just what harms occur, but why people are susceptible to them.

The potential for both exploitation and protection through behavioural insights became clear: “AI systems can exploit cognitive biases and overlook vulnerabilities, potentially causing significant harm even without intentional exploitation.” However, the same understanding can be used positively through “better user interface design, nudging safe behaviour, and using social norms messaging.”

### Community-Based Solutions

John Kiariye from Kenya introduced a crucial human-centred perspective: “The offenders are human. The victims are humans. If we concentrate on the technology, we are losing a very big part because this young person can be trained to be a bully.”

Kiariye advocated for leveraging existing social structures: “Schools, clubs, and family units to empower victims and prevent online abuse before it occurs.” This approach recognises that online behaviour is shaped by offline social structures and that effective prevention requires community-level interventions.

## Areas of Consensus and Disagreement

### Strong Consensus on Platform Reform

Despite diverse backgrounds, speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on the inadequacy of current platform accountability mechanisms. All agreed that transparency in content moderation processes, proactive identification of harmful sources, and addressing geographic inequalities in platform responses are essential.

### International Coordination is Essential

Government representatives from Malaysia, the Philippines, and Pakistan all acknowledged that individual nations have limited leverage against major tech platforms, leading to growing support for coordinated international or regional approaches.

### Key Disagreement: Privacy Versus Safety

The most significant disagreement emerged during audience questions about age verification technologies. Andrew Campling from the audience advocated for “privacy-preserving age estimation and verification technology should be mandated to prevent children from accessing adult platforms,” citing the statistic that “300 million children annually are victims of technology-facilitated sexual abuse.”

However, Iyer strongly opposed such measures: “I think absolutely not… it’s really giving all your data to these platforms. I think it’s a very slippery slope to a bad place… people will get around all these things anyway. So I think there are better interventions rather than taking away the last shred of our privacy.”

## International Cooperation and Future Directions

### Regional Approaches to Global Challenges

The discussion revealed growing recognition that effective platform regulation requires coordinated international action while respecting cultural differences. Nie Ching advocated for regional approaches: “Different regions need different standards that meet their cultural, historical, and religious backgrounds rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.”

Gerkens mentioned the existence of the Global Online Safety Regulators Network and invited participation, representing an attempt to share best practices across jurisdictions.

### Addressing Root Causes

Manuel introduced crucial economic dimensions: “Economic factors driving child exploitation must be addressed alongside technical measures to effectively combat child sexual abuse material.” This observation highlights how online harms often reflect offline inequalities and vulnerabilities.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed both the complexity of protecting vulnerable groups online and the potential for innovative, collaborative solutions. The conversation demonstrated growing sophistication in understanding online harm, moving from reactive content removal toward proactive prevention and addressing root causes.

Key insights included the recognition that online safety is fundamentally a human challenge requiring understanding of psychology, economics, and social structures alongside technical solutions. The emphasis on international coordination, cultural sensitivity, and multi-stakeholder collaboration suggests a maturing approach to online safety policy.

However, significant challenges remain, from platform resistance to enforcement difficulties to fundamental tensions between privacy and safety. Success will depend on sustained commitment to collaborative solutions that are both effective and respectful of fundamental rights and cultural differences across diverse global contexts.

Alishah Shariff: ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today’s session, Click With Care, Protecting Vulnerable Groups Online. I’m delighted you’re able to join us. I know there were some travel difficulties getting in this morning, so thank you for being here, and thank you also to our esteemed panelists for joining us today. My name is Alicia, and I work at Nominet, the .UK domain name registry, and I’ll be moderating today’s panel. Just a bit of housekeeping before we begin. You’ll have interpretation in your headphones in English, Spanish, and French, and when we open the floor to interventions and questions, you can ask your question by going to the microphone to my left and your right. So it’s a pleasure to chair today’s session, which brings together a diverse panel of parliamentarians, regulators, and advocacy experts to discuss a critical issue, which is how do we protect vulnerable groups online. We live in an increasingly digital world, which offers opportunities for connection, learning, and growth. But the digital world also brings with it risks and downsides, which are often felt more acutely by vulnerable groups, including children, individuals with disabilities, and others of marginalized communities, amongst others. The consequences of harm faced online can have a ripple effect into real lives, causing distress, harm, and isolation. The challenge of online harm has prompted a range of legislative and regulatory responses, as well as proactive and reactive approaches, and today’s session will enable us to better understand some of these across a range of geographies and contexts. I hope that by the end of the session, we’ll get a sense of how we can work towards a more targeted inclusive and enforceable policy response to online harms. I’ll now hand over to each member of our esteemed panel to briefly introduce themselves. So I think we’ll start with Nima.

Neema Iyer: Oh, super. Hi everyone. Good morning and thank you so much for joining us here. My name is Nima Iyer and I am the founder of Policy. Policy is a feminist organization based in Kampala, Uganda, but we work all across the continent and we are very interested in any issues related to feminist digital rights. So this could be about online violence, gender disinformation, the impact of AI on women, and any such topics. And yeah, we do a lot of research on these topics. We also work very closely in local communities and of course we do advocacy work, which is part of why we are here as well. Thank you. Over to you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, Nima. Next we’ll hear from Raul.

Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel: Hello, good morning everyone. I am Raul Manuel. You can call me Raul. I am an elected member of Parliament in the Philippines, representing the Youth Party. And prior to being a part of the Youth Party and of the Philippine Parliament, I was active in the student government and the student union. That’s why you have been paying close attention to this issue of online freedoms and protections. Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, Raul. And next we have Your Excellency, Tony.

Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel: Hello, good morning everyone. Thank you, Alicia, for the introduction. My name is Ni Ching. I’m from Malaysia. I’m currently the Deputy Minister of Communication. I was appointed to this office in December 2022. However, in the year 2018, I also had this opportunity to serve in the Ministry of Education as the Deputy Minister as well. I’m currently a mother of three, so protecting children and our minors on internet is a topic that is very, very close to my heart. And under the Ministry of Communications, we have a very important agency that is called MCMC, Malaysia Communication and Multimedia Commission, who acts as a regulator for the content moderation, platform providers, etc. Looking forward to this fruitful discussion.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. And next we have Nighat.

Nighat Dad: Good morning everyone. My name is Nighat, and I’m a founder of Digital Rights Foundation, an organization, a woman-led organization based in Pakistan, and we are committed to advance digital rights with a particular focus on gender justice, online safety, and freedom of expression. Our work is grounded in both direct support and systemic change. We have a digital security helpline which provides legal advice, digital security assistance, and psychosocial support to victims and survivors of online abuse, and has a survivor-centered approach. And we also conduct in-depth research, build digital literacy and safety tools, and engage in policy advocacy conversations at the national, regional, and international levels.

Alishah Shariff: level. Thank you. And Arda, I’m glad you were able to make it, and thanks for joining. Thank you.

Arda Gerkens: Thank you very much, and excuse me for being late, the train was so much delayed. So, my name is Arda Gerkens, I am the president of the regulatory body of online content, terrorist content, and child sex abuse material, ATKM, it’s the abbreviation. I used to be a member of Parliament for eight years, and a senator for ten years, so I bring some political experience too. My organization is really there to identify harmful content on terrorist content and child sex abuse material, and is able to remove that content or have it removed, and if not, we’ll find the ones who is not complying with our regulation. We’re kind of unique in the field, I think we’re the first regulator. at least, as far as I know, who has that special right to dive into that content. And yeah, looking forward to the discussion today.

Alishah Shariff: Great, thank you. And we have one panelist who’s still on their way here. So when they join, we should also have Sandra Maximiano, who’s the president of ANACOM Portugal. So hopefully she’ll be able to join us shortly. So the way this will work today is we have some questions for our panelists that they will speak to, followed by a quick fire round, and then we’ll open out the floor for your interventions and questions. So without further ado, I think my first question is for Nima. So Nima, what are some of the unique online safety challenges faced by marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, that may not be adequately addressed in existing legislative frameworks?

Neema Iyer: Thank you so much for that question. So first, I just want to start by framing some of the research that we’ve already done on this topic. So, for example, we did research with 3,000 women across Africa to understand their online experiences, and we found out that about one in three women had experienced some form of online violence, and this basically led them to deleting their online identity, because many of them were not aware of reporting mechanisms, and they also felt that if they went to any authorities that they would not be listened to. A second study that we did is a social media analysis of women politicians during the Ugandan 2021 election. We wanted to see what was the experience like for women politicians, and we found that they are often targets of sexist and sexualized abuse. But more importantly, the fear of the abuse on online spaces meant that many women politicians did not actually have online profiles or chose not to exist and to participate in the online sphere. And in the third research we did is on the impact of AI on women. So we often tend to think of, when we think of care, we think of social media, but more importantly thinking of how does AI impact women in, you know, that may be marginalized in some way, and we found out there are grave issues of under-representation and data bias. There’s algorithmic discrimination. AI makes it very possible for digital surveillance and censorship. There’s labor exploitation, and also there’s a threat to low-wage jobs, which often tend to be occupied by women. So I just wanted to frame that research first and then talk more about the question, which is, what is unique about this group? And the first one is that there are intersecting inequalities, so there are large gaps in digital literacy and digital access, for example. And so when you are trying, both as a platform and a civil society or a government, you have to take into account the fact that there are some women who have absolutely no access, have no digital skills, and you know, this is across the spectrum. So how do you tailor interventions that can meet all these different people who exist in all these different inequalities? Then in our context, for example, in Uganda, there are about 50 languages that are spoken, in Uganda alone, not considering the whole continent. And because these are smaller countries, they don’t have a huge market share, you know, on these online platforms. They’re often not prioritized. And so how do you develop interventions? How do you make safety mechanisms when, you know, you don’t have these languages on your platform? Another one I want to talk about is the normalization of abuse, which is, you can see in real life and in online spaces, that are both cultural and a result of platform inaction. So in regular life, you go on the street, you get harassed, you go to the police, they don’t do anything. That is replicated in online platforms, where you face this harassment, you reach out for recourse on the platforms, and there is platform inaction. So basically, in that way, this kind of online abuse is normalized. And then there’s the invisibility in platform governance processes. Of course, this is an amazing venue where we can talk about these issues, but a lot of women, marginalized groups, are not in these rooms with us right now to talk about their experiences. And then lastly, I just want to talk about the fact that the laws that do exist, especially in our context, have actually been weaponized against women and marginalized groups. So many of these, you know, cybercrime laws or data protection laws, have been used against women, have been used against dissenting voices, against activists, to actually punish them rather than protect them. That’s the reality that we live in. So the fact is that legislative frameworks are often too narrow. They, you know, they focus on takedowns or criminalization, or they borrow from Western contexts, but they don’t really meet the lived realities of women. So for example, a law might address intimate image sharing, but it won’t, you know, it’ll ignore coordinated disinformation campaigns, for example, or it will ignore this ideological radicalization that’s happening to minors online. Or, you know, it won’t target specifically the design choices that platforms make, for example, like where, you know, they amplify violence or those kinds of things. So I think we really need to think broader about how we are legislating about online violence, and I’m really glad that this conversation is happening. So back to you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. And that was, I think there was so much in there from the kind of, you know, the sphere of abuse in online spaces to how different people feel and experience being marginalized, and then also how some of these kind of legislative measures and also policies can sometimes have an adverse effect, and really thinking about the context. But thinking about how we do kind of good regulation, we’ll turn now to Raul. So as a Member of Parliament, could you share recent legislative measures in the Philippines to address online exploitation of children and pending efforts to protect women, LGBTQI+, and other marginalized communities from online violence and threats?

Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel: Yeah, thank you, Alicia. And before I proceed, I’d like to thank the IGF Secretariat for this opportunity to share our perspectives from the Parliament of the Philippines. In our case, we have been pushing for a vibrant debates and discourse to ensure that protections for marginalized and vulnerable groups do not come at the expense of sacrificing our basic and human rights. The Philippines right now, just for context, ranks as the number three as of February 2025 in terms of the daily time spent by citizens in using the internet. An average Filipino spends around eight hours and 52 minutes, or roughly nine hours per day, on the internet, which is much higher than the global average of six hours and 38 minutes. So while this time can be spent to, you know, connect with friends, family, conduct research, do homework, this also exposes vulnerable groups, including young people, to different forms of violence and threats. For example, the Philippines, unfortunately, has been a hotspot of online sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and also the distribution and production of child sexual abuse and exploitation materials. So this is a problem that we have to acknowledge so that we can take proactive measures in addressing it. Second would be the electronic violence against women and their children, which we call E-Vow-C for short, and third, among the major forms of violence and threats online, would be harassment based on identity and belief. So I will briefly touch upon what we have been doing in Parliament to address these. First, when it comes to online sexual abuse and for exploitation of children, we recently had the Republic Act 11930. It is a law that lapsed on July 30, 2022, so it is kind of fresh, and aside from content taken one major component of this is the assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which means the state shall exercise jurisdiction if the offense either commenced in our country, the Philippines, or if it was committed in another country by a Filipino citizen or a permanent resident against a citizen of the Philippines. Recognizing that the problem of online sexual abuse of children can happen not just in a single occasion, but it can be part of a coordinated network involving several hubs or locations. That’s why we really had to put this into law. When it comes to electronic violence against women and children, the House of Representatives, on its part, approved the expanded anti-violence bill. It defines psychological violence, including different forms, including electronic or ICP devices. The use of those devices can be considered, and it was defined to be part of violence against women. We did this in the House of Representatives, but since the Philippines is bicameral, that’s why we’re still waiting for the Senate to also speed up in its deliberations. Now, when it comes to online harassment based on identity and belief, we approved at the committee level so far amendments to the Safe Spaces Act, which sets a higher standard on government officials who may be promoting acts of sexual harassment through digital or social media platforms, like when they have speech that tends to discriminate those in the LGBT community. Finally, we have a pending bill in the House of Representatives, which seeks to criminalize the tagging of different groups, individuals, as state enemies, subversives, or even terrorists without much basis in such labeling. Recently, the Supreme Court adopted the term red tagging, which has been a source of harm and violence that transcends up into the physical world. That’s all for now, and I hope that this can be a source of discussions also on how we can really work together to address these online problems. Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, Raul. I think that was really eye-opening, and there’s definitely lots happening in your legislative space, and I think it’s really nice that we have this mix of where you’ve got kind of slightly newer regulation and legislation, and also to hear from somebody later on who has experience of kind of enforcing this sort of regulation. So, moving from the Philippines to Malaysia, next I will turn to Her Excellency Chini. So, what is Malaysia’s core philosophy and overall strategy for protecting vulnerable groups in today’s complex digital environment, and how does Malaysia balance creating and enforcing laws and regulations with maintaining freedom of expression? Thank you.

Teo Nie Ching: Thank you, Alicia, for the questions. First of all, in Malaysia, we view online protection not just as a single action, but as a holistic ecosystem built on three core strategic trusts. The first one is empowerment through digital inclusion, and of course literacy. And the second will be protection to a robust and balanced legal framework, and third, support to a whole of society, multi-stakeholder collaboration. So, currently in Malaysia, our internet coverage has reached 98.7% of the populated area. So, internet coverage is, I think, pretty impressive. At the same time, we also set up more than 900 national information dissemination centres, which act as a community hub providing on-the-ground digital literacy training, especially to the seniors, to the women, to the youth, who may be more susceptible to online risks. And not only that, we also recently launched a national internet safety campaign, and our target is to actually enter 10,000 schools in Malaysia. That is our primary school, secondary school, and of course, we aim to enter the campus of the university as well, so that we can engage with the user. And this programme is not the usual public awareness campaign. However, we are more specific. We developed a modular approach which depends on the audience. For example, if their age is between seven to nine, then what type of content is more suitable for them, and what type of interactive action is actually we can design for them. So, for example, primary school, secondary school, we will be focusing on cyberbullying, and of course, to protect their own personal information, and then for the elder, we will teach them more, or share with them more about online scam, financial scam, etc. So, we believe that this is an approach whereby we need to go to the community, we need to engage them, we need to empower the community, so that we can raise their digital literacy. And of course, I think we also need to have a legal framework to protect our people, and it is very, very important for us to strike a balance between freedom of expression, but at the same time, also make sure this vulnerable group, they are actually protected by law. Last year, we have amended our act that is Communication and Multimedia Act, first time in the 26 years, whereby we have actually increased the penalty for dissemination of child sexual abuse material, CSAM, grooming, or sim communication through digital platforms, with heavier penalty when minor are involved. And then, at the same time, the amended law also grants the Commission, the Communication and Multimedia Commission, Malaysia Authority, to probably instruct the service provider to block or remove harmful content, enhancing platform accountability. At the same time, we also develop a code of conduct targeting the major social media platform with more than 8 million users in Malaysia. Malaysia is a country with about 35 million population, so when we use the benchmark of 8 million, that was roughly about 25% of our population. We are hoping that by imposing this licensing regime, we will be able to impose this code of conduct against the service provider, but as I mentioned yesterday, I would not say this is a very successful attempt because the licensing regime is supposed to be implemented since 1st of January this year, but however, two major platforms in Malaysia, i.e. Metai and also Google, until today has yet to come to apply for the license. So, I think the challenge faced by Malaysia maybe would be similar to many, many other countries as well. Malaysia alone, we don’t have sufficient negotiation power when we engage with tech giants like Metai and Google. So, how can we actually impose our standard over this platform to ensure that the harmful content, according to Malaysia context, can be removed instantly in a reasonable period of time has been quite challenging in Malaysia. We see that even though sometimes platforms would still cooperate with MCMC to remove certain harmful content, but it is always like the user or the scammer put it out and then MCMC, upon the request of MCMC, the content were taken down, but however, there is no permanent solution to stop all this harmful content from being put out on the social media, such as online gambling, such as scammer posts, etc. So, I think that’s it for now and looking forward to more questions.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. I think that was a really good overview of how you can have both legislation and then a kind of voluntary code of conduct and some of the challenges that come with that in terms of how you are able to enforce it and also maybe towards the end you were getting to actually how do you prevent some of this stuff in the first place because obviously the takedowns are a reactive measure and there’s a bigger challenge here around how we prevent this sort of thing in the first place. So, we’ll now move to more of a focus on digital rights and we’ll turn to Nigat. So, at the Digital Rights Foundation, you lead efforts against online harassment and advocacy for privacy and freedom of expression. You’re also serving on the Metta Oversight Board. So, what gaps in terms of digital rights do you observe between the global south and the global north and what are your perspectives on platform accountability?

Nighat Dad: Yeah, thank you so much. So, at the Digital Rights Foundation, over the years, we have been witnessing the rise of digital surveillance, privacy violations, gender-based disinformations which is very targeted and now the disturbing rise of AI-generated deepfake content. Since 2016, through our digital security helpline, we have dealt with more than 20,000 complaints from hundreds of young women every month, female journalists, now more from women influencers and content creators, women politicians, scholars, and students. And this number is only to a digital security helpline which is being run by a NGO. This number is even higher when it goes to our federal investigation agency, Cybercrime Wing. And the people mostly who complain to us, they are being blackmailed, silenced, or driven offline by intimate images that they never consented to, some of which aren’t even real. In the last one and a half year, I would say we have seen this rise in deepfakes that have blurred the line between fact and fiction, but at the same time, we have seen that the harms are real in the offline space. It’s reputational damage, it’s emotional trauma, and in some cases, complete social isolation. And in worst cases, we have seen some women committing suicide. What’s even more alarming is how platforms respond to it, and as Honorable Minister mentioned that many platforms in our part of the world are really not accountable to the governments, and too often, survivors are forced to become investigators of their own harm, hunting down copies of content, plaguing it repeatedly, and navigating opaque reporting systems that offer little support and no urgency. And unfortunately, if they are not public figures, and if they are not politicians, the response is even more delayed, if it comes at all. And in my work at the Metal Oversight Board, the same patterns show up, just on a global scale. Last year, we reviewed two cases of deepfake intimate imagery, one involving a US public figure, a celebrity, and another involving a woman from India. And Meta responded quickly in the US jurisdiction, because media outlets had already reported on it, but in the Indian case, the image wasn’t even flagged or escalated, and it wasn’t added to the Meta’s media matching service until the Oversight Board raised it. And what we noticed as a board, that if the system only works within these platforms when the media pays attention, what happens to the millions of women in the Global South who never make headlines? So we pushed Meta, in our recommendations in case, to change its policy. We recommended that any AI generated intimate image should be treated as non-consensual by default, that harm should not have to be proven through news coverage, and we advise that these cases be governed under the adult sexual exploitation policy, not buried under bullying and harassment, because what’s at stake is not just tone, it’s bodily autonomy. And I think that one thing which is deeply concerning, that Meta has recently scaled back, like several other platforms. It’s proactive enforcement systems now focusing mostly on illegal or high severity cases while shifting the burden of content moderation onto users. That may sound like empowerment, but let me tell you that looks very different on ground. In South Asia, many users don’t know how to report. And even when they do, the systems are in English. They are not even in our regional languages. The processes are opaque, and the fear of backlash is very real. In India, for example, we have documented cases where women reporting abuse ended up being harassed further. That’s the same case in Pakistan. It’s not just by other users, but by the very mechanisms that are meant to protect them. And I’ll stop here, and we’ll add more to the policy level debate.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. Thank you. I think there was so much in there. And I think what’s really coming through is that if we have this right to privacy and right to freedom of expression, that should be for all of us everywhere around the world. And the way that then we are treated when something does go wrong should also be equitable, because you can’t put it all on the individual to try and get all these images taken down. I think we’re definitely seeing a lot more on non-consensual intimate imagery abuse in the UK as well. And actually, the regulatory response and the legislative approach catching up with the real harm, there’s a big gap still. So thank you so much. And so next, we’ll turn to Ada. And so, Ada, you’re the president of the Authority for the Prevention of Online Terrorist Content and Child Sexual Abuse material in the Netherlands. And that regulates online content by ordering the removal of terrorist and CSAM content. So how do you strike a balance between online rights, the promotion of a safer online environment, and law enforcement? And what are some of your areas of concern?

Arda Gerkens: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me on this panel. To address one of the last points in your question, how do we deal with law enforcement, we basically only target the content. So we’re not looking for perpetrators, ones who is uploading it or downloading it. It’s not of our interest. But of course, certainly when it’s terrorist content, but also with child sexual abuse material, when there’s anything that is worried for us worrying, then we’ll report it to law enforcement so they can act upon. And also, we have something what’s called deconfliction, just to make sure that we’re not taking that material in areas where police or other services are already investigating to make sure that we don’t harm their investigation. So far, that hasn’t happened yet. So I think we’re doing a good job. The other question is about, how do you balance human rights? And of course, with the powers we have, which is a very important power, I think, taking down or at least ordering the take down of material comes great responsibility. And definitely, when you look at the field of terrorism, it can easily be abused and harm freedom of speech, right? So we need to see how we can balance that. Well, first of all, we have legislation. So it’s not we have to hold the standard for this legislation when we send out removal orders. But the legislation is quite broad and sometimes vague. For instance, one of the reasons of addressing something as terrorist content is the glorifying of an attack. Well, what’s glorifying? So what we’re doing at the moment is, together with other European countries, as this legislation is European legislation, we are now clarifying that law to see, so what do we think all of us is glorifying? What is a call to action? So that we can refine that and make it quite clear also to the outside world, how do we assess and the reports do we get? And what threshold does it meet before we send out a removal order? And then again, of course, we can also give that to the platform saying, listen, if it meets these and these criteria, then maybe you should take it down before you send your removal order. That would be much better than us for sending removal orders. So this is on terrorist content. And as you can imagine, child sexual abuse material, that’s quite clear. There’s no debate about it. There shouldn’t be a debate about it. And I don’t think there’s any way of freedom of speech or any other human rights except for the right of the child that’s involved. But however, if you look at the removal of this type of content, you’ll see that on terrorist content, the majority of the material we find will be on a platform. But for child sex abuse material, unfortunately, as the Philippines has their downside, we have our downside that the Netherlands is a notorious hosting country for this kind of material. So we’re basically focusing our actions on hosting companies. Now, some of them are really bad actors. So this kind of imagery would not be the only bad things on their platforms. But there are also very many legit websites as well. So we need to make sure that we’re proportionate in our actions. We have really strong powers. We are able to even pull the plug of the internet, almost, let’s say, that way. Or we could even make sure that access profilers block the access. But if you do such a thing, you need to make sure that you’re not harming innocent parties or companies involved. So again, we need to be very precise and very well know what we’re doing. And so basically, for all this work, we engage a lot with industry to know the techniques. I think it was Paul who said here yesterday, for politicians, it’s very important to know the technical aspects of the online world. So is it for us. So we know a lot. We don’t know everything. There are lots of people who are much smarter than we are. So we engage with them. And we have an advisory board who would help us to make the difficult decisions. But we also engage with civil society to make sure that we uphold all these rights which are there to be able to balance it. And in the end, of course, it’s our decision. But we have to be able to explain it to the public, to you, why did we take that position? And did we look at the downside and the effects of it? And yeah, so that’s how we’re doing it. And it’s a very, I think, very interesting job. Now, on the matter of concerns of vulnerable groups, something I would like to address is something that we are currently seeing happening in the space of what used to be, I think, terrorism. I say used to be because terrorist actions used to be quite clear cut. It’s either right wing terrorism. Look at the Christchurch shooting. Or it’s Judaism. Many of the attacks are well known from that. But we see more and more hybridization of these types of content mixed together with other content. So recently, we’re finding within the online terrorist environments lots of child sex abuse material. And we find that certainly vulnerable kids at the moment are at large online. Can I say it that way? Because we find that these terrorist groups or these groups, extremist groups, are actually targeting vulnerable kids. For instance, create a telegram channel where kids can talk about their mental health state, eating disorders. They groom information out of them. And with that information, they then extort them. And they let them do horrible things like carving their bodies or making sexual images, which are then again spread. And we can see that this kind of material is radicalizing the kids very swiftly. And recently in Europe, we had some very young kids who were at the verge of committing attacks. And so what we see now is that this is exhilarating in a very fast pace. And as our focus is on terrorism and child sex abuse, we cannot speak on eating disorders or mental health problems. But we know here at the table, too, there are lots of organizations who address these problems. But they’re probably not aware of these things happening. It’s all in the dark. And I think, again, if you talk about protection of vulnerable groups online, we need to bring these things to light. Like you basically said, the one case is brought to light by media. The other case is not brought to light by media. I think it’s up to us to bring it to light that these things are happening online. So at least the awareness is out there for parents and other caregivers to take care of the kids. But also for adults, that if somebody finally is able to speak about what’s happening, you are there to help them and support them. But yeah, we need much more to be done here as a coordinated approach to tackle this problem.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, Ada. I think there was a lot in there in terms of proportionality and having a position that you can defend that is kind of balanced. I think this point on hybrid kind of threats is also really interesting. It’s something I haven’t heard before personally. And yeah, I think how you have a response that works across the whole system when these threats are hybrid and blended is really tricky, but also important to get right because there’s a lot at stake. So thank you. So next we’ll turn to Sandra. And if you want to just do a short introduction, that would be great. And then I’ll get to your question. OK.

Sandra Maximiano: So I’m Sandra Maximiano. I’m a chairwoman of ANACOM, the Portuguese National Authority for Communications. And at the moment, also, ANACOM deals with electronic communications, postal communications. But it’s also the digital service coordinator, so also on the digital matters, and also responsible for online terrorism and all these new issues, and also some competences under AI. So quite a broad authority. I’m an economist and specialized in behavioral and experimental economics. Thank you. So bringing together those two roles, I guess, as a regulator and also a behavioral and experimental economist, can you explain what behavioral economics is about and how it can be used to protect vulnerable groups online? So let me first say that if we will be rational human beings, we will probably need to care so much about safety and have a big concern, because we will be super rational and be able to understand what is good and bad and immediately react upon that. But we are not. So behavioral economics is actually a field that blends insights from psychology and economics to fully understand how women make decisions. And they make decisions not like machines. They don’t really maximize all the time their welfare, but they are affected by social issues, by social pressure, by their own emotions. And we all are affected. So, we use shortcoms, we call heuristics to make decisions, and we have a ton of cognitive bias. And this cognitive bias actually, they significantly influence how users interact and behave in an online context, and we have to have that into account. For instance, I can give you some very quick examples, like confirmation bias. Users may seek out information or sources that align with their existing beliefs, leading to echo chambers on social media platforms. This can, of course, perpetuate misinformation, stereotypes, and false beliefs, and limit exposure to diverse perspectives. Another one, overconfidence bias. Users may overestimate their online security knowledge, leading to risky behaviors, such as using weak passwords or ignoring security updates. Optimism bias. So we underestimate the risks of online scams or data breaches, believing that they are less likely to be targeted than others, which can lead to inadequate precautions. And on top of that, so we all suffer from this bias, but some groups suffer even more. So if we are thinking about children, we are thinking about some disabled groups, some people with mental health problems, they have, of course, this bias influencing their decision even more. And we as regulators, we have to take that into account. So we should, of course, be aware how this bias are used to explore the decision-making process online, and we have to fight with the same weapons. Basically, we have to make usage of this bias and try to make people do or take good decisions. So we have to understand this cognitive bias and also be aware that we can use them to make individuals, make them take more informed decisions. AI can also increase the economic value of this cognitive bias. And why? Because AI makes firms, makes organizations to use even more, to exploit this cognitive bias and expose people even to higher risks. So we have to be aware of that. And also, AI systems do not need to exploit vulnerabilities to cause significant harm to vulnerable groups. Systems that, for instance, they merely overlook the vulnerabilities of these groups could potentially cause significant harm. So I can give you an example. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder, they often struggle with understanding no literal speech, such as irony or metaphor, due to impairments in socially understanding and recognizing the speaker’s communicative intention. In recent years, chatbots have become very popular to engage with and train individuals with autism to enhance their social skills. If a chatbot is trained solely on a database of typical adult conversations, it may incorporate the elements as jokes and metaphors. And individuals with autism may interpret them literally and act upon, potentially leading to significant harm. So we have to be aware. As regulators, we really have to be aware with intentional and non-intentional harms that can cause to individuals. But as I said, we can also use this bias to make individuals make good decisions to protect vulnerable groups online. So behavioral economics can be used to enhance online protections for vulnerable groups, such as children, disabled users, and marginalized communities in many ways. So we can better design user interfaces. So websites and applications can be designed with user-friendly interfaces that consider the cognitive load of users. Nudge safe behavior. Platforms can implement nudges that guide users to hard, safer online behaviors. And presenting information about online risks in a clear and relatable way that can improve understanding and compliance. So this is particularly important. For instance, regarding, just to finish, regarding cyberbullying, behavioral economics can also play a significant role in protecting children from cyberbullying. So for instance, we can apply its principles to education and awareness campaigns. Again, framing information in a way that makes it very clear and very relatable for users. Using social norms. Social norms can be really a problem because people feeling the pressure to follow what others do, for instance, and this is a really preoccupation related to the online challenges that many children engage and put them at risk. But at the same time, we can use social norms messaging and, for instance, highlight positive behaviors and peer support through campaigns can shift perceptions around cyberbullying. So by emphasizing that most children are not engaging in cyberbullying behavior, it can create a social norm against it. So this is the point I want to make, is basically we have to understand all this behavioral bias that are putting our children, and this is just an example, but putting all of us at risk online. but we can use the same weapons to make it a safer behavior. So you really have to understand and then playing with the same weapons as regulators. Using nudge, encourage reporting, nudges that remind children of the importance of reporting, bullying can increase reporting rates and that there are studies that confirm that programs can be designed to teach children how to respond to cyberbullying effectively and behavioral economics can inform the design of these programs. So incentivize positive online behavior also can test different incentives, gamification, reward systems, schools and online platforms can implement reward systems that recognize and incentivize positive online behavior and this can be tested using experimental tools. So this is just an example and there are much, much more. Online platforms can adopt clear policies against cyberbullying and communicate this effectively to users. Again behavioral economics can help in framing these policies to highlight the collective responsibility of users to maintain a safe online space. So this is the point again that I want to make and this is an example. The same can be applied to understand algorithm discrimination, how does it work, how the bias increase this discrimination, but at the same time how can we use nudge and behavioral to fight those bias that are perpetuated in some algorithms. So the message I want to leave is that especially if you are a regulator, a policymaker, be aware of behavioral insights. People are using it. to make others behave in a way they want, firms do it a lot to sell more, marketing strategies are all, they all make use of behavioral insights, so we as regulators have to use the same weapons, but for another purpose, with another goal in mind. That’s it.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you Sandra, I think that was, yeah, I think it’s great to have a different perspective on the issue and I’ve never really heard anyone come at this from a behavioral kind of bias perspective, so thank you so much for that and I think, you know, how do we actually turn this on its head and use gamification and use these things to kind of incentivize slightly different behavior is a really interesting question. I think something we’ve come to quite a lot in discussions has been around the role of platforms, so I have just a quick-fire question for each of our panelists before we open to the floor, and so that question is, what forms of accountability beyond content takedowns should platforms adopt to protect marginalized users? So I might start with Ada and go from this side.

Arda Gerkens: Thank you very much for that question. Well, first of all, I think we need to understand that the platforms do a lot already. I think we should start from the positive side, right, because there’s a lot of things we can say about the platforms, but they do have a lot of effort in there. The effort is there when it doesn’t cost them any money, but when it comes to the revenue, then it’s getting, you know, to be difficult, and I think there’s one thing it is indeed to take down content, but there’s a lot of things that you can do with the algorithms by bringing extra attention to some of the material that they have or to lower it in the attention, and here I think there’s still a big chance because it’s… A piece of content in itself is not harmful. It could be harmful, but it’s only viewed by three, four people, persons, then it’s not a problem, but once it spreads and it’s been into the eyes of millions, then there is where it gets harmful, but again, when it’s spreading that fast, that’s also the way the system works, right, because it’s there because you want to be able to spread it again, get more attention, and therefore get more viewers, and more viewers means more advertisement, means more money for the platforms, so I think if we should start a debate with them, I would really like to speak with them on how they are having that policy around moderation, or moderation in the sense of taking material lower into their feeds or bringing them up higher.

Alishah Shariff: Thanks, Ada. I think next we’ll turn to Nigat, and do you want me to repeat the question? No, you’re good.

Nighat Dad: I think just platforms are doing a lot, some of the platforms, not all, but I guess we should look at the positive side of some platforms where they have some oversight mechanisms that are still working, and gave some good decisions and recommendations, and which actually improved their policies, but at the same time I think we really need to see what to do with the platforms that are still thriving in our jurisdictions but absolutely have no accountability. And they do not have their trust and safety teams any longer. They don’t have human rights teams. I’m talking about X here. I don’t think that anyone in a room has any point of contact with X in terms of escalating content, in terms of the disinformation that thrives on this platform. And it’s very interesting for me to see, for a number of years, that in different jurisdictions, when we talk about platforms, in the North, it’s easier to say that we should move on to other alternative platforms, like Mastodon or Blue Sky. But the problem in our jurisdictions is that user base is not that digital literate. And they are very comfortable with the platforms that they already have. Not the civil society has access to these platforms, neither the government. So I’m very concerned. What are we thinking about those platforms? But at the same time, there are platforms that actually listen to all government requests and take down number is very higher. And that’s where many have mentioned necessity and proportionality. And I don’t think many jurisdictions are actually respecting that. So I think we really need to see what are the oversight or accountability mechanisms are out there. And what different actors are doing. Just government, and government is making policy and regulation. But what that regulation looks like, does it really respect UN guiding principles or international human rights, human rights law, when it comes to content moderation or algorithmic transparency? At the same time, what other actors are doing? Platforms at the moment have much more power in our part of the world. We do not have Digital Services Act. But our governments are coming up with its own kind of regulation, which might not be as ideal as DSA, and which might not have that kind of power of enforcement that DSA has. So we really need to see what kind of precedents we are setting.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. I think from our first two speakers, there’s definitely something coming through around transparency of what the platforms share with us, and whether that’s how their content moderation processes work, or other things. And then also a point around accountability. But also, as you said, Nika, just designing this new regulation, we’ve got to also take into account privacy, freedom of expression, getting the balance right, and then also being able to enforce effectively. So yeah, next I will turn to you, Chinni.

Teo Nie Ching: Yeah, a few things I would like to highlight. First of all, I would like to see the platforms to improve their report mechanism, the built-in report mechanism. Because my experience in Malaysia would be sometimes even public figure, prominent figure, such as Dato Lee Chong Wei, a very famous badminton player from Malaysia. They are scammers who are using his video, his photo, to create scam-related posts. And however, Dato Lee Chong Wei, even though he has a Facebook account with the Blue Tick verification badge, he himself lodging report through the built-in report mechanism is not going to be helpful. He himself need to compile all the link, send to me, send to MCMC, and then we need to forward it to Meta for the scam-related content to be taken down. So I think, first of all, the self-reporting, built-in report mechanism is not functioning. And that is actually putting a heavier burden on the regulator to actually do the content moderation job on behalf of the platform. I do not think that is fair. Second, we talk about transparency. So even though the scam-related posts are being taken down, but what actions are taken by the platform against the scammer? Against the scammer? I think that is the question we need to pose to the platform provider. And I’m hoping to get an answer from them. How much advertising revenue they are collecting from Malaysia each year? Do we know? I don’t have the figure. How much advertising revenue they collect for ASEAN collectively? We never have the figure. But for me, if you only take down the scam-related posts, it’s not sufficient. Because I need to know what type of action is being taken by the platform against the person who sponsored the post. Shouldn’t that person be held responsible as well? And because we don’t have that type of transparency, it’s very difficult for us to have the platform accountable. And then, again, I would like to add a little bit more on the algorithm part. Because I think algorithm is very, very powerful. However, platform, when they design the algorithm, their only purpose is to make the platform more sticky, so that its user will spend more time on that platform. But however, I think it’s time for the public, for the general public, for the civil society to also have a say to design the algorithm, so that we can so-called practice information diet, as proposed by one of my favorite author, Yuval Harari, that we also need to make sure that the information consumed by the user, by the social media user every day, actually healthy content, and not just whatever content they like. Because I think that can be very, very dangerous.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I think the incentives of these platforms, and understanding the kind of stickiness point with algorithmic promotion, and, yeah, kind of the advertising revenues is another whole piece of the puzzle that we could have a separate discussion about. But thank you. And next, I’ll turn to Raul.

Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel: Yes, thank you. Actually, before this month of June, in the House of Representatives, we have had a series of hearings by three House committees, namely the Committee on Information and Communications Technology, Committee on Public Order, and Committee on Public Information. And the topic of takedowns has been discussed. And in the fifth, or the final hearing that we’ve had so far, the government and representatives from META reported to the public hearing that they had this non-written agreement that would enable the government to send the requests for content takedowns to META. And our reaction at that time was, without any written basis or any law that would explicitly set the standards as to what content can be taken down and what should just stay online, then it will be a slippery slope when it comes to using content takedown as a primary approach when it comes to ensuring that our online spaces are safe. It can be having decisions just being done in the shadows and people not being aware or being made knowledgeable about the basis for takedowns. That’s why, beyond takedowns, we really assert that platforms have a major responsibility. For example, when they already can monitor notable sources of content that is harmful to children, women, LGBT, and other marginalized groups, may it be bullying, hate speech, indiscriminate tagging, or those posts promoting scams to Filipinos, or those posts promoting hate speech to Filipinos, then platforms should proactively report those sources to government. And also, platforms should work with independent media and digital coalitions so that, aside from just going after each content, because that would also be very tedious and laborious, we should also focus on the sources, to promote a certain narrative or discourse, so that we can not just be reactive in our approach. Being proactive would be the better way to go. So that’s my piece. Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you so much, Raul. I think that’s really interesting on kind of knowing the sources. And also, you touched on a really important thing on independent media, which obviously is in decline in a lot of the places where we live, sadly. We’ll go to Nima next.

Neema Iyer: Thank you. So I want to shift gears a bit and talk more about actual design of platforms. So I am a member of Meta’s. as Women’s Safety Board. And sometimes they bring us in on design decisions that they make, and echoing some of the opinions of my colleagues at the other end of the table, that it’s really difficult work. It is so difficult to make these little design choices on the platform that impact user behavior. So the thing that I want to talk about is that, with content takedown, it’s a very reactive measure that happens after the fact. So the content is already shared. You go through this mechanism. It can take days, months, years, or it will never happen. It will never be taken down. That also happens. I’ve reported many times, and it doesn’t get taken down. And there’s none of this sense of justice, for the people who are wronged, after the content’s already been up there, and then you take it down, but the damage is already done. The wound is already there. So I think it’ll be interesting to think about what are the kinds of design friction that you can introduce that stops the content from being shared? And I think my behavioral economist colleague will have more to say probably. But how do you stop it from happening so that you’re not in the position of having to take down? And as Ada mentioned, that they’re already coming up with guidelines and practices that would be nice for platforms to use to take down, but what if this was used before it even comes up? Or when someone goes online to insult a woman, for whatever reason, that there’s a nudge that says, are you sure you wanna do that? You really wanna, what do you benefit from saying this? But then, of course, on the other end of that, it’s also very problematic. So I really want to acknowledge that this method is problematic because this sort of shadow banning has been used against feminist movements, against marginalized people, to silence them. So when you talk about issues like colonization, racism, any of these issues, your posts actually don’t get shown. And this is the problem because we don’t have transparency on what are the algorithms that show or hide information. And really, all of us are at the mercy of the moral and political ideologies of whoever owns that platform. If they’re a right-wing, anti-feminist person, then those are the rules of the platform, and we are all tied to those rules. So what would be lovely in a really perfect world would be if these algorithmic decisions are co-created by all of us, and we understand that if we are doing child protection, counter-terrorism, that we all have decided these are the things we don’t want to be posted to be shown. We have decided it as government, as civil society, and as the platforms coming together. I think we really need platforms to take that accountability, to be more transparent, to do more audits, to do more research with governments and civil society so that we’re not looking at the platforms as enemies, acknowledging they do a lot, that there is more need for us to collaborate on setting the guidelines. So, thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thanks, Neema. I think that was, yeah. I see. So yeah, just having that multi-stakeholder voice in shaping, I guess, the things that govern the platforms that we interact with, but also I really liked your point on introducing design friction. I think that’s a really interesting one. And so finally we’ll turn to Sandra and then we’ll go to questions from the floor.

Sandra Maximiano: So I couldn’t agree more with what has been said so far. Think about this. Think about if you wanted to take, like, you know, just do a skydiving activity. You go, you go to a firm, you know, sign up for this service and you always get some briefing about security and safety measures that you need to take. Okay, so you are buying a service and the firm that offers that service is forced to provide that briefing. I think what I really would like is online platforms that are providing us a service who’ll be also entitled and forced to give at least these briefings to all of us about safety, about measures that we need to take as human beings. So we need to be aware of our cognitive biases, as I said, and what all this content and all this online interaction may impact on our decisions and on our behavior. So I think they should be more entitled to provide us that sort of information. Then what should be illegal offline should be illegal online. That’s the main principle. But then we have this gray area. What is not illegal offline and should be forced to be illegal online or take it down. So and here I’m more pro, let’s say, measures like nudge interventions, like some applying these behavioral insights and increasing awareness and giving more education, improving digital literacy and, of course, making us better users of online content and trying to be aware of what is there that can really damage us. But of course platforms, it needs to be very much easier for users to comply to platforms and that’s one of the biggest problems nowadays and we can see that as digital service coordinators that users, the first step that they have to take is to comply to a platform and then it’s very hard. It’s very even hard to, you know, have to whom they can contact and this is something that platforms need to be responsible, take those complaints seriously and respond to users appropriately. And of course about algorithms, more audits are really needed, regular auditing algorithms for bias that can help identify and correct discriminatory patterns, diverse development teams. This is also something that platforms should look for. Building diverse teams of developers and stakeholders that can help mitigate biases in algorithms, for instance, transparency and accountability, making algorithms more transparent that can allow users to understand how decisions are made, which can help identify also potential discrimination and, again, giving users more education. Also playing again with the behavioral issue, the default settings is a very important point for behavioral economists. So, setting stronger privacy defaults that can protect vulnerable groups. For instance, social media platforms can make private accounts the default setting for children, ensuring that their information is more secure unless they choose to change it. So, changing the defaults, playing with those, it’s also very, very important. So, basically, we have to be, as I said, aware of this cognitive bias. Platforms should give us more information about this cognitive bias that all of us face and give us briefings, give us information and education and be more accountable and transparent.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, Sandra. That’s great. I think that’s been a really thought-provoking set of interventions on that question and now we will open to the floor. We’ve got about 15 minutes. So, if you’d like to ask a question, I’d encourage you to go to the microphone at the front just so that we can make sure everyone can hear and we’ll put these headsets in.

Anusha Rahman Khan: Thank you very much. I’m Anusha Rehman Khan. I’m a former minister for information technology and telecommunications and I’ve remained the minister for five years and I’m somebody who enacted the cyber crime law in 2016, which gave and introduced 28 new penalties and criminalized the offense. As an offense, the dignity of natural person was, if violated, would result in criminal penalty of going to the jail or being find. So we all know that it is important to legislate. We also know that when we are legislating and when we are creating new offenses of such nature, we have noticed that the interest lobbies, the interest groups, come out very strong against such activities. And we all know that the funding is provided by the commercial interest holders. So when in 2016 I was trying to make the enactment, I had a huge resistance from the interest groups. And at that time, it was difficult for people to appreciate that how they are being played in the hands of the commercial interest. And then I noticed that similar people, similar interest groups, make commercial interest for themselves. From the law that was enacted later on, we found out the same interest groups were creating and found it as an opportunity to generate revenue for their own interest later on. So this is a game that is being played globally. And we, by now, have seen the games that are being played in for this revenue generation at the cost of the dignity of a natural person. It is not just the women, not just the children, not just the girls. It is all the people on this globe who get affected by the abuse online. Now, the questions. My question and my ask is from the Minister from Malaysia. I’ve heard you and you are very eloquent and your clarity is really appreciated. Now, what do you think in your experience that after legislating in Malaysia, have you been able to overcome the difficulties the enforcement entails? Because I feel, having been the former minister and also now chairing the standing committee, part of the information technology system for the last 32 years, that the time has come that we stop begging the social media platforms now. Because we cannot continue to remain hostage to requests made for the welfare of our citizens. So what is it that we can together do to make sure that we introduce the mechanisms where we do not expose our children, our girls and our women, at the hands of those people who probably have a different philosophy about content online. So when people are sitting, perhaps in the West, have a different ideology and different legal system governing them. But people sitting in the East have a different value system. We are a country where a single aspersion on a girl can cause her to jump from the window without waiting for the content to get removed. This has been the major issue for me that we in the East and the Far East live in a different value system. What is it that we think that together we today come by and bring out a solution? I do not think that the commercial interest and the revenue generation is going to allow you to provide the civil protection that is needed. So maybe you could guide me and tell me that what is it in your mind that we need to do and come forward with some very solid recommendations. Thank you. Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. Are you happy to answer that? I think maybe if we could do a really quick response to that one and then maybe also.

Teo Nie Ching: Thank you madam. Thank you for your questions. Frankly speaking, after what we have been trying to do in Malaysia, passing the law is easy. Being in the government means that we have the majority in Parliament. So passing the law is easy, it’s relatively easy. Of course we have to do a lot of engagement, consultation etc. But passing the law itself is not too difficult. However, as you rightly pointed out, to enforce it, it will be super super difficult. It will be super super challenging and as I mentioned to every one of you here just now, we need to admit that Malaysia, even though we have introduced this licensing regime, supposed to be implemented since 1st of January this year. But however, until today, only X, TikTok that is Baidans and also Telegram. They got more than 8 million users in Malaysia. They came to us, get the license. But however, until today, Meta and Google have yet to apply the license from Malaysian government. So but the question, next question would be what can we do? First of all, I think it is too difficult for Malaysia to deal with this tech giant. It’s too difficult. So I’m really hoping that we can actually have a common standard imposed on this social media platform. My neighbouring country, Singapore, I think they are doing something, I myself I think it’s a good idea, i.e. they impose a duty on Meta. Meta must verify the identity of every advertiser if the advertisement is targeting Singapore citizens. And Meta actually is doing that and that is partly because Meta has an office in Singapore and they are deemed to be licensed as well. So Meta is actually doing this in Singapore. So my question actually would be, why can’t you do it for Malaysia? Because if you verify the identity of the advertiser, then it will be much, much easier for us to identify who are scammers, who are those behind this account promoting online gambling, etc. Why are you only doing it in Singapore and not the rest of the world? So to me, it is very, very important if we can have one international organisation identifying what are the responsibilities that should be carried out by the platforms instead of one individual country. Because as Malaysia, our negotiation power is just too limited. And at the same time, I think to overcome the issue that the standard is set by the West, I think it is very, very important for us to engage this platform as a bloc. For example, instead of engaging, instead of Malaysia trying to engage with this platform, we are hoping that ASEAN as a whole, we can engage with this platform. If you engage with Malaysia, maybe they worry that the Malaysian government will abuse our power to restrict the freedom of expression, but how about ASEAN as a bloc? Because as 10 ASEAN countries, we have similar culture, we understand each other better, and therefore we shall be able to set a standard that actually meets our cultural and also a history and religious background, etc. So I think it is important for us not to, you know, apply one standard, but we understand the world as different, different, multi-polar or different, different region whereby we can sit down and discuss about the standard that should be imposed on our platforms at different, different region. That is something really I would like to propose. Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. Okay, there’s going to be some future cooperation here, so that’s great. I’ll turn briefly to Nigat who also wanted to provide some comments, and if we can keep them short, that would be great.

Nighat Dad: Very briefly. I think governments really need to understand that we are here in a multi-stakeholder spirit, and when we make national policies, multi-stakeholder means government, industry, civil society, and I think civil society is a critical space because when they present policies and regulations, it’s a role of civil society to basically think of critical points and nuances and hold the government also accountable. I think when we are talking about accountability, it’s about all powerful actors, government and platforms. Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Yeah, that’s a really important perspective to bring. Okay, we’ll go to our next question in the room.

Andrew Campling: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Andrew Campling. I run a consultancy, and I’m a trustee of the Internet Watch Foundation, which finds and takes down with partner hotlines CSAM material around the world. Over 300 million children annually are the victims of technology-facilitated sexual abuse and exploitation. That’s about 14% of the world’s children are victims every year. So with that in mind, does the panel agree that we should mandate the use of privacy-preserving age estimation or verification technology to stop children from accessing adult platforms and adult content, and also from adults accessing child-centric platforms and opening child accounts so they can target children? And also, does the panel agree that we should make better use of technologies like client-side scanning to prevent the use of messaging platforms like WhatsApp from being used to share CSAM at scale around the world, which you can do in a privacy-preserving way? Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. I think we’ll take one more question, and then I’ll open it up. Thank you very much, and I must start by congratulating the panel. It looks like there is a bit less testosterone on the panel today. It was a girls’ day this morning.

Audience: But my name is John Kiariye from Kenya, and mine is more of a comment that, seated at the IGF, we are able to have a conversation around what it is that regulators can do. And regulators have other platforms to be able to learn. and what to do with the technology that is availed to us. But if we are talking about human-centered design, we’ve got to remind ourselves that the offenders are human. The victims are humans. And we have to look and see beyond what is happening online and see if there are opportunities on already existing human structures in community. Because the technical stuff that we would talk about at IGF, some of it is not applicable practically in some jurisdictions. For example, we come from places where big tech has got platforms that people are interacting with, but they do not have physical presence in some of these jurisdictions. So you have no place to go and have a conversation with these big tech to ask them to do some of these things that we are saying at IGF. But if we look at an already existing structure within community, then we might find an opportunity to empower the victim in the sense that if it is a child who is under threat, in a school, there are already existing social structures. There are social clubs. For example, the lessons we are learning from Kenya, we’ve got clubs like the scouting clubs and the girl guides that already exist. And for young people, we know that if you make it cool, for them it becomes the truth. So what if this discussion starts offline for the victim so that by the time they are getting online, they already have the tools and they’re empowered to get this done? Because the bully is a human. The victim is a human. So if we concentrate on the technology, we are losing a very big part because this young person can be trained to be a bully. And they can do that online. But if they were trained offline long before they got onto the internet, then maybe it can become a movement that. that saves a generation. So my point here and the comment is that even as we are focusing on the technology, let us not forget that this is technology for humans and there are already existing social setups. These social setups could be family, they could be school, they could be clubs, and all these other social setups that already exist before we get even online. We will leave it to the regulator to deal with the big tech because that animal is too big for the victim to face up, I thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, thank you. I think we’ll answer Andrew’s question first. So I think there was two parts to that. There was something around age verification or creation of child accounts and whether that could be a preventative action and then also something on client side scanning on device and whether that’s a good kind of proactive measure. I don’t know if there’s anyone in particular who wants to take that one. Would be good to hear from, yes? Yeah, okay, Neema and then Raul, okay.

Neema Iyer: I think absolutely not. So I live in Australia and we just passed a social media ban on children. In the past year, I have no idea what is the plan for implementation. And it’s really, it’s really giving all your data to these platforms. I think it’s a very slippery slope to a bad place. So my general opinion is no, that we as humans need some level of privacy in our lives. And I think that there are better, and the fact is that people will get around all these things anyway. So I think there are better interventions rather than taking away the last shred of our privacy.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, and Raul?

Raoul Danniel Abellar Manuel: On our end in the Philippines, we’ve had this observation that sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to find the underlying basis for such a problem because directly confronting the problem may not be totally enough. For example, in the case of CISA-M and how young people are being used for these very bad objectives, we’ve had a realization that the economic basis is really a primary factor that drives children and unfortunately their relatives to have this kind of livelihood so that they can live from day to day. So we also have measures to really address issues like poverty, child hunger, and all that, alongside, of course, preventing the spread and the proliferation of these kinds of materials that exploit children. And I would just like to refer also to another point regarding how difficult it is, really, especially for those in the Global South to hold social media platforms to account. I can sympathize with our colleagues here and I also agree that we need to form a coordinated response, really, because in our case, when we invited representatives from these social media platforms, they did not attend our first two hearings and their reason was simply because they did not have an office in the Philippines, so why bother to attend? And we were insulted by such kind of a response because we just want to have concerted action on these issues that we are talking about. So we kind of threatened them with a subpoena and the prospects of an arrest if they will not attend the hearing. So fortunately, by the third hearing, they attended and that was the start of having them send representatives. But of course, we can’t act alone and we really have to work collaboratively. Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you. We actually only have a couple of minutes left. I think, Sandra, would you like to offer a kind of final comment?

Sandra Maximiano: Yes, just to add that and reinforce the point that what is illegal offline should continue to be illegal. Online. And, if we restrict children to have access to certain services offline, certain contexts, I think we should also take the same approach online. But that doesn’t mean, of course, you know, make every account private and ban every sort of possibility or behavior. So there are other better approaches rather than just going for extreme options. But I also like to add that this last intervention was very important, and thanks a lot for it, because we are humans, and we need, of course, to be aware of our shortcomings, our biases as humans, and that need to be taught, as it was said, in schools, and we need to be more prepared now to deal with this usage of cognitive biases online. So it’s basically making usage of technology to take advantage of them. So we need to be aware, we need to be more aware of that, and so you need more digital literacy for sure. But let me also add something as an economist. We are in a world that there are lots of incentives for platforms to start developing features that take into account safety and security, and make a profit out of it. And here I’m just talking as an economist, and we will see that happening. And then it will be left to us, and there should be some minimum standards that should be for everyone, and regulators should impose those, but also I’m pretty sure that there will be selling any sort of features that we, as users, will be able to buy and to add on to our systems to increase the level of protection. So there is like a huge market out there that is going to explore the safety, the security, and be prepared as consumers, as users, to make that choice. And it will depend on our risk aversion, our risk preference, and safety preferences, but it will come.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, Sandra. I think that is all we have time for today, so I’d like to say a massive thank you.

Arda Gerkens: Could I make one remark, which I think is really important? A positive message. Look the way we are here together as regulators. I’ve been at the IGF for 15 years. There’s a lot changing, and there’s a lot of politicians involved in that change. What we need to do now is come together globally, because, indeed, Malaysia has a problem with some platforms. Other countries might have problems with other platforms. Once we are able to get some platforms to obey to our regulations, other ones will pop up. We really need to work together globally. We’re part of Global Online Safety Regulators Network, GOZERN. That’s a new initiative. I invite everybody who wants to be a part of it, please go to the website, GOSRN. Let’s see how we can tackle this problem, because it’s a global problem, and we need to work together here. Thank you.

Alishah Shariff: Thank you, Ada. I think that’s really the takeaway from this session for me, is that, through having this kind of multistakeholder, multidisciplinary discussion, this is the only way we will be able to tackle some of these challenges, and also to take into account intersectionality, geographical differences, the way platforms behave differently in different jurisdictions. Just very quickly, the opening of the IGF, the official opening, is at 11 a.m. in the plenary room on the ground floor, so we hope to see you there. Thanks once again to all the panelists, and to all of you, and to our online audience. Thank you.