Behavior Unmasked: The Effects of Anonymity on Online Activity

Will Ripley

**Will Ripley**, a renowned speaker and expert in cyber psychology, is scheduled to participate in a highly anticipated discussion on the subject. One of the main objectives of Ripley’s participation is to understand the unique aspects of cyber psychology and how people’s interaction with digital devices affects it.

Ripley points out the negative consequences of excessive phone use and highlights the addictive nature of smartphones, particularly due to the release of dopamine. He personally spends around six to eight hours on his phone, which exemplifies the pervasive influence of digital devices in our lives. To mitigate these issues, Ripley advocates for reducing screen time as a means to improve both mental and physical health.

Another significant aspect of the discussion revolves around the concept of online anonymity. Ripley questions the practicality of achieving absolute online anonymity as he argues that a fake profile could ultimately be traced back to the user’s IP address. He also highlights the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) in the context of online anonymity, further emphasizing the challenges in maintaining complete anonymity in the digital realm.

Furthermore, Ripley acknowledges the broad definition of cybercrime. He believes that minor actions could potentially fall under this definition, and he questions the subjective nature of the term. This perspective highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding and approach to defining and addressing cybercrime.

Digital piracy and its impact on societal norms and values are also discussed by Ripley. He points out that many individuals unknowingly commit digital piracy by downloading and sharing multimedia content without proper payment. This prevalent behavior is seen as a significant concern that needs to be adequately addressed.

Ripley also brings attention to the middle ground in online behavior, where concepts such as freedom of speech and anonymity reside. He argues that this gray area needs careful consideration as it is often the source of disagreements and controversies. Finding the balance between allowing freedom of expression and regulating harmful content is a complex challenge in the digital age.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is another topic of interest in the discussion. Ripley suggests that the potential risks associated with AI are being considered, as evidenced by the UK hosting an AI summit. However, he also notes the difficulty in achieving consensus on global regulation due to geopolitical tensions and conflicting national interests.

The burden of monitoring and regulating online content is placed on social media companies, which Ripley questions the fairness of. He argues that these companies are not only expected to act as providers of platforms but also as virtual policemen and traffic cops. The responsibility placed on these companies raises concerns about the regulation of online content and the potential for censorship.

The discussion also addresses the importance of online safety technologies, or safety tech, in protecting individuals’ well-being in the digital world. Cybersecurity is recognized as a means to protect data, systems, networks, and devices, but the focus on human online safety is often overlooked. Ripley points out the growing sectors of safety tech in the UK, Europe, and the US, highlighting the increasing recognition of the significance of protecting individuals online.

In conclusion, the discussion involving Will Ripley highlights various pressing issues related to cyber psychology, excessive phone use, online anonymity, cybercrime, digital piracy, online behavior, AI risks, social media content regulation, and the importance of online safety technologies. Ripley’s insights shed light on the complexities involved in navigating the digital landscape and the need for a balanced and well-regulated approach to ensure a safer and more ethical online environment.

Prof. Mary Aiken

The analysis explores various arguments and stances on the topic of cyber psychology and online behavior. Professor Mary Aiken sees cyber psychology as the future and believes it is crucial in understanding the impact of technology on human behavior. Despite her conviction, she encounters skepticism from those who dismiss cyber psychology as ‘cyber hocus-pocus’. This highlights the challenges faced in introducing a relatively new field of study to the academic community.

The study of cyber psychology delves into various aspects of online behavior. One such aspect is the time loss effect, where engaging in online activities can result in an unintended loss of time. For example, checking emails for a few minutes can quickly turn into hours spent online. This phenomenon raises concerns about productivity and time management in the digital age.

Another significant area of study within cyber psychology is the concept of online disinhibition, which refers to the tendency for individuals to exhibit different behaviors online compared to in-person interactions. The perceived anonymity and sense of detachment in online environments can lead to a loss of inhibitions, allowing people to engage in actions they may not typically do in the offline world.

Related to online disinhibition is the issue of online anonymity. Unlike in the real world, the internet allows individuals to remain anonymous, which can lead to more extreme behavioral changes. While some argue that online anonymity offers freedom of expression, others note the potential for negative consequences such as cybercrime and cyberbullying.

The influence of online platforms on individual behavior is also explored. People tend to conceptualize themselves differently in online spaces, where they seek validation through likes, comments, and engagement. This can lead to significant changes in behavior as individuals adapt to the online environment. Professor Aiken strongly believes in the significant influence of online platforms on individual behavior, emphasizing the need to understand and manage this impact.

Attention retention in the online world is another crucial aspect discussed in the analysis. Devices and online platforms are designed to capture users’ attention, creating an attention economy that rewards systems for captivating users for longer durations. This has implications for mental health and well-being, as individuals may become addicted to online engagement and struggle to disconnect from the digital world.

The analysis also highlights the socio-political aspects of cyberspace, focusing on the need for regulations and responsible behavior. Anonymity on the internet is questioned, with some arguing that it should not be considered a fundamental right but rather a privilege that comes with responsibility. The potential for harm in cyberspace, including cybercrimes like cyberbullying, harassment, and money laundering, prompts discussions on how to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly children, and establish regulations to hold social media companies accountable for the content on their platforms.

In conclusion, the analysis presents a multifaceted exploration of cyber psychology and online behavior. It acknowledges both the potential benefits and risks associated with increasing reliance on technology and online platforms. A better understanding of cyber psychology can help mitigate the negative consequences of online behavior and ensure a safer, more ethical digital landscape. However, it is clear that further research, regulations, and education are needed to address the complexities and challenges posed by cyberspace.

Audience

The analysis explores various topics, beginning with the effects of violent video games on behavior. One speaker takes an inquiring stance, seeking to understand the factors that influence the behavior of individuals exposed to violent video games. This suggests a neutral sentiment towards the topic. The speaker mentions engaging with the professor’s material on YouTube and recognizing the interconnectedness of the real world and cyberspace. The main argument is to gain a comprehensive understanding of how violent video games impact behavior.

The analysis also discusses the global regulation of AI, the digital economy, and social media markets. Ongoing initiatives to globalize regulation are mentioned, indicating a neutral sentiment. However, another speaker takes a positive stance, emphasizing the importance and benefits of globalizing regulation in these areas. Unfortunately, there are no supporting facts provided for this argument. Nonetheless, the main point is to advocate for globalized regulation to ensure fair and effective governance in AI, the digital economy, and social media.

In addition, the creation of a safer internet is addressed. A scientist speaker is actively working towards this goal, with a positive sentiment. However, specific details or evidence regarding the scientist’s methods or initiatives are not mentioned. Nevertheless, the argument is clear: advocating for a safer online environment.

The analysis also explores using data from online trolls for research, with a neutral sentiment. A speaker mentions the abundance of data provided by trolling and their utilization of it for research. However, specific details about the research or the insights derived from the data are not provided.

Lastly, a speaker holds a strong and confident stance against online trolls, encouraging their ongoing activity as it provides valuable data. This suggests a positive sentiment towards the speaker’s approach, considering the benefits derived from gathering troll data. The related topics discussed include internet safety and online abuse, aligning with SDG 5 for Gender Equality and SDG 16 for Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Overall, the analysis covers a wide range of topics and perspectives. It provides insights into the impacts of violent video games, the importance of globalized regulation, efforts towards creating a safer internet, and utilizing data from online trolls for research purposes. However, some arguments lack specific supporting evidence, limiting the depth of analysis in certain areas.

Will Ripley:
Capital Technology University. I’m actually… Ooh, hang on. Got a round of applause. That’s impressive. She hasn’t said a word and she’s got a round of applause. I’m fascinated by this. Really fascinated, because I’ve done many discussions, but I’ve never done one on cyber psychology. And as you were saying to me earlier, cyber psychology used to be known as cyber hocus-pocus.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Well, I first came across the internet and technology back in the 90s and in the form of a chatbot and I was captivated and I had just qualified in psychology and I thought, wow, this is going to change everything. So when I went rushing back to my professors of psychology, they said cyber hocus-pocus. But I actually thought this was the future of the internet and I went back and re-qualified, did a Masters of Science in Cyber Psychology, did a PhD in Forensic Cyber Psychology, which is the study of criminal, deviant and abnormal behaviour online and I’m kept pretty busy.

Will Ripley:
We’re going to get into much more detail on that. The panel is all about anonymity and we’ll get to it. But I think we have to set the parameters. And by the way, we’ll also take questions. So any of you who’ve got any questions, we’ll also take questions. Well, the professor will take questions. What is different about cyber psychology? What is it that happens online that is different? Or when we integrate with digital equipment, if you will. I’m trying to be as neutral as possible.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Cyber psychology is the study of the impact of technology on human behaviour. And effectively, you know, this conference, the theme is all about cyberspace. So when you go on your phone, when you go online, what you’re doing is entering a powerful psychological environment. I mean, did you ever stop for five minutes before a taxi came to check your emails? And half an hour has gone just like that. So there’s a time loss effect. There’s infinity in terms of search. You see behaviours like online disinhibition taking place online. And then, of course, the theme of this talk, you have the potential to be anonymous online, which you don’t have in the real world.

Will Ripley:
Okay, so at what point does our behaviour change? What is the catalyst for the change?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
I think the catalyst for change is the moment that you enter into that environment. You know, the moment that you take a photo and you post it on TikTok or LinkedIn or Meta or wherever, and you begin to sort of conceptualise yourself in this environment where you want likes and you want comments and you’re in cyberspace and you’re thinking about your persona in that environment.

Will Ripley:
I’ve just read the book about how to break up with your phone, which is an incredible read about… Quick question. How many hours a day do you think you spend on your phone? How many? Five? Seven? Eight? Any increase on eight? Yes, sir. How many? You. I… If I’m not working actually a lot on air and I’m having to use my phone for my earpiece, it’s about six to eight. That’s horrific. But it’s this idea of the whole phone is designed to capture us for the dopamine effect. The app is designed for reward and these sort of things. So that in itself shows the significance of psychology.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Absolutely. I mean, these devices are designed to capture our attention. But more than that, when you go online and you’re on social media, you also have what’s called the attention economy. So the more that a content can pull you in, get your attention, people are monetizing that attention and profiting from your attention.

Will Ripley:
This brings us to the idea of how our behavior changes. The disinhibition… I can’t say the word. Disinhibition.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Disinhibition.

Will Ripley:
In other words, no one can tell what I’m up to. By the way, who’s got a phone in here? Who’s got a phone? Could you just hold it up for me so I can make sure you have got a phone? I want everybody to hold their phone up. Sir, you’ve got a phone. Hold it up. There we go. Now, I want you to take your phone, and I want you to do a swipe from the top right down. And then I want you to put it into airplane mode. All right? I would like everybody in airplane mode while we continue talking. This behavioral change. Describe it.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
So, as I say, you have effects. Online disinhibition dictates that people will do things online that they would not do in the real world. So, you’re more disinhibited. As I say, just likely your behavior changes and mutates. Now, that’s just pure disinhibition when you’re a known entity online. But then you’ve got a much bigger step when people become anonymous. And that’s where behavior can really change. So, anonymity is often confused or conflated with privacy. Anonymity is where you have no details, where you’re an unknown entity. Privacy is where you’re known, but you’ve got the right to control your data. So, anonymity is a superhuman power of invisibility, like a superhero. And that power comes with incredible responsibility to use it properly. So, how would you be anonymous? You could create a fake profile under a different name. That’s a form of anonymity. You can use a VPN. That’s a form of anonymity. And at an extreme level, you can also use Tor to go to the darker parts of the Internet. And that’s anonymity.

Will Ripley:
This has been around pretty much since the Internet began. I want to show you. I’m only going to show one side. Have a look at this slide, which became… If you could bring it up, there we go. This was one of the most… You’ll be well familiar with this. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. That was back in the 80s, 90s. And it was, if you like, the first manifestation of anonymity.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
And I would paraphrase that and say, on the Internet now, nobody knows if you’re a person or not. Not just a dog, because we’ve got so many bots. Yeah, I think that the debate about anonymity is people say, Well, I have a right to be anonymous online. And the point about anonymity is it is a 20-year-old invention of the Internet. It is not a human right. It is an invention. And therefore, it needs to be questioned. Of course, anonymity can allow you to express yourself in a way that you couldn’t in a real-world context. It can allow you to explore areas that you might not do if you were a known entity. It can allow freedom of expression where you might be oppressed or in an oppressed minority. But if the cost of that is rampant cyberbullying, harassment, sextortion, cybercrime, cyberfraud, then the cost is too great for the Internet.

Will Ripley:
Okay, but when you say anonymity, and it’s not a philosophical question, it’s a practical one. Is it possible to be anonymous? If I create a fake profile, it will eventually work its way back to my IP address. If I use a VPN, I mean, is there such a thing as true or absolute anonymity online?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Yes, if you use something like Tor, the Onion Router.

Will Ripley:
So let’s assume that that’s really for a very small…

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Anybody can use it.

Will Ripley:
Right, but for the people in this room who will just create a fake Gmail or a fake this, that or the other, they’re creating an anonymity as a front piece, in a sense, aren’t they? As a mask.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Yes.

Will Ripley:
How risky is that, do you think, in terms of the…

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Well, it’s not risky for an adult to decide, I want a fake profile. That’s something that you’re free to do as an adult. Where the risk sets in, in two ways, is one, when you see children and young people creating these fake profiles, because then it removes a sense of responsibility, and they can really get themselves into trouble. So we’ve just finished a very large European study of 8,000 young people aged 16 to 19, and we found that the vast majority of those young people had up to five different profiles on one platform.

Will Ripley:
Really?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Yeah. So what they were doing is they had their profile that their family can see, then they have another profile for their friends, then they have another profile for a smaller group. So they’re managing all these personas in cyberspace, which is sort of exhausting. But in addition to that, especially if it’s a young child, parents may have no visibility of what they’re doing. So it’s the duty of the parent to protect the child in the real world. It’s also the duty of the parent to protect children in cyberspace. And what we’ve seen in the UK, we’ve seen the introduction of the Online Safety Act, which is for the first time a very broad measure that’s going to seek to protect children in cyber context, among other things. And one of the things they’re going to crack down on is the multiplicity of fake profiles, particularly when these profiles are used to harass people, are used for hate speech, are used to extort from people. So they’re going to look for serial offenders and shut it down.

Will Ripley:
There is an argument that will say that the younger generation who have been born and brought up with this are better at managing it. Now, I’m not talking in terms of the nefarious or the dangerous, but I’m just talking about this idea of having multiple personalities online. I might find it difficult to cope with five profiles, but somebody who is 16 and knows no different will just be part of their meat and veg.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
It doesn’t mean it’s good developmentally, because the point is that when you’re young, one of the things that you have to learn, and this is what we all went through growing up, is that there are consequences for your actions. And a young person who creates a fake profile, who maybe engages in harassing somebody or bullying somebody, or worse, extorting from another person, they may not, at 13 or 14 or 15, be fully aware of the consequences of that behavior. And therefore, it’s our duty as a society to protect them from getting into trouble. Let me take it a step further in terms of cybercrime. So you can have pathways into behavior. You can start with cyberbullying, you can amplify to harassment, and then you can get engaged in true criminal behavior. And harassment and cyberbullying is illegal in some jurisdictions. But let’s talk about things like hate speech, which is a crime, or cyberfraud, which is a crime, or identity theft, which is a crime. There’s a very thin line between the acceleration of these behaviors.

Will Ripley:
Are you suggesting the slippery slope argument?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
I’m not suggesting, I’m saying that the scientific evidence in the studies, the most recent study that I’ve been involved in, which is an EU study, 8,000 young people, we found a significant correlation between covert, undercover profiles that young people were using, and engagement in cybercrime. And in fact, of the sample of the 8,000 16 to 19-year-olds in all of Europe and the UK that we looked at, almost 50% admitted to engaging in a cybercrime. Hold that. How many people in this room will admit now to engaging in a cybercrime of one sort or another? That is entrapment. You don’t have to put up your hands.

Will Ripley:
How many people? Well, I’ll put my hand up. How many other people will admit to have engaged in some form of cybercrime? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because you know where I’m going with this. Because the definition of cybercrime could be taken really quite low-content. And this is the slippery slope argument. It starts where?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Well, things like digital piracy.

Will Ripley:
So now how many people have shared a piece of music or a video or downloaded something without paying for it? You’re all criminals. But the point, this is a valid issue, isn’t it?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Okay, so the point is that if you have a generation that have grown up stealing music, stealing videos, stealing software, then the moral compass between that and then suddenly getting access to somebody’s credit card that they could use quickly just to buy something that they need, that’s a very thin line. And the point is that there’s also a perception that it’s a victimless crime. Well, the record companies can afford it, the movie companies can afford it, the bank will pay for the credit card. And the problem with that is, is you begin to see this societal shift. And while 50% engaged in a cybercrime, and you could say digital piracy is a big number, I think it was one in three, actual very serious crimes like hacking, like sextortion, cyberfraud, that was one in eight. They’re big numbers. One in 11 in our study admitted to engaging in money mulling, which is money laundering. Now, the point about it is, how cognizant or how aware would a young person be that they were laundering money? Imagine they click on an ad on the internet, and the ad says, would you like a part-time job in a logistics company? Fantastic. So, you answer the ad, and they ask you for your bank detail. So, you give them your bank details. And then they send you $1,000, and they say, all you’ve got to do is take $800 and send it to four different accounts, and we’ll send you the numbers, and you keep $200. And if you do that, the next time, $10,000 will come.

Will Ripley:
Does that happen?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
All the time. This is money laundering.

Will Ripley:
Why is it always people writing to me asking me to give them money, and never actually? Really?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
But the point is, that’s a crime. And the cyber criminals will use a young person, use their bank account, do a couple of test runs, and then put a large amount of money through. The young person then splits up the money, and the next thing, knock on the door, it’s the police, you get arrested for money laundering. This is a huge problem.

Will Ripley:
The ability to deal with it, because starting, as you like, with the digital piracy and all of that, what you’re saying, which is particularly fascinating, is that this is a shift in norms. This is a shift in values. You might not go to the grocery shop and steal sweets, but eventually, you’re moving into…

Prof. Mary Aiken:
So, we’ve interviewed young people in research, and we’ve said, would you walk into a record shop in a shopping center? Would you walk up to the shelf, and would you steal a CD, put it in your bag, and walk out? And they say, no, absolutely not. But will they do it online? Yes. And that’s the difference. But ultimately, there is a symbiotic relationship between cyberspace, what happens online, and the real world. What happens in cyberspace impacts on the real world. What happens in the real world impacts on cyberspace. So the point is, if we want young people to grow up and participate as good citizens in a collective society, our children are growing up online. They are learning things that are not culturally appropriate, that are not acceptable in civilized society, and that are detrimental to the social good.

Will Ripley:
The problem with your view, as some would suggest, respectfully, is we can all agree at this end, sex trafficking, sex torture, bullying, that’s wrong. And we can all agree that a bit of this, that, and the other is fine. It’s the bit in the middle, it’s the gray bit, where somebody says, and never mind so much with children, but just with anybody online, no, hang on, it’s freedom of speech. If I want to be anonymous, it’s my right, or at least I’m entitled to be. If I want to do this and say that, it’s my right.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Okay. So I would love to be anonymous when I’m traveling. I would love when I go to an airport not to produce a passport. I would love not to have a photograph taken. I’d love not to give my fingerprints every time I’m moving around the world. But I don’t get the right to be anonymous when I’m traveling. Why? Because it’s for our collective security. Now transpose that argument to cyberspace, when you are a known entity, anonymous beginning with N as opposed to anonymous beginning with A, then that’s what helps to create a robust, thriving, equitable, fair, civil society.

Will Ripley:
So how do you force non-anonymity?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
I think that what we have to do is question the fundamentals of the internet. And you know, the point is that I have these debates, I debated against the American Civil Liberties Union. They don’t agree with me, of course. And the point is that we have created this fantastic invention, this superhighway for connectivity, where we can learn, where we can play, where we connect, but we are ruining it for ourselves because negative, toxic, hateful behavior is getting out of control. And cybercrime is getting out of control. The latest figures for cybercrime estimates it at a cost of 8 trillion to economies. If cybercrime was a country, it would have the third largest GDP in the world.

Will Ripley:
We’re actually heading in the wrong direction in a sense, because let’s take Bitcoin, which is the whole premise is anonymity. The whole idea is that the transaction can’t be traced.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
And it’s the go-to currency for criminals. So the point is, we adopt each new emerging technology with the collective wisdom of lemmings leaping off a cliff. Just because it is new does not mean it is good. And technology will only mean progress when we can mitigate its harmful effects. And that’s what’s missing. It’s this cyber utopian view. AI is fantastic. HGPT is fantastic. And nobody is thinking about the downside. Nobody is thinking about what happens when this goes wrong. It’s like a form of cognition.

Will Ripley:
Well, we are with AI, to be fair. I mean, the UK has an AI summit.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
It’s a bit late.

Will Ripley:
And you suggest we can’t put the genie back in the bottle on this?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
No, not when it comes to AI. And with AI, then there’s a question about regulation of AI or not. But the whole point is that you have to achieve balance. There has to be some form of oversight. Just the same way as we have in the real world.

Will Ripley:
But we’re destined to get this completely wrong, bearing in mind each country wants to do their own thing. The geopolitical tensions mean that you’re not going to get everybody on the same page.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
I think that’s why it’s so important to talk about cyberspace. Because we have other shared spaces. So back in the day, when people were exploring the world, you had the oceans. That was a shared space. And we came up with rules and regulations for good practice. Then we invented planes. And then we had the shared space for air travel. And we came up with regulations for that. Then we have outer space. And we have governance there. And that’s why this conference is so important. Because it’s one of the… I travel worldwide. I speak at many conferences. And it’s one of the few conferences that puts an explicit focus on cyberspace. So my suggestion is, where could we start? We could start on the things that we agree with. We don’t want cybercrime. There’s no argument in favor of cybercrime. We don’t want child sexual abuse material on the internet. There’s no counterargument for that. So let’s start where we can agree in this shared space. And then let’s work back.

Will Ripley:
Let’s take a question. We’ve got a few minutes. Questions, anybody? For the good professor. We have… I don’t know whether we have microphones. But if you stand, sir, and show us… No speeches. Just questions, please.

Audience:
It’s good to see you, Margaret. I often see you on YouTube. So it’s really good to see you face to face. I have a question regarding, as you say, the real world and the cyberspace is connected to each other. It impacts the real world and the cyberspace. So my question is that, how can we understand the factors that influence the behavior of those who are exposed to violent video games? Right. So just give us the… How can we… How can you… You know, we can understand and do something that, you know, impact the behavior.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Well, that’s the joy of the discipline of cyber psychology is cyber psychology can help to navigate our behavior in cyberspace, provide insights, provide explanatory value, and provide direction.

Will Ripley:
Give me an example of where you’ve actually found that to be the case. You’ve either said to a gaming company or to somebody, you’ve actually said, my research says, do this or don’t do this.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
At a policy level, for example, I worked closely with the government on the Online Safety Act. And that would be a really good example of everybody coming together and for the first time creating this spectrum of harm, cyber bullying, harassment, extortion, mis- and disinformation, very important. And then lots of debate and lots of processes to create legislation to address.

Will Ripley:
And then when you talk about misinformation and disinformation, you’re talking in many cases about state actors when it takes on a whole different area of complexity.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Absolutely. But we’re collectively subjected to it.

Will Ripley:
Right.

Prof. Mary Aiken:
So you have state actors, but this is mediated by the social media companies who decide to…

Will Ripley:
Is that fair on the social media companies who find themselves in the position of not only being the providers, but having to be the policemen and the traffic cop?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Those who profit in this space should be accountable in this space. And the thing about the UK legislation, it’s going to force a duty of care on the social media companies and force compliance and will fine them. And more importantly than fines, because they can afford to pay the fines, they will look at prosecuting senior executives who fail to comply.

Will Ripley:
I’ve got a question, but I want to see if anybody else has a question because this is fascinating. Anybody out there? In which case, I will… Oh, yes, ma’am. You’re going to have to shout. Yes. Yeah. Thank you for your… Sorry, I can’t speak up. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yeah. Okay.

Audience:
Thanks for your significant contribution in this very important aspect. Actually, from the exposure you have working with global organisations, and we know that all these laws and regulations coming for AI, to regulate AI, regulate also the digital markets, social media markets, the digital economy, the digital economy, the digital markets, social media, like DMA and AI laws. Is there any initiative being worked regarding globalising the whole thing, like creating something that will be an alliance or something?

Will Ripley:
Right. Excellent question. Is there any come together in all of this? Exactly. Is there any globalised move to this that’s actually doing any good besides just inviting people to make presentations?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
Do you mean specific to this forum in general?

Will Ripley:
No, no, no. I mean in the world. What are you seeing by way of collaborative effort at the global level that impresses you?

Prof. Mary Aiken:
At the global level, I’m seeing a real interest in online safety. So here, this is a cybersecurity conference. So I’ll just explain. Cybersecurity protects your data, your systems, your networks, and your devices. Cybersecurity does not protect what it is to be human online, as an employee, as an operator, or as a user. I’m seeing this growing movement in terms of online safety technologies, or what we call safety tech. These sectors are growing worldwide. We have one in the UK. We have the beginning of it in Europe. We have one in the US. And my belief is that this new sector is attracting investment and provides technology solutions to technology-facilitated harmful and criminal behavior. These behaviors have the characteristics of big data, volume, velocity, variety. And therefore, we need machine solutions.

Will Ripley:
Right. But as we come to the end, you must be very popular in some circles and deeply unpopular in others because of the work that you do. Those who are wanting a better internet, those who are wanting a safer environment must love you. Those either nefarious or these supposed freedom lovers that isn’t true freedom must be very much against you. Yeah.

Audience:
But I’m a scientist, and I’m well able to take care of myself. And you know, I get trolled online. If I speak in something like this, I get trolled. And do you know what I say? I’m a cyber behavioral scientist. When you troll me, you give me data and lots of it. So keep coming.

Will Ripley:
Ladies and gentlemen, she’s inviting you to troll her. Professor, that was fascinating. Thank you. Really fascinating. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you.