Advancing Gender Equality in the Digital Public Sphere: Tackling Online Violence and AI-Discrimination – WS 04 2026
27 May 2026 09:30h - 10:30h
Advancing Gender Equality in the Digital Public Sphere: Tackling Online Violence and AI-Discrimination – WS 04 2026
Summary
This workshop focused on advancing gender equality in the digital public sphere, especially by addressing gender-based online violence and AI discrimination and by exploring how different sectors can help build a more inclusive digital space.[6-12] Speakers broadly agreed that digital technologies shape everyday life but that for many women and girls online spaces remain sites of fear, humiliation, intimidation, and abuse, with harms ranging from image-based abuse and spyware to threats that can drive women out of politics and public debate.[31-45] They emphasized that victims should not be forced to withdraw from online spaces and that responsibility should fall on perpetrators, facilitators, and institutions that allow such violence to continue without consequences.[36-40]
Flurina Frei argued that online violence crosses borders and therefore requires coordinated international responses, highlighting the Council of Europe’s standards, monitoring, and cooperation mechanisms, including the Istanbul Convention, GREVIO guidance on digital violence, and new recommendations on accountability for technology-facilitated violence and equality in AI.[46-60] She also stressed that standards matter only if implemented, noting support for states through capacity-building tools such as a new online course for legal practitioners.[54-60]
Nico Schmidt focused on sexualized digital violence, reporting that HateAid handled about 300 cases in the previous year, roughly half involving image-based sexual abuse and the rest involving deepfakes, unsolicited sexual content, harassment, and sextortion.[67] He said most clients were women and described a gendered pattern in sextortion, where men were more often blackmailed for money while women were pressured to provide more intimate material.[67-72] Schmidt also highlighted major enforcement gaps, especially on smaller porn platforms, where most reported cases received no response, illustrating how difficult it is to secure takedowns or accountability.[73-82]
Ella Cancara described gender-based online violence as varied and complex, including hateful messages, coordinated hate campaigns, misogynistic content, and unwanted sexual messaging, all of which discourage women from participating publicly online and thereby harm democracy.[86-92] She called for responses that combine moderation, legal protection, youth education, and scrutiny of the internet’s algorithmic and data-driven culture, while warning that some current policy proposals-such as identity requirements, overbroad takedown systems, and monitoring of private messages-could undermine privacy and democratic freedoms.[92-103] Azmina Dhrodia similarly argued that online abuse reflects offline discrimination but now occurs with greater speed, scale, and sophistication, including through AI-generated harms.[105-110] She urged companies to center marginalized women, adopt safety by design, use evidence-based policymaking, listen to moderators and frontline staff, and collaborate across teams and sectors because no single actor can solve the problem alone.[115-138]
In the group discussions, participants identified recurring challenges including weak accountability, difficulty investigating anonymous or rapidly deleted abuse, poor platform cooperation, victim-blaming, and the broader continuum between online and offline violence.[324-339] Proposed solutions included safer platform design, stronger moderation and healthier online norms, public awareness and digital literacy, clearer guidance and legal aid for victims, stricter enforcement and regulation, research collaboration, and global standards developed with women meaningfully involved.[314-319][335-355] The session concluded with a broad consensus that while Europe already has some tools and mechanisms, progress depends on greater resources, cross-sector cooperation, education, capacity-building, and continued dialogue to protect women’s participation in digital public life.[356-360][363-375]
Keypoints
The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine how to advance gender equality in the digital public sphere, with a particular focus on gender-based online violence and AI-related discrimination, and to identify how different stakeholders-international organizations, youth, private companies, and NGOs-can help build a safer and more inclusive internet [6-12].
– Gender-based online violence was framed as a serious and growing barrier to women’s and girls’ safety, participation, and equality online, with harms including image-based abuse, spyware, threats, hate campaigns, unwanted sexual content, sextortion, and AI-generated deepfakes [7][32-45][67-72][86-92][105-106]. Speakers stressed that these harms are not confined to the internet but affect mental health, education, careers, livelihoods, and democratic participation [40-45][89-91][102].
– A major discussion point was the failure of accountability and enforcement, especially on platforms and across jurisdictions. Speakers argued that victims are too often told to withdraw rather than being protected, while perpetrators and platforms frequently face few consequences [36-39]. Concrete examples included poor removal rates on smaller porn platforms and a mocking complaints process that illustrated how beyond the law some perpetrators feel [73-84]. Participants also highlighted difficulties with evidence, anonymity, cross-border cooperation, victim-blaming, and limited platform responsiveness [324-335][364-366].
– International standards, legal frameworks, and cross-border cooperation were presented as essential parts of the response. The Council of Europe’s work-including the Istanbul Convention, GREVIO guidance, and new recommendations on accountability for technology-facilitated violence and equality in AI-was cited as a key framework for shared standards [46-53]. At the same time, speakers emphasized that standards alone are insufficient without implementation, monitoring, capacity building, legal aid, strategic litigation, and stronger cooperation between states, platforms, and civil society [54-61][336-339][369-375].
– Participants emphasized that solutions must be multi-layered and designed into platforms from the start, including safety by design, evidence-based policy, better moderation, technical tools, education, and survivor-centered practices [119-139][312-319]. Suggested measures included decentralized image databases for takedowns, risk assessments before product launches, platform designs that discourage harmful amplification, digital literacy for youth, and professional training for prosecutors, judges, and investigators [314-319][336-339][348-355]. There was also a strong call to center women from marginalized communities and include frontline workers, moderators, NGOs, and users in policy and product development [115-118][128-136][372-375].
– A recurring tension in the discussion was that efforts to tackle online violence should not undermine privacy, freedom of expression, or democratic space. Ella warned that some current policy responses-such as mandatory identification, broad takedown systems, and monitoring of private messages-may reduce abuse but also threaten users’ privacy and ability to organize freely [98-103]. This led to a broader call for “creative solutions” that improve moderation and accountability without increasing surveillance or state control over digital participation [101-103][371][375].
The overall tone was serious, urgent, and solutions-oriented. Early remarks were especially cautionary and empathetic, emphasizing fear, harm, and exclusion experienced by women and girls online [30-45]. The middle of the session became more practical and collaborative as speakers and participants proposed legal, technical, educational, and policy solutions in breakout discussions [142-159][171-201][311-319][336-355]. By the end, the tone was broadly constructive and consensus-seeking, with participants highlighting shared concerns across sectors and converging on the need for cooperation, accountability, and rights-respecting reform [356-360][363-379][381].
Speakers
– Oona Kurppa — Moderator of the session; head of Finland’s Generation Equality Youth Group. Led the workshop on advancing gender equality in the digital public sphere.
– Flurina Frei — Gender Equality Policy Advisor at the Council of Europe; co-secretary of the expert committee that drafted the recommendation on accountability for technology-facilitated violence against women and girls.
– Nico Schmidt — NGO representative / speaker. Specific title or affiliation not clearly stated in the transcript.
– Ella Cancara — Youth representative; active in advocacy in the tech field since 2021; has represented youth voices in various international forums.
– Azmina Dhrodia — Independent tech policy and trust & safety expert; has 10 years of experience across civil society and the technology sector working at the intersection of public policy, content policy, and product/prediction policy; former Safety Policy Lead at Bumble; Senior Trust & Safety Policy Advisor at a ride-sharing company; previously led research at Amnesty International on violence and abuse against women online, including authoring the Toxic Twitter report.
– Participant — Audience participant(s), including online participants. No specific role/title consistently identified from the transcript.
– Minda Moreira — From the EuroDIG Programme Committee; closed the session by presenting the key messages.
Additional speakers:
– None clearly identified beyond the listed names and generic Participant interventions.
Oona Kurppa opened the workshop by saying it would focus on advancing gender equality in the digital public sphere, especially online violence and AI discrimination. She organised the discussion around three questions: the most pressing current issues in gender-based online violence, what an ideal internet without such violence would look like, and how international organisations, youth, the private sector, and NGOs can help shape a more inclusive digital space [1-8].
Across the opening statements, speakers agreed that online abuse reflects and intensifies existing offline discrimination. Flurina Frei described online spaces as places of fear, humiliation, and intimidation for many women and girls, citing intimate-image abuse, spyware used in domestic abuse, and threats against women in public life [31-45]. She stressed that women and girls should not have to withdraw from online spaces to stay safe, and that responsibility should lie with perpetrators and those who enable or tolerate abuse [36-40]. Ella Cancara similarly described a wide range of harms, including hateful private messages, hostile comments, coordinated hate campaigns, misogynistic content, and unwanted sexual messages, and said these pressures are pushing women and girls out of public online participation [86-91]. Azmina Dhrodia added that the core problem has remained the same over the last decade-offline discrimination persists online-while technology has increased the speed, scale, and sophistication of abuse [105-106]. In the final rapporteur summary, Minda Moreira returned to the same point, saying that fear, humiliation, intimidation, sexual harassment, and gender-based violence from offline life are replicated and intensified online, including through AI, and that this drives women and girls out of the digital public sphere [363-375].
Frei argued that because online violence crosses borders, responses must also be international and coordinated [46-47]. She outlined the Council of Europe’s approach as one based on standards, monitoring, and cooperation [48]. She highlighted the Istanbul Convention and GREVIO’s guidance on the digital dimension of violence against women [49-51], and noted that on 4 March the Committee of Ministers adopted both a recommendation on accountability for technology-facilitated violence and a recommendation on equality in AI [52-53]. She stressed, however, that standards matter only if they are implemented, pointing to capacity-building work, including a free online course for legal practitioners, and to GREVIO monitoring as tools for improving practice [54-61].
Nico Schmidt gave the discussion a detailed empirical focus through HateAid’s casework on sexualised digital violence. He said the organisation had handled roughly 300 such cases in the previous year, about half involving image-based sexual abuse or non-consensual images and the other half involving sexualised deepfakes, unsolicited sexual content, online sexual harassment, and sextortion [67-72]. Most clients were women, and he said gender differences were visible even within the same offence category: in sextortion cases, men were more often blackmailed for money, while women were more often pressured to provide further intimate material [67-72]. Schmidt also described major enforcement and platform-response failures. Of 103 cases reported to smaller pornographic platforms, only 16 resulted in removal, one had already been removed, and in 68 cases there was no response at all [76-78]. He gave the example of a small German porn site hosted on the Cocos Islands whose complaint form mockingly asked victims for irrelevant details such as body weight, IQ, and licence plate number, and used this to argue that some perpetrators and facilitators act as though they are beyond the reach of the law [83-84].
Cancara brought a youth perspective that combined support for intervention with concern about overreach. She called for moderation, legal protection for victims, education, and scrutiny of the algorithmic and data-capitalistic culture that enables abuse [92-95]. She also said that while many actors now recognise the seriousness of gender-based online violence, some major social media companies, especially US-based companies, have stepped back from tackling harmful content on their platforms [95-100]. At the same time, she warned against responses such as mandatory identification, broad takedown systems without clear limits, and monitoring of private messages, arguing that such measures can threaten privacy and democratic organising even if they may deter some abuse [98-103]. She added that she was worried both about young women withdrawing from public online spaces and about boys and young men being indoctrinated by hateful content that platforms leave up because it is profitable [99-100].
Dhrodia spoke from an industry and trust-and-safety perspective. She described trust and safety work as a game of “whack-a-mole,” with companies constantly responding to new harms as technologies and behaviours evolve [107-110]. She argued that policy development and product design should centre women from marginalised communities, since those facing intersecting discrimination are often exposed to the most severe harms [115-118]. She also called for safety by design, warning that when safety teams are brought in too late, harms occur and companies are left trying to repair preventable problems after launch [119-124]. In addition, she urged evidence-based policymaking using internal platform data, greater attention to the knowledge of frontline workers such as moderators and safety specialists, and collaboration across product, engineering, operations, leadership, governments, researchers, and civil society [125-136]. Her overall conclusion was that if digital public spaces are to be safe, free, and equal for women, safety must be built into how technologies are designed and platforms are governed [132-138].
The breakout discussions largely reinforced these themes. In the online private-sector group led by Dhrodia, participants identified non-consensual sharing of intimate images, sexualised deepfakes, tracking tools in abusive relationships, and abuse moving offline from platforms that facilitate in-person interaction as key concerns [178-190][203-216]. They described an ideal internet as more welcoming and participatory, while also stressing the need for recourse and accountability when abuse occurs [232-255]. The group also discussed moderation not only as content removal but as a way of nudging users toward kinder forms of expression [277-282]. Azmina’s report-back highlighted calls for a friendlier and more accountable online environment, global rules that work across languages and cultures, meaningful participation of women in rule-making, stronger research collaboration, and trauma-informed, survivor-centred approaches [303-308]. She also relayed Josephine’s point that women are too often excluded at the beginning of internet governance and platform development, and should instead be involved alongside companies, schools, NGOs, and other social actors from the outset [283-293].
Schmidt’s NGO breakout group organised its proposals into technical, societal, and legal measures [312-319]. Technical ideas included a decentralised network of image databases to support takedowns and prevent re-uploads, safer-by-design platforms using risk assessments before launch, and platform models that discourage harmful amplification [314-316]. Societal proposals included awareness-raising, education for young people-especially boys and men-a clearer content-based definition of non-consensual intimate imagery, and a stronger role for civil society in connecting industry, regulators, and marginalised communities [317-318]. Legal proposals included better enforcement of existing laws, stricter rules and punishment for perpetrators, stronger regulation of social media platforms, strategic litigation, and more research to push platforms toward compliance [319].
In Frei’s public-sector breakout group, participants focused on the scale and pace of online harms, the accessibility of technology including AI, and the difficulties of investigation and prosecution when perpetrators are anonymous or delete accounts and evidence [323-330]. Frei reported that the group also stressed the difficulty of capturing psychological harm in legal processes, the challenge of obtaining evidence from platforms, and the discouraging effects of victim blaming, disbelief, and secondary victimisation [330-332]. She reported that the group linked these issues to discrimination, patriarchal structures, women’s underrepresentation in law enforcement, the judiciary, and tech companies, and a vicious circle in which women who are active online are targeted and then driven back out of public participation [333-334]. The group also raised concern about children’s access to pornography and weak age verification [334]. Its proposed responses included prevention, education from a young age, capacity-building for prosecutors, judges, and investigators on digital evidence and AI, rehabilitation, free legal aid, strategic litigation, stronger collaboration across sectors and states, and better monitoring of international standards [335-340].
Cancara’s youth breakout group emphasised both immediate protective tools and longer-term literacy [345-354]. She said participants wanted meaningful moderation and prevention measures, but also practical tools that help women protect themselves without withdrawing from digital life altogether [345-347]. The group called for clearer state guidance for victims who want to pursue cases [348], stressed the need to avoid a gender gap in knowledge about online security risks [349], and highlighted schools as key sites for digital literacy [350-351]. Cancara added that this education should address not only practical digital skills but also the emotional and social dimensions of online life [353-354], alongside meaningful regulation and legal frameworks [352].
In closing, Kurppa said it was striking that groups coming from different perspectives had arrived at similar suggestions for moving forward [356-359]. She said Europe already has tools and mechanisms to address online violence, but lacks resources, inter-sector cooperation, education, capacity-building, and a fairer distribution of burden and accountability across sectors [356-359]. Moreira’s final synthesis similarly highlighted a broad consensus: offline gender discrimination is being replicated and intensified online, including through AI; weak platform response and the step back by some major companies, especially US-based companies acting on political grounds, are serious concerns; and progress will require international cooperation, monitoring, implementation, safety and equality by design, evidence-based policymaking, inclusion of marginalised women, and solutions that do not undermine privacy or freedom of expression [363-375]. The session closed with a shared emphasis on rights-respecting accountability, cooperation across sectors, and sustained work to make digital public spaces safer and more inclusive [356-375][379-381].
workshop. I’m Oona Korppa, the head of Finland’s Generation Equality Youth Group and today’s moderator of the session. I’m here at the end of the room. I hope everybody can see me. I really wanted to use the podium, but apparently it doesn’t translate to the online participants, so I welcome everybody here. Finland’s Generation Equality Youth Group has been a part of organizing this workshop and the delegation focuses on equality work in the field of tech and innovation. Today we’re here to discuss advancing gender equality in the digital public sphere. During the discussion we focus on tackling online violence and AI discrimination. I welcome everyone to participate in the discussion and have a meaningful dialogue today. We will be addressing three questions during the session.
What is the current most pressing issue in the face in the terms of gender -based online violence? The second one is, what would the ideal internet look like without gender -based online violence? And the last one is, how can international organizations, youth, the private sector, and NGOs’ perspectives help to shape the more inclusive digital space? Don’t worry, you don’t have to memorize all of these questions. They will be put on the screen when we move on to the discussion segment. Next, I will introduce our great key speakers joining us today, and after that, I will give each speaker three -minute time to address your concerns on the topic. First, we have Florina Frey, Gender Equality Policy Advisor from the Council of Europe.
She was the co -secretary and an expert committee that drafted a recommendation on accountability for technology -affiliated violence against women. She is the co -secretary and an expert committee that drafted a recommendation on accountability for technology -affiliated violence against women and girls. This recommendation was adopted on 4th of March this year, and is the first international lead. Thank you. Thank you. areas. Ella has also been active advocating in the tech field since 2021 and has represented youth voices in various international forums. And finally, we have our public sector representative joining us online. Pleased to have you here as well, Asmina Doria. Asmina is an independent tech policy and trust safety expert. She has 10 years experience from across civil society in technology sector working in the intersection of public policy, content policy, and production policy.
She previously served as the safety policy lead in the dating app Bumble and currently works in the ride -sharing company as a senior trust safety policy advisor. Before her work at Bumble, Asmina has also led research at Amnesty International on violence and abuse against women online, including authoring the landmark Toxic Twitter report. So, Marina, would you like to start and tell us briefly your key concerns on the topic?
Thank you very much. Yeah, so thank you very much for the introduction and thank you very much for being here for this important discussion. I think, as we all know, digital technologies are really shaping every aspect of our lives today. But for many women and girls, the online world is also a place of fear, of humiliation, of intimidation very often. A teenage girl may discover that her intimate images are being shared online. A woman fleeing from domestic violence might be tracked by spyware installed on her smartphone. Or a woman politician may be driven out of politics because she receives online, online threats and online hate for her public appearances. And too often, the answer they hear is, just lock off.
But women and girls should not have to disappear from online spaces in order to be safe. The burden should not be on the victims to retreat. The responsibility must lie with those that perpetrate such violence against women and girls, those that facilitate it, and those that allow it to flourish without any consequences. Because what we have seen is that online violence doesn’t stop at the screen. For individual victims, it has very strong impacts, such as anxiety, fear, even self -harm. It may drive them into isolation. It may have very serious consequences for their education, for their career, for their livelihoods. But also the broader societal impact is very important, because if women and girls have to withdraw from public spaces, this means that we have fewer diverse perspectives in public debate and in democratic discourse.
So the question is, how can we address such online violence? International organizations play an important part to the response to these questions, because as we know, online violence crosses borders, which means that the response also needs to be international, coordinated and coherent, because no state can address this problem on its own. So international organizations provide a platform for collective action and for shared responses to such challenges. The Council of Europe has developed a multilayered response to technology -facilitated violence based on standards on monitoring and on cooperation. Standards help ensure a shared understanding of states’ responsibilities in addressing technology -facilitated violence against women and girls. The Istanbul Convention is the flagship instrument in this regard when it comes to preventing and combating violence against women, including digital violence.
And GREVIO, the monitoring body of the Istanbul Convention, has developed general recommendation number one specifically on the digital dimension of violence against women to clarify how the Istanbul Convention applies to online violence. Building on this framework, as Ona has mentioned in her introduction, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on the 4th of March adopted a recommendation on accountability for technology -facilitated violence, which provides dedicated guidance on institutional, legal, and regulatory aspects to strengthen accountability. And also on the 4th of March, the Committee of Ministers also adopted a recommendation on equality in AI, which provides guidance on promoting equality and combating discrimination specifically by AI system. But standards alone, they don’t have a real -life impact.
What matters is implementation of those standards. And for this, cooperation is very important in order to provide practical tool and support to states and to implement standards effectively. In this regard, the Council of Europe supports member states through capacity building, including a new online course that has just been launched for legal practitioners on technology. violence against women and girls. This course is available freely, so feel free to take it. And lastly, monitoring helps states identify gaps and improve how standards are implemented in practice. And for this, Graveous Country Evaluation under the Istanbul Convention provides important guidance to states by identifying areas for improvement in addressing online violence against women and girls. So overall, the response to technology facilitated violence against women shows the important role of international organizations in supporting collective responses to such shared challenges, and I look forward to further also discussing this in the group.
If you’re interested by our work on technology facilitated violence, we have this very entertaining and easy -to -read brochure here, so feel free to take a copy when you leave the room. Thanks.
Thank you, Florina. Nico, do you want to go next?
Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me. as Florina pointed out the topic of gender based technology facilitated violence is broad I want to focus on one aspect in particular which is sexualized digital violence and I thought you might be interested to hear what Haydate’s experience with this phenomenon is so I brought you some numbers and want to share some experiences we had last year Haydate dealt with roughly 300 cases of sexualized digital violence half of which were image based sexual abuse or non -consensual images or if you want to use the alternative term revenge porn and the other half consisted of sexualized deepfakes, dick pics and other forms of sexual harassment online and sex torsion which as you may know is intimate content is used for blackmail you won’t be surprised to hear that most of our clients who report those cases are women but even in cases where men come to us, we see that there’s quite a different gender dynamic.
Let me give you one example, for example, like sextortion, right? So when a man, the perpetrator gives the hand on content, you know, of a man, they often use it to present for money. They say like, oh, you know, I sent you 300 euros in Bitcoin, and otherwise you’re going to share those videos and images with all your Instagram contacts, right? But in cases where women are concerned, they usually don’t ask for money, but they ask for more material. They ask for more videos, more pictures, right, to continue the abuse. We’ve also, of course, reported cases to platforms. In total, we reported 168 IPSA or deepfake cases, the majority of which we reported on smaller porn platforms.
This is where it was. Total of 103 cases. out of which 16 were removed. One couldn’t be removed because I think it was already removed. And 68, so that’s 81 % of all the cases, we didn’t get any reaction. And this is a major problem. Just to give you a comparison, for example, the response rate we got from X, like regarding everything, you know, also insults and so on, like even X replied in 75 % and 85 % of the cases, right? And with the porn platforms, we have like a known response rate of 81%, which is a major issue. And this is what I would like to highlight, that we often find that enforcement is incredibly difficult, especially when it comes to like the smaller players which fly under the radar of enforcement authorities.
There was one case in particular. I was sort of appalled by there was a small German porn site hosted on the Cocos Island that actually offered complaint forms for victims and those who tried to help them but this complaint form was basically a joke it was a mock form so they asked you not only for your name and address but also for your body weight, IQ, text number, license plate number I mean, I think you get the joke and you can say, okay, this is maybe like a poor testimony to the poor taste and poor state of German humor but I would also argue this is just a sign how invincible perpetrators feel and how much they feel they are beyond the reach of the law and I think this is something we need to change and I look forward to discussing with you how to do so Thank you
Thank you so much, Nico Ella, please
Hi all So nice that there are so many people attending this event this session today it’s an important topic It’s also a very complicated topic because gender -based online violence is such a varied issue. It can mean so many things, private messages, comments that are hateful, coordinated hate campaigns, misogynistic comments and content online, unwanted sexual messages. We’ve heard some examples already during this session. And these are all things that are leading increasingly more and more women and girls to choose to be online only privately amongst their friends or maybe not even at all. But women are choosing to not be online publicly and participate in public conversation online. And this is obviously an issue for our democracy, among other things.
Because the issue is so varied and so complex, we need meaningful and varied responses as well. moderation, legal protection for victims, educating our youth, and also we need to question the Internet’s algorithmic and data capitalistic culture that empowers this violence. The gender equality youths have been working with this topic for the last five years, and we have also written two manifestos on gender -based online violence and how to combat it. I would encourage everyone to go read those. In those five years, we see that increasingly all different sectors of society have started to ask public policymakers and also private companies to address this issue meaningfully. It has gotten wider recognition that it’s an issue that we need to combat.
But at the same time, we see a lot of social media companies, especially those that are headquartered in the United States. They have taken steps back on actually combating harmful content that are supposed on their platforms. decision makers and politicians hear the pleas to step in and do something however the responses we have seen lately is we’re talking about identification online we’re forcing people to use their real passports their real names their real faces when they’re online we see takedown services being implemented without specific limitations on what sort of content is is able to be taken down and what sort of content is not we are seeing platforms being encouraged to monitor personal private messages these are all steps that can make perpetrating violence online less lucrative to perpetrators but this also limits our privacy as internet users I am worried about my peers who decide to remove themselves from societal and political discussion that’s happening online.
I am worried about the boys and young men who become indoctrinated and radicalized by hateful content that platforms don’t want to take down because it increases their profits. I am worried that the most popular Internet platforms that are mainly headquartered in the United States seem to be very affected by the country’s political leadership. But I am also worried that our calls for moderation, meaningful moderation, meaningful intervention, is getting turned into policy proposals that risk users’ privacy. While gender -based online violence is a risk to democracy, so is an online world where people cannot organize and mobilize without state supervision. Open democracy is no more guaranteed here in Europe than it is anywhere else. so we need to come up with more creative solutions to combat this issue that also don’t impede on our privacy as internet users thank you
thank you so much ella and i i really want to congratulate all of you for sticking to your time well done all um and finally we have as mina online are you able to open your mic and tell us your views on
the topic yes hi good morning everyone from london and thank you for the invitation to join this very important session i will also try to stick to my three minutes um i’ve been working on on my gender -based violence for more than a decade now across civil society with international organizations and inside technology companies as well and i think one of the most striking things is that the core problem has remained the same which is that discrimination and the violence that women experience offline continues to manifest in digital spaces What’s changed is obviously the speed and the scale and the sophistication of the harms that women are experiencing. So, you know, whether we’re talking about coordinated harassment, non -consensual intimate image sharing, AI -generated harms like deep fakes, you know, all of these forms of violence can evolve incredibly quickly.
I work in the trust and safety side of industry and technology companies. And I’ve often described trust and safety work as a game of whack -a -mole. I’m not sure if that’s a North American reference, but you’re constantly trying to find the next mole to whack. And it’s because I feel like inside a company, we are constantly trying to anticipate and respond to emerging harms as technologies and as behavior shift. But I think my peers have given a very good overview of all the different problems and harms that women face. So I’ll focus a little bit on what I think. And I think that those of us who work inside the industry, you know, can and should be doing differently.
So there’s a few things that I brought into my work that I think, you know, others should continue doing or start doing. The first is centering the experience of women from marginalized communities in both policy development and in product design. You know, I think we all know by now that not all women experience online abuse in the same way. And those who are facing intersecting or overlapping forms of discrimination are often the ones who are exposed to the most severe types of harms. I strongly believe that if we design digital spaces with the safety of the most vulnerable people using our services in mind, we ultimately create a better and safer experience for everyone. The second thing that I’d like to bring into my work is around safety by design as an actual genuine organizational principle and not just using safety as an afterthought or a form of a compliance exercise.
You know, I think that’s a really important thing. You know, I have seen firsthand what happens when safety teams are brought in too late, right? Harms occur. the users using the platform lose trust, companies end up scrambling to fix preventable problems after a product has already launched. And I think it’s always really important to remember that safer platforms are not just better for the people that are using our platforms. As I like to remind, you know, those working in the industry, they’re also better for business, they’re better for sustainability, and safer platforms are better for user trust overall. Third is that companies need to be evidence -based in their policymaking. Platforms have huge amounts of data, as we’ve just heard about, and a lot of insight into how harms manifest on their services.
And that information should be used responsibly to understand the risks, to evaluate the interventions, and to also identify emerging trends. But it’s also really important to listen to people on the front line, so the content moderators and the safety specialists. They often have the most clear understanding of how harms manifest on their services. farms are evolving in real time across different cultural and regional contexts. And having those open conversations with moderators and keeping that feedback loop open is something that I have found incredibly useful and important in the policy development that I’ve done with companies. You know, for me, effective policy development has always been informed by diverse perspectives and the live realities of the people actually using the platform.
And then lastly, this work cannot just sit within one small trust and safety team or one small policy team. You know, if you’re really intent on creating a safer digital space for women in your platform, I think it requires cross -functional collaboration across product teams and engineering and operations and leadership teams. And beyond companies themselves, it requires ongoing collaboration with governments and regulators and researchers and civil society. You know, online violence is… a societal issue that is reflected in digital spaces. And so no single actor can solve it in isolation or in a silo. I think ultimately, if we want a digital public sphere where women can safely and freely and equally participate and express themselves, then safety just simply cannot be treated as a side issue.
It really has to be embedded into the ways that we design technologies and govern platforms and
Thank you so much, Asmina. Great. Thank you for all of the key speakers for the insightful statements. I hope these brief introductions to the topic can inspire you to think outside of the box now when we move to the discussion. So how we will proceed from here, we have flipboards around. We have the meeting room. So we ask or participate to gather around three of those flip boards and follow the lead of our key speakers who will be around the flip boards. We will put the questions onto the board and you will write your answers to the given post -it notes that we have here with our key speakers. So please, our key speakers, you can stand up now and lead to the discussion.
So please choose which discussion group you will join today. And for our online participants, we have a Flinga site where you can join and do it online. Azmina will lead our online discussion, so you can also write your online post -it notes to the Flinga board. We have approximately 25 minutes for the discussion, so you can join us. Please, you can stand up, move a bit, get your pens that you’ve been given by the Eurodig. Yeah, let’s get a good discussion flowing. And just to add to the, make it a bit more clear, Ella will represent the youth. So that will be, she’s waving up there. Nico, you will lead the NGO discussion. And Florina, you will have the public sector.
And Asmina, you will have the private sector discussion online. So please choose your group you want to join too. Thank you.
I’m sorry. I don’t know.
Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone that’s online. Do you all have access to the Flinda page?
Yes.
Yes? Okay. Fantastic. I’ll just wait a minute, and then we can start the session. All right. Okay, let’s start. Can everyone hear me okay? Can you give a, just maybe say yes or make sure, I don’t know if you can give a thumbs up here. Can everyone hear me?
Yes,
Great. Thank you. Thank you, Arvind, for confirming. Okay, wonderful. And the rest of you. Hi, everyone. So, yes, thank you for joining the session. Because you’re online, you are automatically placed with me. So thank you for joining. And sorry if you prefer to be in another group. So, yeah, for the next 20-ish minutes, we’re just going to be answering some of the questions that are on the screen right now in this discussion segment in terms of what we think the most pressing issues are, what the ideal Internet looks like without gender-based violence, and then how youth and international organizations and the private sector and NGOs can work together to help shape a more inclusive digital sphere.
I think that’s encouraging. No? I’m not sure. To participate. Participate. Sorry, I think the main room has their microphone on. With, as you can see. One second. Thank you. Great, sorry about that. So I think the best way to do this is if everyone can go into the Flinga, it’s a pretty, I’ve never used this before, but it seems to be a pretty easy way to use it. Raise some more thoughts. I think people in the room are using flip charts. So under each question, you can just add your thoughts about what your answers are to the question. So let’s spend maybe. three minutes on the first question and then we can sort of discuss and then the same for the second question and then we’ll spend the last ten minutes on the third question because I think that’s the most interesting and I think what the organizers would like us to spend the most time on.
To do a to make a post-it note, there’s a little square. You can choose the shape of your post-it. You can keep it at square and there’s a color and then you just type in the message. So I’m writing testing and then you press send and then it literally just puts it on the screen and then you can just drag your mouse to the question that you’re trying to answer. Does that sound okay with everyone? If you can just say yes or give me a thumbs up. You can give a thumbs up by the reactions emoji at the bottom. The next three minutes, just on the first question. Oh, yes, Josephine. Feel free to unmute and ask your question.
Okay, otherwise we can just start. If you have any issues using Flinga, just let me know I’m happy to put that posted its notes in for you, but we’ll touch base in two minutes and can just, it’d be great if you guys can unmute and talk a little bit about what you’ve put and why you put it there, but I’ll let you work for now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. okay so looking at the the flinga um the question again is what is the most the current most pressing issue you face in terms of gender -based online violence um and unsurprisingly i think we have some of the key trends of non -consensual sharing of intimate images sexualized deep fakes gender -based hate tracking tools and online abuse moving offline um with the person who wrote tracking tools are you able to just explain a little bit more in terms of the issue there if you’re able to
So, sorry, one more. No, that’s okay. No problem. Thank you. I’m not sure if I can explain it in detail because we as an organization are not really dealing with this, but we are dealing with child rights in the online environment. And so we are also facing this issue as one of a broader situation. But it’s not the main topic we are dealing with.
And are we referring to it in the terms of intimate partner violence and domestic violence, like where women are being surveilled by abusive partners? Is that the context or is it the tracking of, you know, algorithms more broadly in what’s shown?
Yeah, no, no, no. In today’s context, it’s more what you described here.
OK, cool. OK, thank you. Are there any other questions about what’s been put? I think they’re pretty self -explanatory, but I put online abuse moving offline just because I’ve worked in I work with tech companies where the first interaction is online, but then you facilitate offline interactions. And so there is obviously that that harm as well that can and the risk of how to prevent harm from happening, not just online, but then continuing offline or starting offline. OK, great. So let’s move on to the second question. I’ll give another three minutes. I think this is a really interesting question. So it is what would the ideal Internet look like without gender based online violence? So, again, I’ll give three minutes and if you can just use some sticky notes and share your thoughts.
That would be really helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we have a few more post -its that have been put. So we have friendly, engaging, welcoming. I’d love to hear from someone, one of the people that posted that, in terms of what does friendly look like? What does engaging and welcoming look like? And how is it different than what currently stands? It would be great to sort of unpack and explore that a little bit, if whoever put friendly or engaging or welcoming. Thank you.
Hello again. Hi. Um, yeah. I think it’s the opposite from the current version. So many people are just passive recipients of social media and the opportunities because they are recognizing the hate they are worrying about. They could also become targeted. And so they are silencing them by themselves. So they are not that much engaging. They are more reading, watching, but not commenting, not so much participating. And if we can stop the gender -based online violence, then it’s… It would be, yeah, the opposite. It would be more welcoming. It would be easier to take part. And the… barrier or the hurdle to open up and speak out what you think, to comment on. And so it would be easier because you don’t have to worry about that you have to face any problems.
Yeah, no, that’s a great explanation. Thank you. And yeah, I think I know I’m guilty of being a sort of passive consumer. The consumption is there, but I’m not necessarily the outward engagement because sometimes the fear can take over whether it’s worth it to speak out. And I know that’s something that many women experience. So thank you for raising that. I put recourse and accountability. Perhaps it’s a slightly pessimistic view, but, you know, just like in the offline world, I think a world without gender -based violence online is ideal. But probably not realistic anytime soon, sadly. But I do think that, you know, just like… how we see it offline, when it happens, there needs to be recourse, there needs to be accountability and responsibility and mechanisms of support.
And I think, you know, that model needs to be replicated online as well, you know, whether that’s through governments or whether through platform services that are provided. But I think that it’s important to ensure that there’s recourse and access to justice for what women experience. Would anyone else like to add anything before we move on to the last question? No? Okay. So we will move on to the last question. We’ll spend a little bit more time on this. We’ll give you about five minutes. Okay. So we’ll move on to the last question. We’ll spend a little bit more time on this. We’ll give you about five minutes. I really encourage you to sort of engage with this one.
We do have a couple of minutes at the end to share our thoughts. So the last question is, how can youth, international organizations, the private sector, NGOs… all of us basically, how can our perspectives help to shape a more inclusive digital sphere? So, again, if you can put your comments in the Flingo board and then we’ll have a few minutes to discuss and then we can decide what points we want to share more broadly with the group. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have one comment. So maybe if I give one more minute and then we can sort of discuss, that would be great. But, yeah, if you could all just share your thoughts again on, you know, how we can all sort of work together to.
help shape a more inclusive digital sphere, that would be fantastic. Thank you. Okay, great. So thank you to those of you who put forward some thoughts. Josephine, I know you put how can women peer with Internet companies. I put that in there. I wasn’t sure if it was a question or just an answer to this question here. So we have activate bystander, no amplification of hate, better moderation, and I added research collaboration and incorporating trauma -informed and survivor -centered policies and practices. I’d love to just hear a little bit more about the better moderation. Obviously, that’s a big topic and can cover quite a few things. So is the person who wrote that able to explain a little bit more about what you meant or what you mean?
So it seems to me that we are. maybe not alone but we’re both active persons here I think that that we or the social, online social environments shifted in the last years to very much strong emotional language and that if there would be a more kind of a positive and friendly tone and atmosphere in the language and the wordings then it will shape it more in a positive and a friendly way and it will change a lot and I think that moderation can support this not by saying we don’t want to publish this or we will delete this comment but to say put it, phrase it differently say it maybe in other words that could help a
lot no yeah that’s really interesting i think there’s a lot that um companies can do specifically to nudge as i sort of call it better behavior of a kinder more welcoming friendly way of uh stating your opinion that’s not hateful or abusive um and sometimes people just need that reminder or that check -in um and then someone just put create global rules and standards so all languages and cultures are respected online um do you want to explain that one just a little bit oh i don’t think that was you time is the person who wrote that okay maybe not no problem Oh, yes, Josephine, is that?
Yes, I’m here. Oh, hi. Yeah, hi. Yeah, really, I’ve been in this world of Internet quite a long, and I’ve been seeing communists imagine and drop falling ads as they go on. Well, women have less privilege of getting involved. It is a sort of, I don’t know, created for just men to govern and women to be like, I don’t know what we are doing now. We are just in an advocacy sector, sensitizing. But sometimes I feel that we are left out from the onset of starting or working together with bigger communists to know that we are also there with our businesses. And NGOs, sometimes the bigger communists don’t have passion for NGOs or nonprofit organizations, things like that, or for schools or something, you know, the social aspect of it.
But women, if women are given more opportunities. Now you should be all the people. They can also work alongside the private sectors, schools, NGOs, all the social sectors can come together and it can also create a huge, I don’t know, huge. So please, I think we’ve been put back into the main session, but thank you for that. Oh, sorry. No, thank you. Well, we’ll talk to you later, please.
I’m hoping that our online discussion from the private sector perspective is able to start. And then after that, we can go to the NICOS group and after that to Verena. And finally, Eli, you could even present your group’s thoughts and ideas. But thank you, everyone, for participating so actively and being kind. And I want to thank you for your question.
sorry would you like us to start first
yes thank you so much
uh yes i’ll um present unfortunately we didn’t have time to choose a speaker um sorry no um so yes um overall we uh you know we answered the three questions and you know the first question around the um most pressing issue i think is unsurprising um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that’s a really interesting question um and i think that having that kind of environment would then mean that women would be more confident and more freely able to express themselves and engage without fear, because it was a friendlier space to participate in.
And then on the flip side, when there are instances of gender-based violence online, because we can’t simply, you know, I mean, one day hopefully we’ll eradicate it, but for now it still exists, to ensure that there’s recourse and accountability. You know, even when it does exist in an ideal internet world. And then for the last question about shaping a more inclusive digital sphere, you know, Josephine was just speaking about creating global rules and standards so that all languages and cultures are respected online, and the importance of women being, you know, leading and collaborating in that process and not just being left behind or brought in at the last minute. We also spoke about better moderation.
and ensuring that, you know, it’s not just about restricting content or taking down content, but, you know, promoting healthier ways of having conversations and engaging online. And the last one was just around having better research collaboration and also incorporating trauma-informed and survivor-centered policies and practices.
Perfect. Thank you so much. Nico, do you want to go next?
Sure. Thank you. So my group was very much focused on solutions because I think everybody knows what the problem is. We came up with three sort of kinds of solutions. The first one were technical solutions where we proposed, for example, having a decentralized network of image databases, which would help to take down and ensure that IPSA content stays down. to create platforms which are saved by design that, you know, use risk assessment before the product launch, as was mentioned earlier. Maybe systems which use Karma point systems like Reddit, which would discourage certain type of content to proliferate rather than just engagement -driven algorithms. And generally speaking, like federated platforms or platforms which work differently to the ones we’re currently having.
We also came up with a societal solution. So we said, okay, we need more public awareness, better education for young people, especially young boys and men in particular, a content -based definition of NCI and civil society working as a bridge between industry regulators and marginalized community and amplifying those voices in the discourse, helping them to be heard and helping those voices to be incorporated into the design of platforms. Thank you. and the last group of solutions were legal solutions where of course we said civil society could push for the better enforcement of existing laws but we could also try to advocate for stricter rules meaning harsher punishment for perpetrators but also better regulation on social media platforms and we could buy our work through strategic litigation and researching online harms or to try to push platforms into better compliance.
Drop the mic. Thank you so much. Lorena, do you want to go next?
Thank you very much. So our group had a lot of overlap with those actually. So in terms of challenges, what was voiced is that accountability is something that is very difficult to ensure in the context of online violence for different reasons. I mean the scale of the harm, we were referring to it as Mina. described as a mole walking, basically. It’s very hard to keep pace, like the responses keep pace with the technology that evolves. Also, technology, including AI, become very accessible, so everybody can commit violence online. The responses are very difficult, including for investigation, for prosecution, and for the judiciary. For instance, if perpetrators are often anonymous or delete their accounts after having posted, for instance, pictures, which leads to challenges in terms of evidence and of identifying the perpetrators.
It’s difficult to capture the harm and the impact of online violence, including psychological harm. Cooperation with platforms is difficult, but it’s very necessary in order to obtain evidence, for instance. A third strand of problems, basically, that leads to a lack of accountability is a lack of sensitization and of victim blaming. victims are often not taken seriously they experience secondary victimization they’re not believed when they report violence or they’re being told to just grow a thicker skin which also leads to victims not reporting. And a fourth area of the challenges that lead to a lack of accountability are the root causes basically that remain the same. So it’s a continuum of violence online and offline violence work in a continuum of violence against women the root causes remain discrimination, patriarchal structures a lack of balanced participation of women and men in law enforcement, in the judiciary but also in tech platforms so there’s a need for more diversity also online violence often targets those that are very active which leads to silencing them so this leads to a vicious circle where women are even less represented and then access to pornography was identified as a big problem with young children being able to access it and there’s a lack of age verification and the ideal world we haven’t really touched upon it so much, but what came out between the lines is that it’s kind of a lack of an environment of accountability where violence is basically normalized and where people don’t speak up against it.
So the ideal world would be an environment of accountability where such behavior is not accepted or condoned and where people take this violence seriously. And in terms of measures, prevention was mentioned as very important, education, including young children to let them know what gender -based violence is, what online violence is, to also get them to report. Capacity building of professionals, including prosecutors, judges, investigators on digital evidence, on legislation and how online offenses can be prosecuted and also the use of AI. Rehabilitation was mentioned, collaboration by the state, institutions and social sector and also the need. For CSOs to be able to monitor this international stance. such as the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention that will facilitate cooperation with platforms, free legal aid, strategic litigation, but also more balanced representation of men and women in society.
I tried to capture all that was said, but if anybody from the group has any additional input, of course, feel free to take the floor.
Thank you so much. If nobody else opens the mic, I will give the floor to Ella.
Yes, I will try to not repeat things that have already been said. Thank you, everyone, for participating in the discussion so actively. So what came up in our discussion is that we are still very, very desperately need. meaningful way to prevent and moderate online violence. It’s something that we haven’t figured out yet, and we need to keep working towards solutions to that. But in the meantime, it could be ideal to also provide women with meaningful tools that allow them to protect themselves online without having to take themselves completely out of the digital sphere, to allow them to still participate meaningfully, but find ways to protect themselves from gender -based online violence. And we also need, on state levels, clearer instructions for victims on what are their options to take action if they want to do so.
Then we need to ensure that there isn’t a gender gap in knowledge of online security risks, so that men and women and people of all genders have equally the knowledge of what steps they can do to protect themselves. And then we need to increase digital literacy, especially for youth. And this could be done through schools. But along with that, we also need meaningful regulation and legal frameworks. And within schools, we should beyond just practice for beyond just focusing on practical skills. We also need to take into account the emotional and social dimensions of the online world and prepare young people for those as well. Thank you.
Thank you so much, everyone, for the full conversation and highlighting the key aspects of the discussion. Today, we have addressed the key concerns regarding advancing gender equality in the digital public sphere. I try to kind of come up with the key messages here. I think. it was interesting to hear that you all had a different perspective but similar suggestions how to move forward we need approaches from all the sectors and as it has been stated already in the introductions and during the conversations in europe at least we have tools and mechanisms to address online violence but we lack resources cooperation between sectors and their cultural challenges lack of education and capacity building and disproportionate burden and accountability between sectors to add on that i think we need also further collaboration and dialogue between the sectors and i i encourage you all to get in touch with the people you you spoke today and if there’s interesting interesting personalities and backgrounds please please stay in touch you to close the session we have minda moreira from the eurodic program committee who will kindly share us the key messages from this session minda approaches from all the sectors and as it has been stated already in the introductions and during the conversations in Europe at least we have tools and mechanisms to address online violence but we lack resources cooperation between sectors and there are cultural challenges lack of education and capacity building and disproportionate burden and accountability between sectors to add on that I think we need also further collaboration and dialogue between the sectors and I encourage you all to get in touch with the people you spoke today and if there’s interesting personalities and backgrounds please stay in touch.
To close the session we have Minda Moreira from the Eurodic Program Committee who will kindly share us the key messages. From this session Minda, you’re welcome.
Hi, hello everyone can you see the messages already online? I will just go through them and read it was quite difficult to put such a big range of messages together but let’s address the questions that you were discussing before and one I started with the major challenges and how it affects democratic participation online and one of the major issues in advancing gender equality in the digital public sphere is that the core problem remains the same, the gender discrimination that exists offline, fear, humiliation, intimidation, sexual harassment and gender based violence is often replicated in the online environment which changes on the speed and sophistication driven as well by emergent technologies including artificial intelligence and the use of and the use of artificial intelligence this discrimination drives women and girls out of the public digital sphere, curtailing the diversity of views and damaging democracy.
The lack of limited response of the platforms is another challenge to addressing issues of online discrimination and online gender -based violence. And the step back from major companies, for example, the US -based companies on political grounds is particularly concerning and makes accountability and enforcement extremely difficult, making perpetrators feel invincible. When calls for moderation are heard, the responses may limit freedom of expression and privacy, creating deep levels of discrimination. On the ideal Internet, we hope that a warm, friendly, engaging space that creates more confidence and engagement without fear and also an environment of accountability. And how can multi -stakeholders help to shape a more inclusive digital sphere? Well, international cooperation is crucial, and international organizations play an important role by setting standards, monitoring, and providing tools for implementation and capacity building.
One of the examples is the Council of Europe’s Greview. The issue needs to be addressed meaningfully through more creative solutions that do not interfere with other rights, such as the right of privacy. And it is important to take the experiences of women from marginalized communities in the design and implementation of digital spaces for better and safer experiences. On technical solutions, we also have the safety and equality by design instead of being an afterthought. On regulatory measures, meaningful and evidence -based policymaking and regulation, information used and shared has to be done responsibly. the need to listen to people in the front line, content moderators and users, stricter rules and better regulation for online platforms. Move is stakeholder collaboration and dialogue is crucial for global rules and standards and capacity building, better education, information and preventive measures.
That’s all what I have. I hope that I didn’t miss anything. That’s all I could gather. If there is consensus, we can move to the end of the session. If not, if you need me to make any changes to include anything that I couldn’t take, just let me know now.
it appears that we’re all having common sense on this next up i think we have a lunch so we can end this session i i thank all the participants all the key speakers and all the juridic personnel who have been supporting us during this this session um thank you all i hope to see you at the lunch table and continue the discussion on the topic thank you so much you
“The workshop focused on advancing gender equality in the digital public sphere, especially online violence and AI discrimination.”
The knowledge base confirms that one workshop addressed AI and non-discrimination in digital spaces [S82], while another focused specifically on online gender violence and women’s safety online [S83]. Together these sources support the report’s framing of the discussion around both online violence and AI discrimination.
“Speakers agreed that online abuse reflects and intensifies existing offline discrimination.”
This is directly corroborated across multiple sources. [S29] states that offline forms of violence and harassment are mirrored in the online space, with very similar dynamics, and [S84] likewise says violence experienced online is a reflection of what women experience daily offline, but often more intense. [S89] also says the online space reproduces most of the biases of the offline sphere.
“Women and girls are pushed out of online participation by abuse and should not have to withdraw from online spaces to stay safe.”
The knowledge base supports this claim. [S83] asks how to achieve equal online participation without fear, abuse, or harassment and notes that women and girls are disproportionately targeted online. [S25] adds relevant context that telling victims to ‘just leave’ means abandoning communities, identity, and opportunities, reinforcing the report’s point that withdrawal is not an acceptable solution.
“Technology has increased the speed, scale, and sophistication of abuse while the core problem remains rooted in offline discrimination.”
The underlying premise is supported by [S84], which says online violence reflects offline discrimination but can be more intense because perpetrators can hide behind fake profiles. [S25] adds that technology scales communication in range and pace, amplifying harmful effects, and that AI further intensifies this amplification. This gives useful context for the report’s characterization of increased speed, scale, and sophistication.
“Because online violence crosses borders, responses must also be international and coordinated.”
The knowledge base supports this point. [S89] explicitly states that violence against women and girls online is a universal issue that cannot be addressed by individual states alone, which aligns with the report’s claim that responses must be international and coordinated.
“The Council of Europe’s approach is based on standards, monitoring, and cooperation, including the Istanbul Convention and guidance on the digital dimension of violence against women.”
The knowledge base confirms the substance of this claim. [S29] describes how the convention can be interpreted and adopted in light of online abuse, including reviewing legislation to account for the digital dimension of violence against women and girls, especially in domestic violence contexts. It also highlights non-legal approaches, content moderation, and changing attitudes, which fit the broader standards-and-implementation approach described in the report.
“On 4 March the Committee of Ministers adopted both a recommendation on accountability for technology-facilitated violence and a recommendation on equality in AI.”
The knowledge base partly supports the AI side of this claim by confirming active Council of Europe work on AI and equality, including a workshop whose recommendations included e-learning for equality bodies and government institutions [S82], and discussion of the newly adopted Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law [S29]. However, the provided sources do not independently verify the specific date ‘4 March’ or the exact paired recommendations, so this remains only partially corroborated here.
“Implementation matters, including capacity-building work such as a free online course for legal practitioners and GREVIO monitoring.”
The knowledge base supports the implementation and capacity-building emphasis. [S82] states that the Council of Europe committed to developing e-learning courses for equality bodies and government institutions on AI and equality issues. [S29] also stresses that legal and non-legal approaches are both important. The specific free course for legal practitioners and GREVIO monitoring are not independently detailed in the supplied sources, but the overall implementation focus is consistent.
“Harms discussed included intimate-image abuse, spyware in domestic abuse, threats against women in public life, hostile messages, coordinated hate campaigns, misogynistic content, and unwanted sexual messages.”
The knowledge base confirms several of these forms of harm. [S83] refers to cyberviolence including non-consensual sharing of intimate images and cyberstalking, while [S84] mentions online harassment, threats, cyberstalking, and sexual violence. [S89] further confirms that organisations working with victims report large numbers of image-based abuse cases and severe impacts on women.
“The discussion linked AI to the intensification of gender-based harms and discrimination.”
This is supported by [S29], where AI is described as threatening human rights and amplifying existing stereotypes through data and machine learning, and by [S82], which focuses on AI discrimination in digital spaces and emphasizes prevention, community leadership, and coordinated responses.
The speakers showed high agreement on the core diagnosis: gender-based online violence is a continuation of offline inequality, now amplified by digital technologies, including AI, and it excludes women and girls from public participation [31-44][86-92][105-106][363]. They also broadly agreed on the need for stronger accountability, better enforcement, more support for victims, international and multi-stakeholder cooperation, and preventive strategies based on education, capacity-building, and safer design [36-39][46-60][119-136][317-319][332-339][350-354][369-375].
High consensus. The discussion revealed little direct disagreement on problem definition or broad solution areas. The main nuance was not opposition, but emphasis: some speakers focused more on enforcement and platform accountability, while Ella particularly stressed protecting privacy and democratic freedoms when designing responses [98-103]. The implication is that the field has a strong shared foundation for action, especially around rights-based, multi-stakeholder, and preventive approaches, but still needs practical implementation choices that balance safety, privacy, and participation [359][367-375].
The speakers showed high agreement on the diagnosis of the problem: online gender-based violence mirrors offline inequality, harms women and girls, and damages democratic participation [32-44][86-91][105-106][363]. Most also agreed that solutions must involve multiple sectors, platform responsibility, education, and some form of accountability [46-60][92][132-136][369-375].
The most important comments shaped the discussion by steadily moving it from description of harms to a layered analysis of responsibility, structural causes, and possible solutions. Flurina’s opening reframed the issue around accountability rather than victim withdrawal, giving the session a strong normative foundation. Nico added vivid empirical examples that made the enforcement gap concrete and emotionally immediate, especially around impunity and platform indifference. Ella introduced a crucial counterbalance by warning that some anti-abuse responses can threaten privacy and democratic freedoms, which prevented the conversation from becoming narrowly punitive. Azmina then helped integrate these strands by linking online abuse to offline discrimination, emphasizing intersectionality, and pushing proactive approaches like safety by design and evidence-based policy. Participant comments, especially in the online segment, further grounded the discussion in lived effects such as self-silencing and exclusion from public participation. Taken together, these comments made the conversation more complex, more systemic, and more solution-oriented: not just about removing harmful content, but about designing digital spaces that are accountable, inclusive, rights-respecting, and genuinely participatory.
Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.
Related event
