Intergenerational Dialogue – YouthDIG Messages
26 May 2026 14:30h - 15:15h
Intergenerational Dialogue – YouthDIG Messages
Summary
The discussion focused on YouthDig, EuroDIG’s youth dialogue on internet governance, and on presenting the outcomes of the 2025 youth dialogue before an intergenerational exchange with senior policy experts [6][17-19][58-59]. Organizers explained that YouthDig prepares young participants from across the pan-European region through webinars and intensive in-person sessions, with alumni helping run the process each year to maintain continuity and strengthen a lasting youth network in internet governance [19][20][36-47]. They also noted the scale and diversity of participation, highlighting around 400 applicants, 30 onsite participants, and representation from varied academic and professional backgrounds, including students, politicians, and public officials [39-40][49-52].
The weekend program centered first on internet governance and artificial intelligence, including discussions on AI’s effects on online experiences, child safety, public services, healthcare, environmental impact, and schools [20-24]. The second day addressed democratic threats through crisis simulations on deepfakes and AI-rigged elections, as well as sessions on state surveillance, privacy, internet shutdowns, cookies, public speaking, and a Young Policymakers Track on EU digital governance and internet institutions [27-35][52-56]. Organizers also emphasized social activities and community-building as tools to counter disengagement and brain drain among young people [41-47].
Youth representatives then presented messages on data ownership, surveillance, profiling, workplace fairness, children’s digital literacy, parental support, mental health, stronger protections for children’s data, accessibility, rural connectivity, environmental impacts of digital infrastructure, labor rights in AI supply chains, and responses to disinformation [60-68][69-78][79-90]. They said drafting these messages required reconciling diverse perspectives and stakeholder priorities, with particular difficulty around normative questions and moving from identifying problems to proposing workable solutions [143-149].
In response, Fabrizia Benini and Sophie Kwasny argued that youth perspectives should be integrated more directly into policymaking and linked to broader institutional youth dialogues [98-100][171-181]. Benini said many youth concerns align with ongoing EU debates on human-centric digital policy, implementation, and community empowerment, while also stressing global pressures such as misinformation and internet shutdowns [101-117]. Kwasny highlighted the messages’ awareness of power structures, vulnerability, surveillance, and social consequences, and urged participants to build on existing legal standards and enforcement mechanisms [120-140]. The session concluded with a call for young people to remain vocal, use available institutions and mentoring structures, and sustain their engagement so that youth participation continues to shape internet governance debates [202-205][207-212].
Keypoints
– The discussion introduced YouthDIG as EuroDIG’s youth pre-event focused on internet governance, designed to bring together young people from across the pan-European region to learn, debate, draft policy messages, and build a lasting alumni network led by former participants. [17-19]
– Speakers reviewed how YouthDIG 2025 prepared participants through webinars and an intensive in-person program on major digital policy issues, including AI’s impact on internet governance, online child safety, AI in public services, threats to democracy, deepfakes, state surveillance, internet shutdowns, cookies, and public speaking. [20-24][27-35]
– A major point was YouthDIG’s role in fostering broad, cross-border youth participation and long-term engagement in internet governance, including a diverse cohort from many countries and backgrounds, social bonding activities, and a dedicated Young Policymakers Track to strengthen participants’ institutional knowledge and policy impact. [36-47][49-57]
– Youth representatives presented key policy messages centered on digital rights and harms: stronger data ownership and regulation, protections against profiling and bias in AI, fair and safe workplaces, children’s digital literacy and mental health support, tighter limits on children’s data collection, accessibility for older persons and persons with disabilities, internet access in rural areas, environmental and labor impacts of digital infrastructure and AI, and stronger responses to disinformation, surveillance, and AI-generated content. [60-68][69-79][80-90]
– The intergenerational dialogue emphasized that youth should not merely participate symbolically but help co-design policy. Senior officials argued that youth perspectives are valuable because young people experience digital systems directly, detect emerging harms early, and can help bridge institutional policymaking with real online environments; they also encouraged youth to assert their rights, use existing legal mechanisms and standards, and sustain engagement through mentorship and continuity. [96-110][120-140][157-170][171-182][202-210]
The overall purpose of the discussion was to present the outcomes of YouthDIG, share the youth-drafted policy messages with the wider EuroDIG community, and create an intergenerational exchange about how young people can meaningfully shape internet governance and digital policy. [5-8][16-19][58-59][94-95]
The overall tone was positive, collaborative, and affirming throughout. It began as informative and celebratory when introducing YouthDIG and its activities, became more substantive and policy-focused during the presentation of the youth messages, and then shifted into a reflective and empowering tone during the intergenerational dialogue, with repeated encouragement for youth to stay vocal and engaged. [20-24][60-90][96-117][171-182][202-210]
Speakers
– Florence Ranson — Session chair/moderator.
– Frances Douglas-Thompson — Member of the EuroDIG programme committee; previously on the YouthDIG programme.
– Stephanie Teeuwen — YouthDIG organiser/presenter.
– Somaya Louhmadi — YouthDIG organiser/presenter.
– Sabaeta Zeneli — YouthDIG organiser/presenter.
– Francesco Vecchi — YouthDIG organiser/presenter.
– Cecile Vicquery — YouthDIG representative; presenter of the youth messages.
– Liana Vasil — YouthDIG representative; presenter of the youth messages.
– Fabrizia Benny — Head of Unit at the European Commission, DG CONNECT, eFuture Internet.
– Sophie Kwasny — Head of the Education, Training and Cooperation Division of the Youth Department at the Council of Europe.
Additional speakers:
– Joao — Mentioned by Francesco Vecchi as one of the main organisers of the youth event; not on stage.
– Nadia — Mentioned by Francesco Vecchi as one of the main organisers of the youth event; not on stage.
– Thomas Schneider — Mentioned by Sophie Kwasny in reference to earlier remarks.
– Adam — Mentioned by Sophie Kwasny as an Advisory Council representative in the youth delegation.
– Alessandro — Mentioned by Sophie Kwasny as an Advisory Council representative in the youth delegation.
Florence Ranson introduced the session as a dedicated opportunity for YouthDig participants to present the outcomes of their discussions in more detail than had been possible in the opening plenary [2-10]. Frances Douglas-Thompson then explained that YouthDig is the youth dialogue on internet governance, a pre-event to EuroDIG that brings together young people from across the pan-European region who are interested in internet governance and digital policy [16-19]. She said participants work together through intensive discussion and debate to draft youth messages for advocacy, and that each edition is organised by former YouthDig participants, helping create continuity and maintain a network of young people active in internet governance [17-19].
The organising team then described how YouthDig 2025 had been structured. Stephanie Teeuwen said the organisers had hosted webinars in advance to introduce newcomers to the internet governance ecosystem and key institutions before participants came together in Brussels [20]. Once onsite, the first day focused on internet governance and artificial intelligence, including AI’s effects on online experience, online child safety, and the use of AI in public services [20-22]. She added that discussions also covered AI in healthcare, AI’s environmental impact, and the role of AI in schools, with participants bringing perspectives from across the region [23-24]. This showed that YouthDig combined introductory capacity-building with substantive discussion on current digital policy issues [20-24].
Somaya Louhmadi described the second day as focusing on threats to democracy and digital harms [27]. She said participants began with a crisis simulation involving digital attacks that were difficult to detect, including deepfakes and scenarios involving AI-rigged elections [28-29]. They then moved through sessions on state surveillance and privacy from a human rights perspective, internet shutdowns and their consequences, and the role of cookies in shaping website use [30-32]. She also highlighted a session hosted by EURid and a public speaking session intended to help participants feel comfortable presenting their messages and taking part in EuroDIG discussions [33-35]. Her account showed that YouthDig included both issue-focused sessions and practical preparation for participating in EuroDIG discussions [33-35].
Sabaeta Zeneli emphasized that the programme was both intense and intentionally diverse [36-40]. She noted that participants came from a wide geographical range, from Ireland to Georgia and from Sweden to Kosovo, and from different academic and professional backgrounds [37-40]. To support community-building, the organisers included activities such as exchanging sweets from home, a Brussels scavenger hunt, energisers, and social dinners [41-43]. She said this community aspect matters because young people often leave their home countries and that YouthDig helps create lasting connections that keep them engaged beyond the event itself [45-47].
Francesco Vecchi added details on scale and outreach. He thanked the organising team for attracting around 400 applicants from across Europe while bringing 30 participants onsite [49]. He also noted the range of participant profiles, including students, academics, young local politicians, civil servants, and members of public authorities [50]. Because of this mix, he said the organisers had created a Young Policymakers Track, which took place the previous day and was intended to strengthen participants’ knowledge of institutions and their possible policy impact [51-52]. That track included sessions on who shapes EU digital governance, a workshop on EU digital policy and the Internet Society’s work, and a EURid roundtable on what makes the internet work and why it matters [53-56]. This addition showed that YouthDig also included institutional and policy-focused training for participants interested in public decision-making [51-56].
Frances Douglas-Thompson then moved the session into an intergenerational dialogue in which two YouthDig participants would present the messages they had drafted and two senior policy figures would respond [58-59]. She stressed that the messages were the outcome of serious group debate and collective drafting over the weekend [58-59].
Cecile Vicquery began by presenting youth messages on data leaks, surveillance, and data governance [60]. She said participants saw data ownership as a major issue and wanted stronger understanding of who manages personal data and how it should be regulated [60]. She linked this to concerns about data profiling, noting that AI systems are trained on user data in ways that can reproduce bias, and said the youth message called for safeguards so profiling does not reinforce discrimination, especially against women, young women, and LGBTQ+ communities [61-63]. She also connected digital governance to young people entering the labour market, arguing that as they begin working in an AI-shaped economy, they need protection, transparency, and safe workplaces [64-66].
Liana Vasil then presented the messages on children and the digital environment [67-68]. She said the group agreed that children should develop digital literacy, agency, and critical thinking before gaining access to generative AI, and that parents should be empowered to support children’s cognitive development in digital settings [67]. She said the group agreed that governments should invest more in mental health programs addressing social media addiction, anxiety, cyberbullying, and related harms [67]. She also called for stronger protection of children’s data through stronger implementation of frameworks such as the GDPR, limitations on collecting and tracking children’s data and behaviour, and for removal of children’s existing data and records of their online behaviour [67]. She concluded by advocating social media design that reflects children’s evolving capacities, including age-based feature restrictions and parental controls for users under 16 [68].
Cecile then turned to digital inclusion, accessibility, infrastructure, and labour [69-78]. She stressed the need to include older people and persons with disabilities, including through digital literacy efforts and possibly intergenerational workshops [69-70]. She also raised the issue of rural connectivity, questioning how internet access can be treated as a human right if rural communities still lack access [71-72]. She linked digital expansion to environmental concerns, arguing that as more digital facilities are built, policymakers should consider effects on local communities, water access, and land use [73-74]. She ended by drawing attention to the often invisible workforce behind AI systems, including resource extraction workers and content moderators, and said their rights also require protection [75-78].
Liana concluded the youth presentation with messages on disinformation, online freedoms, and AI-related harms [79-90]. She said the group believed it was important to protect both citizen safety and freedom online, beginning with stronger international limits on state surveillance, which they said currently lacks international legislation [79-80]. In the longer term, the youth participants proposed considering an independent intergovernmental agency to regulate and supervise surveillance issues [81]. She also discussed AI-generated medical advice, arguing that chatbots should specify their sources at the beginning of responses so users can distinguish professional advice from anonymous commentary [82-85]. The group also discussed algorithms that could flag hateful comments before posting, followed by later verification to avoid censorship [86]. She further noted that EU-supported media literacy and fact-checking initiatives often lacked visibility among the people who most needed them and called for stronger promotion of those resources on social media [87-88]. Finally, she advocated labelling AI-generated images and videos so users could better distinguish synthetic content from factual material [89-90]. These messages covered surveillance, disinformation, source transparency, content moderation, media literacy visibility, and labelling of AI-generated content [79-90].
Frances Douglas-Thompson thanked the youth speakers for the work behind the messages and invited reactions from Fabrizia Benini of the European Commission and Sophie Kwasny of the Council of Europe [92-95]. She asked which messages stood out to them and whether they saw recurring patterns in the issues young people care about most [94-95].
Fabrizia Benini responded warmly, saying policymakers should listen to young people more often, both in this setting and in EU policymaking more broadly [96-100]. She noted that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had established youth dialogues across policy areas and suggested that this kind of YouthDig dialogue should be linked to those processes so that youth voices could be heard more widely [99-100]. She said the youth messages covered almost the entire spectrum of digital transformation and that many of the issues raised were already present in ongoing EU policy debates, even if they had not yet been solved [101-103]. She referred in particular to human-centric digital transformation, the challenge of ensuring that rights recognised in EU frameworks are reflected more broadly, and the importance of implementation and community empowerment [104-110]. She also said the EU had been encouraged that the multistakeholder model held in the WSIS+20 review concluded in New York in December, especially given current pressures from misinformation, bias, and internet shutdowns, and argued that youth voices would be important in defending that model in future debates [111-117].
Sophie Kwasny also strongly endorsed the messages, but with a more analytical emphasis [120-140]. She said she was especially struck by the young participants’ “deep awareness of the power structures” behind the internet and AI ecosystem [120-121]. She interpreted the messages as asking who governs technology, who benefits, who bears the costs, and who is left vulnerable [121-123]. She highlighted the recurring focus on surveillance, data ownership, algorithmic governance, and vulnerability, as well as the calls for ethical data governance and checks on state surveillance [124-126]. At the same time, she reminded the audience that relevant legal standards already exist through instruments such as the Council of Europe’s cybercrime and data protection conventions, and urged young people to use and enforce them [127-132]. She added that young people have grown up within the platform economy and therefore understand that digital rights shape everyday life, employment, education, and democratic participation [133-138]. She also praised the way the messages connected digital issues to labour rights, discrimination, children’s wellbeing, accessibility, and environmental effects of data centres and infrastructure [138-140]. Her intervention highlighted the common themes she saw across the youth messages, especially power structures, vulnerability, and the social impact of digital governance [120-140].
The discussion then turned to the drafting process itself. Frances asked Liana and Cecile whether it had been difficult to reach rough consensus given the diversity of participants and perspectives [142]. Liana replied that differences in background, education, and stakeholder perspective had created tensions, especially around normative questions where people disagreed on the best policy approach [143-146]. She said some final messages remained deliberately broad because no single shared solution had emerged, and the group saw those messages as a first step rather than a final answer [144-146]. Cecile similarly described YouthDig as a kind of multistakeholder process on a smaller scale, where technical and legislative perspectives sometimes made common ground difficult and where identifying problems was often easier than agreeing on solutions [147-149].
Frances then asked the senior respondents why youth-centred co-design matters in digital policy and internet governance [150-156]. Fabrizia Benini said digital development must reflect all communities, regions, and social groups because many parts of the world are still underrepresented in technology models and in the enforcement of laws [157-160]. She also said youth dialogues matter because young people experience technological change directly and can point to gaps and failures as they emerge [161-165]. In her view, young people are especially valuable because they can connect what is happening on platforms such as TikTok with the formal structures of institutions like the EU and the UN, showing policymakers what they are missing and why institutional communication often fails to reach people [165-167]. She added that influence is also “a numbers game” and suggested that youth impact depends not only on the quality of ideas but also on multiplying reach and representation [168-170].
Sophie Kwasny emphasized that meaningful youth participation should involve co-shaping policy, not simply being present in the room [171-172]. She said young people are not only users of technology but also among those developing and shaping it, and therefore their understanding of its long-term social, educational, economic, and political effects is indispensable [173-175]. Drawing on the Council of Europe’s tradition of co-management, she explained that meaningful youth participation can involve parity in decision-making and a youth perspective embedded across work on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law [176-181]. She emphasized that meaningful youth participation should involve co-shaping policy and referred to the Council of Europe’s co-management model as an example [171-182].
In the closing reflections, Frances invited the youth speakers to say what had mattered most to them personally [183-187]. Cecile said she had been especially struck by the gender-based dimension of AI and digital harms, noting that young women increasingly face online threats and that this should be treated as a major issue [188-191]. She also said one practical lesson from YouthDig was the need for everyone to be more aware of their data, what is being shared online, and how surveillance-related threats are growing [192]. Liana emphasized the experience of being surrounded by people from different fields [193]. She said this made her realise that what appears to be a problem in one field is often shared by other stakeholders as well, even if they approach it differently [193-195]. For her, this reinforced the value of dialogue as a first step toward cooperation and action [196-197]. She also urged participants to stay alert to emerging technologies and avoid remaining inside their own bubbles [198-200].
The final messages from the senior speakers were direct calls to action. Fabrizia Benini told the youth participants that they needed to care about the rights they already have and “scream very loudly” about the rights they do not yet have, because policymakers are more likely to respond when there is clear collective pressure [202-204]. She repeated that this is also a “numbers game” and encouraged the youth community to build a strong multiplying online presence [202-204]. Sophie agreed, urging them to be “adamant, very strong, very blunt” and to use the mechanisms and standards that already exist, especially in data protection and privacy [206-209]. She also stressed the importance of mentoring and continuity, and, to illustrate the Council of Europe’s co-management approach, noted that two members of the youth delegation, Adam and Alessandro, were representatives on the Advisory Council and joked that they were “her boss” because young representatives decide alongside governments in that system [210-212].
Overall, the session combined three elements: an explanation of YouthDig’s role as a preparatory and community-building pre-event to EuroDIG; a presentation of youth-authored messages on AI, surveillance, children’s rights, accessibility, environmental impacts, labour, and disinformation; and a response from senior representatives of the European Commission and Council of Europe on how youth participation can shape digital policy [16-19][20-24][27-35][58-59][60-90][96-117][120-140]. A recurring theme across the discussion was that youth participation should be meaningful and continuous, and that young people bring both lived experience of digital environments and a perspective that institutions need to hear more consistently [99-100][120-140][157-182]. The discussion also acknowledged that agreement on problems does not always make it easy to agree on precise solutions, especially across different backgrounds and policy perspectives [143-149]. The session closed with encouragement to the YouthDig community to remain vocal, use existing legal and institutional mechanisms, and build continuity through networks and mentoring [202-212].
So let’s pick up for our next session. Earlier today, already this morning in the opening, but in various sessions, we’ve had the opportunity to talk about the Youth Dig event that took place over the last couple of days, as well as talking about the contributions of our youth diggers, as they call themselves. And we’ve seen that there’s quite a large number of them. So now is their time. I gave earlier on for the opening plenary a very rough overview of the key outcomes of the Youth Dig event. But now we’re going to hear in more detail what was discussed there and what the outcome of the youth dialogue was. And to take us through this.
This particular. part and I think a very interesting part of the discussions this afternoon. I’d like to welcome Frances Douglas -Thompson. She’s part of the EuroDig program committee for YouthDig 2025, right? It was 2025, wasn’t it? So welcome, Frances.
Hi, so yes, my name is Frances Douglas -Thompson. I’m on the EuroDig program committee this year, but I was on the YouthDig program last year. This is how I was introduced to EuroDig as a whole, and I’m very grateful for that experience. We’re going to be talking a bit about YouthDig, and then we’re going to go into an intergenerational dialogue. But before we get started, for anyone who doesn’t know, the YouthDig is the youth dialogue on internet governance, and it is a pre -event to EuroDig. And what it does is it fosters and facilitates youth governance on the internet. And it’s a pre -event to EuroDig. participation by drawing young people from all across the pan -European region who have a strong interest in internet governance and digital policy.
what happens is we bring these young people together they work together to advocate youth messages that they draft following intense discussion and debate and every year youth dig is organized by former youth diggers what this does is it provides continuity and each time we run or the youth organizers run youth dig the idea is that there is constantly improved and it also establishes a strong network of youth dig alumni and i hope that many of you have come to realize that even in this room we have a lot of youth dig alumni they tend to establish themselves very very well in the internet governance sphere with that i would like to begin by passing over to the organizers of this year’s youth dig please
thank you so much thank you so much francis for the for the introduction and for telling a little bit about youth dig so maybe just for everyone in the room we would like to tell you a little bit about what we’ve done the past weekend in order to prepare all these young new young people for entering the internet governance ecosystem so essentially before we came together in Brussels as the whole youth week of this year we already hosted a number of webinars in which we introduced new people to the internet governance ecosystem and where they heard from key internet governance institutions and so when we came together during the weekend we focused on a few different topics so on the first day the theme of the day was internet governance and artificial intelligence and so we really focused on sort of talking and discussing the ways in which AI is impacting the internet governance ecosystem and is impacting our digital lives and so we started the day with a session focused on the way in which AI impacts our experiences on the internet.
And then we also focused on online child safety. And we talked about the use of AI in public service. And it was very valuable to hear from a lot of the different participants from all over the pan -European region on their perspectives on AI in healthcare or AI and its environmental impact, and also the role of AI and how it impacts young people on schools. So overall, it has been very fruitful. And now
Thank you very much. On the second day, the youth diggers, they covered the new threats that our democracies are living right now. They started with a session where they did crisis simulation, where they discovered cases of digital attacks that were not possible to detect. That our democracies were under, for example, from deep fakes to… from deepfakes to the elections being rigged by the AI. And then they were in a session for state surveillance and privacy, where they looked into the human rights approach of states surveilling, for example, phones or conversations of their citizens. Then they assisted to a session on internet shutdowns, where they first saw why internet shutdowns happened and then what was the consequences of these internet shutdowns.
Then they went into a session for cookies to learn what cookies are and how they work and how they’re impacting the use of the websites. They also assisted to two other sessions. One hosted… by Eurid the host of this year for EURODIG to learn more about it. And then last session on public speaking to be more comfortable at EURODIG to be able to present their messages and also to participate in the discussions, as you may have also already seen them participating earlier this day.
Thank you, Somaya As you heard from my colleagues, the program was really packed and intense for our youth figures, so we also tried to make the most of it. Stephanie mentioned that we have a pan -European cohort. Like every year, Yuridic brings participants from all over Europe and beyond. This year we had, just to mention a few, people coming from Ireland to Georgia, from Sweden to Kosovo, so it was really… wide representation in our cohort. And they also come from different backgrounds, academic backgrounds, as well as professional ones. So we tried to create and foster connections and bonds between them through also some social events. For example, everybody got to bring a piece of home and exchange national sweets with the others.
We organized a small scavenger hunt around Brussels so that they could see some main locations in the city, as well as several energizers and two social dinners where they also got to mention the incredible alumni network that Francis mentioned. And it was really important to see how youth thinkers remain in the ecosystem. It was mentioned before in the pre -session how one big battle that we are facing is brain drain and how to keep young people engaged. Well, we believe that Youthic is an example of a way to keep young people engaged. And we are also proud of that, trying to foster a… a pan -European community of young people that are interested and trying to open the door for them to join these discussions, to give their contribution, and why not create bonds that will go then beyond youthic and beyond juridic.
Yeah, I will leave the floor to Francesco.
Thank you, Sabaeta but in general I would say thank you to Sabaeta Somalia, Stefania, Joao and Nadia that are not on stage because this year they are the main organizer of the youth event and they managed to get not only 30 people on site but 400 applicants from all over Europe. And as Sabaeta was already saying, among these there are of course a lot of people from academia, students, but also young local politicians, some young civil servants and members of public authorities. And given the wide numbers of people coming from these backgrounds, it was decided to provide them a space where they could not only discuss about the topic, but it was really fostered, their knowledge of the institution.
and enhance their possible impact on the same. For this reason, and to provide another capacity -building opportunity for policymakers, it was created a Young Policymakers Track that took place yesterday, and it was organized in three main sessions. One on new digital governance, understanding who shapes the EU. We know it’s a quite complicated question to answer. Then a workshop that analyzed the EU digital policies, but in general analyzed the work of Internet society. And finally, a roundtable organized by your ID, focusing on what makes the Internet work and why does it matter. And with this, I leave the floor again to Francis.
Brilliant. Because they do such an amazing job they facilitate so many young people learning about internet governance as and as they clearly pointed out this is how you get young people involved before they’ve decided maybe what path they want to take in life uh so it’s incredibly important so thank you so much um right now we’re going to move on to the intergenerational dialogue two members of this year’s youth dig will present the messages which they drafted through the process of youth dig uh just this week and gone what happens is they get together in groups uh they have just really serious debate and discussion uh about the topics that they’ve learned about over the weekend and then they draft these messages together that they deem important and relevant to share with stakeholders at euro dig today so after they present these messages we’re going to move uh to a discussion and we’re very very very happy to be uh joined by two very well -established members of the internet community governance community for this uh we’re so fortunate to be joined by Fabrizia Benini head of unit at the european commission dg connect e future internet please give her a round of applause as she comes on stage and also Sophie Kwasny head of the education training and cooperation division of the youth department at the Council of Europe please welcome her and for today’s discussion we’re joined by our YOUthDIG representatives who are Liana Vasil and Cecile Vicry please give them a round of applause.
So after this I’d like to start please Cecile and Liana please start us off by giving us a brief overview of the messages that you drafted.
good morning everyone so as it was said we gathered different messages through these days firstly we talked about data leaks and especially also surveillance which we think as young people is a very important thing is a particular issue nowadays And we want to leave the message that we should establish data ownership of our data and understand better who is managing this data and regulate it. Linked to that also is the aspect of data profiling. So we know that AI algorithms are trained nowadays to profile ourselves and the users. So we would like to ensure that this data are not trained to portray biases, especially for some categories of people such as women, young women, but also the LGBTQ plus communities.
And thirdly, we were thinking especially about young people entering the employment at this time with AI and the digital aspects. So we should ensure that people understand. And fourthly, we should ensure that people are not left behind, especially in the workplace, and that we can ensure a workplace that is safe and fair, especially when entering it.
the second theme that we covered was the digital impact on children where we all agree that children should actually learn digital literacy and about their agency and critical thinking skills before having access to generative ai and also that parents should be empowered to support their children’s cognitive development we also agreed that governments should invest more in mental health programs that would combat social media addiction or anxiety or cyber bullying and other negative effects another point that we touched on was that strengthening regulations that already exist such as the gdpr is also critical because we would like to see that the collection of data of children is limited as well as the tracking of a child’s behavior online and with that we would also add the removal of experiences and the removal of the data of children and children’s behavior online existing data And lastly, social media, we would like to see it being tailored to evolving capacities of children.
So that would mean that basically certain features would be restricted with age, but then they would be adopted once the children are growing up, but also to implement parental control for children under 16, as that would probably prevent a lot of negative effects as well, such as addictive designs.
Yes, and on this note, we talk also about accessibilities, especially for categories such as older people or also people with disabilities. So we should also reflect on how to include everyone, especially concerning digital literacy, but also, I mean, for example, intergenerational workshops. At the same time, we talk about rural areas. How can we ensure that internet is a human right if not everybody can access it even in rural areas? And as we were mentioning, like Europe is evolving and is adopting even more facilities that will have digital work. But as we think about building these facilities, we should think also about the environment because we should take into consideration also local communities when building these policies as they could have a big impact on water access and also on the land that we use.
And lastly, I’ll talk about the workforce that is included in the AI. So the people that are impacted, for example. The people working in extract resources, but also the people that moderate the content of AI. So we should also ensure that their rights are protected.
And lastly, we touched upon the theme of disinformation and freedom of expression online. We discussed how it is critical to ensure and maintain citizen safety and freedoms online and how for that we would like to see how international organizations put forward legislation on states’ ability to surveil their citizens as no international legislation exists so far. Also, on the long term, we decided that it would be ideal to see an agency that would be established, ideally an independent intergovernmental agency that would have the authority to regulate and supervise state surveillance issues. On another topic, we were thinking about AI and medical advice, and we realized that when requested medical advice, AI usually provides the sources only at the end of their answers.
So we decided that that is a problem that should be targeted by making AI chatbots. AI has clearly specified the sources at the beginning of their response. In this case, they would also… be able to differentiate between professional advice and anonymous commentary online. We also talked about algorithms that could be beneficial to the internet, for example, to detect social media harm speech or hateful comments before being posted, and how could that be possible to avoid censorship by making the algorithms signal that the hateful speech is going to be posted and then afterwards to be verified later and restricted if necessary. We also talked about the campaigns that were actually advertised before this session about the media literacy and disinformation projects that are supported by the EU, and we realized that they don’t have enough visibility, especially for the target audience, so we would like to see more social media advertisement on the projects that already exist.
And they’re dealing with fact -checking because they are so vital for the people who actually need them. And lastly, again, regarding AI and disinformation, we discussed how images and videos should ideally be labeled as such to prevent disinformation and to clearly differentiate between what are facts and what is AI generated online. And this would bring us to the end of our messages. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Liana and Cecile. As you can probably tell, a lot of effort and time and energy goes into drafting these messages, and I think you’ve done a wonderful job. So I would like to begin by asking Fabrizio and Sophie what your immediate reactions are, and secondly, for example, are there any messages that might stand out to you? And then secondly, do you see any themes in your engagement with young people in terms of what tends to matter the most or is it always very varied?
First of all, I would like to thank everybody. I think that that’s the most extraordinary thing, is to listen to you. And I think we should be listening to you more than we do. not only in this framework, but also in the framework of developing policies at the EU level. I mean, we’re lucky enough that the president, Uzo van der Leyen, has instituted youth dialogues for every policy area in the union and that each member of the college does have dialogues with youth representatives on a yearly basis. So that is my strong suggestion, is that we should link this type of dialogue with those types of dialogues because we need your voices to be heard further than they are already heard.
Now, as to the exact messages, it is virtually impossible to go through all of them because you cover the entire spectrum of the digital transformation. What I find reassuring is that many of these messages, have been concerns of ours. It doesn’t mean we have solved them at the EU level, but it means that we have started a discussion towards identifying what is the best policy response, both in AI and both in international outreach. Because it’s all very well and good that we managed between 27 member states to pass laws that abide or help us into a human -centric digital transformation. The difficulty is, of course, to make sure that those principles and those rights which are enshrined in the Charter and indeed in the Declaration of Rights and Principles for the Digital Transformation has some influence and is actually followed elsewhere and hopefully at global level.
And in that regard, I think we’ve gone one step further. And we have targeted the implementation. We have targeted the empowerment of communities. And I think that is one way to go about it. There will be that approach of empowering communities that you will see in the tech sovereignty package coming up. and there is definitely one in AI policy. And we were comforted by the fact that in Weiss’s PLUS20 review that was concluded in December in New York, the multi -stakeholder model held. And why should we be celebrating just the fact that it held? Because there are a lot of pressures against it and there is a lot of bias that is spreading. There’s a lot of misinformation that is spreading.
There’s a lot of Internet shutdowns that are occurring. And your voices, because you are the people that we need to convince for the next steps, need to be strong enough. And so our job now is to make sure that we multiply its impact.
Thanks a lot. That’s very clear. Sophie, over to you.
Bonjour, good afternoon everyone I’m very pleased to do the link between the Strasbourg second messages and the Brussels second messages because indeed as Thomas Schneider was recalling Strasbourg hosted twice already Brussels twice Eurodig and it’s a great pleasure and privilege for the Council of Europe to continue accompanying Eurodig so on the messages the first important thing is that on the youth DIC messages I should say it’s great that they exist it’s great that they are there as a strong reference congratulations for the hard work in delivering them and presenting them today so indeed you mentioned I’m here also on the legitimacy of the intergenerational discussion having been last actually in Eurodig 10 years ago so so I’m very happy to be back and thank you for this invitation What strikes me the most with the youth messages is how they demonstrate a very deep awareness of the power structures that are actually behind Internet, behind the AI ecosystem.
So you’re very concretely asking with those messages who governs technology, who benefits from it, who bears the cost, and who is left vulnerable. And there’s a strong focus on vulnerability. And several themes illustrate this. First, a very strong concern about surveillance, about data ownership. You record it and algorithmic governance. And you repeatedly call for ethical data governance and protection against profiling checks on state surveillance. If I may there, come to the legal standards that you were also recalling. Thank you. We have global standards that are applicable in that context. It’s key to remind them. It’s key to actually build on them and to ensure enforceability of those standards. So I can mention our cybercrime convention, but I can mention also our data protection convention.
So when you call for an independent agency looking into surveillance, please do use the standards that are there and that actually have to be enforced. You have grown up fully inside the platform economy and understand that the digital rights are not abstract legal principles. They shape everyday life. They shape employment. They shape education and democratic participation. You’ve heard before about the new democratic pact for Europe that the Council of Europe established. It’s working on. And clearly this contribution and how to respond to those challenges is also key. So clearly what is, I think, striking with those messages is that there is a mature understanding of the fact that we’re not dealing solely with technological issues, but the social issues behind them.
So you connect the problematics to labor rights, to discrimination, children’s well -being, accessibility, and very interestingly, you link disparity with the effect of the localization of the data centers and the environmental impact of that. So congrats. It’s really important that they’re also used in the global context. In the context of the Internet governance, we’ve heard about, you know, wanting to reaffirm open, global, accessible Internet and the role of Europe and your role as youth figure, and that is essential.
thank you sophie and thank you for britsy as well those are very clear and useful messages um i would now like to move on actually to liana and cecile i wanted to ask how did you find this sort of collaboration behind drafting the messages because as we’ve said time and time again this is pan -european we all come from different backgrounds and that’s sort of the whole point of it right um and coming from different backgrounds usefully means that you have very different perspectives so i wanted to know was it hard to find a rough consensus which is what we look for um near the end of the drafting processes and are were there any large discrepancies or disagreements that you encountered and and where were they and why did you have them
well as you said we do come from very different backgrounds so of course we encountered a lot of differences when we started with the messages it was already based on something that we discussed before and we all agreed that it was a very different thing and we all agreed that it was important topics and then we wanted to narrow them down but this process was indeed difficult as we came from also different fields we had a different education so we also were able to think about different stakeholders. And I think the main issue was with the normative questions, because it is so hard to find an approach that everyone is agreeing with, as everyone is thinking about their own perspective and their own stakeholders.
But it was definitely a great exercise, because in this way, you also might realize why your own perspective would not be suitable for a certain approach. However, as you have seen, we managed to narrow them down to what we just said, but some of them still remain a little bit vague, because we just couldn’t find a best approach, and we decided that this would be the initial step to moving forward.
Yes, I think that we can say that, in my opinion, your dig was a bit multi -stakeholder approach in the small, because we gather, as I said, the messages in weeks, like this week, but also before. And for sure, there were times of difficulties to find a common ground, as you already said, between the technical aspect, but also the more legislative one. And for sure, one aspect that has to be continually improved is also finding solutions, because sometimes it’s easy to point to a problem, but finding the solution is more difficult.
Thanks so much. Now back to Fabrizio and Sophie. Sophie, so Fabrizia, you’ve touched on this a bit, but why do you both think it’s so important to have youth -centred co -design of principles and policies, especially in policy and internet governance, digital policy and internet governance? And where do you think the energy and interest of youth voice is best directed? Or is that sort of a contradiction in terms? Are you looking for where maybe, you know, personal perspective comes in, the fact that they’re natives to this kind of technology? What is so valuable about youth? The perspectives comparing to other stakeholders in the multi -stakeholder model.
the development, but everybody from every continent and both sexes and, you know, every type of community needs to be there and they need to find their space because it is indeed a global common good. That baseline has not been reached yet because we have in many parts of the tech development and tech policy vast areas of the world that are simply not reflected in the models, be them AI models, be it the way surveillance is carried out, being the way it is enforced. Laws are enforced in some parts of the world with a specific bias, for instance, based on race and sex. So that is our first threshold. Our second threshold is to make sure that we think of the future as well.
The specificity. The specificity of youth dialogues are both because you tend to, as you rightly pointed out, you tend to be, in fact, very specific in your criticism. or, let’s say, in pointing out to a failure or a gap in whatever is happening. Because you are there, you are witnessing it as it develops live. And I would like to come back to my previous point, which is to link various youth initiatives. It needs to be something on our side, but also on your side, because you have the ability to know what’s happening in TikTok and what’s happening in other platforms and what’s happening in the very, let’s say, institutionalized way in which, for instance, the European Union communicates or the UN communicates and put that together and show us what is it that we are missing.
Why is it that we are not getting the message straight? Why is it that we are not reaching more people? This is a game of numbers. and really a game of numbers, if ever there was one. And so, therefore, if we are able to reach out to you and you are able to reach out to us, the influence will multiply. So I would say it’s not so much per theme, but per numbers.
Frances, you mentioned youth -centered co -design in your question, and so I’d like to come back to that, because it’s not about having those messages and youth participating, having a youth dig on. It’s about really this co -shaping of policies, and I think we’re in a multi -stakeholder format, so more than ever, this is essential. And you also referred to natives, and beyond natives, well, I would say beyond users. of the technologies and Internet because, okay, as we’ve said, you’ve been born, you’ve grown with them, with those technologies, tools, platforms, but you’re also developing them. You’re part of the ecosystem that develop those technologies. And so your awareness of the long -term impact of the technologies is key, and that is the social impact, the educational impact, economical and political impact.
To come back to the co -design, co -management, I would like to do a link with what the Council of Europe has been doing for decades, which is called the co -management. We’ve started solely in the youth sector and gradually have expanded it to what is called the youth perspective. That is that in all segments of the work of the Council of Europe, so our pillars are human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, we’re calling for youth perspective within the organization but also at our member states level. The co -management system is maybe the most elaborated model where there is parity in the decision making. So it would be great to see more of this actually in an internet governance environment.
But beyond that, the youth perspective, and congrats actually to the European dialogue because it’s exactly what it’s delivering, is ensuring that there is a meaningful participation of young people in the process and in the development of the policies. So… Once again, to congratulate actually the Secretariat and Eurodig for making this possible and looking forward to supporting you and Youthdig
Thanks so much. Finally, then, we’re going to wrap up in a bit, but I’d like to maybe ask Cecile and Liana, if you could say one thing to the audience here. About the messages you’ve drafted, about the process you’ve gone into, about the learning you’ve had over the weekend in the Youthdig, what do you think the most important thing to convey? Like what matters to you most? What were you most inspired by? We’d love to hear.
I think for me, what I was more struck by was looking also at the gender -based aspect of AI and digital, because I think as young women, we are more and more expecting threats online, unfortunately. So I think that should be a big issue. And as we know, we are building up on the ban on AI apps that are notifying women or other categories. So this is an important step. And I think what I take also from this initiative is that we have all to be more aware about our data and what is being shared online, because we are in a world where unfortunately there is more and more surveillance and also other threats as data ownership, as already said.
I believe that for me, it was really eye opening these past days to be surrounded by people who are working in different fields or acting in different fields, because This makes you really aware that your own problem or the problem that you encounter in your field is not actually solely your own problem. And different stakeholders also encounter them and have other interests. And it always seems the best way just to collaborate because oftentimes the interests overlap. So I think dialogue is really at the basis, even though it might seem that dialogue doesn’t really lead to action. I think it’s the vital first step that everyone has to take to realize what each other’s interests are and how cooperation can be achieved for anything really that you want to progress with.
And also to really be aware of any new emerging technology, because it seems that it is running faster than we can see. And yes, to be always cautious of what is surrounding you and to not. Remain in your own bubble.
thank you so much and then lastly let’s go to favorites here in sophie do you have any messages for the youth dig community uh maybe about engagement or how to stay in the sphere now they’ve been
uh yes i think that the message that i’d like to pass is you need to care about the rights you have and scream very loudly about the ones you don’t have it’s only if you care will somebody as policy makers do something about it and perhaps have it enforced it’s an it’s a numbers game your voice needs to be representative in rights and as regards principles you care about and that goes to privacy that goes to ai center development it goes to just about every surveillance if you do not shout clearly enough the likelihood of you not being heard will obviously increase. It looks as an evidence statement but never has this been so critical for you to take that stance.
And not only the people here but your multiplying online presence needs to be very strong. Okay?
Yes, exactly. Exactly. I think you have to be adamant, very strong, very blunt. And that was one of the points I made on enforcing the standards and the data protection, the right to privacy one. Use the mechanisms that are there. So we’re happy that in the youth delegation we have two advisory council representatives, Adam and Alessandro, that are actually my boss thanks to the co -management system. Because they decide like governments decide. And also, use mentoring to ensure a legacy and a continuity in your action, because it’s great that we have newcomers constantly, but what I really like, actually, it’s the link with the previous ones that have been involved, so that this really sustains a continuity in your action.
Amazing. I would like to thank you all for such an enlightening conversation. Thank you so much for joining us. And please join me in giving a round of applause.
“Frances Douglas-Thompson explained that YouthDig is the youth dialogue on internet governance, a pre-event to EuroDIG that brings together young people from across the pan-European region who are interested in internet governance and digital policy.”
This is consistent with descriptions of YouthDIG as a youth-focused platform linked to EuroDIG and designed for committed young participants in internet governance discussions [S36].
“She said participants work together through intensive discussion and debate to draft youth messages for advocacy, and that each edition is organised by former YouthDig participants, helping create continuity and maintain a network of young people active in internet governance.”
The knowledge base supports the continuity and alumni-led element: YouthDIG is described as involving programme alumni in participant selection and as aiming to create a sustained platform for ongoing engagement, not just a one-off event [S36].
“Stephanie Teeuwen said the organisers had hosted webinars in advance to introduce newcomers to the internet governance ecosystem and key institutions before participants came together in Brussels.”
The knowledge base does not specifically verify YouthDIG 2025 pre-event webinars in Brussels, but it does show that internet governance webinars are a well-established capacity-building format used by Diplo and related processes to brief newcomers on current issues and institutions [S35].
“Once onsite, the first day focused on internet governance and artificial intelligence, including AI’s effects on online experience, online child safety, and the use of AI in public services.”
The AI focus aligns with broader internet governance agendas in the knowledge base, which note that AI has become a major current topic and that governance discussions increasingly centre on human-centric digital policy concerns [S92]. The reference to online child safety also fits wider internet governance concerns, though the source base here provides only limited direct detail on that subtopic [S94].
“She added that discussions also covered AI in healthcare, AI’s environmental impact, and the role of AI in schools.”
The knowledge base provides strong thematic support for two of these examples: AI in healthcare is covered in detail [S97], and AI’s environmental impact is also well documented [S98]. No direct corroboration is provided for the claim about AI in schools.
“Somaya Louhmadi described the second day as focusing on threats to democracy and digital harms, including deepfakes and scenarios involving AI-rigged elections.”
This is consistent with broader documented concerns that AI can be misused to spread disinformation via deepfakes and influence electoral processes [S95].
“They then moved through sessions on state surveillance and privacy from a human rights perspective, internet shutdowns and their consequences, and the role of cookies in shaping website use.”
The knowledge base supports the privacy and human-rights dimension of this claim, noting longstanding internet governance debates around surveillance, data protection, and the right to privacy [S93]. It does not specifically confirm the internet shutdowns or cookies sessions.
“She also highlighted a session hosted by EURid and a public speaking session intended to help participants feel comfortable presenting their messages and taking part in EuroDIG discussions.”
The public speaking and presentation-preparation element is supported by the description of YouthDIG as stressing capacity building and equipping young participants to present their views confidently in dialogue with policymakers [S36].
“Sabaeta Zeneli emphasized that the programme was both intense and intentionally diverse, with participants coming from a wide geographical range and from different academic and professional backgrounds.”
The knowledge base supports the programme’s selective and engagement-focused character, noting that participants are chosen through a meticulous process aimed at identifying those strongly committed to internet governance issues [S36]. It does not independently verify the specific country range cited in the report.
The discussion showed broad agreement on the value of YouthDig as a capacity-building and entry mechanism into internet governance, on the need for stronger youth participation in actual policymaking, and on the centrality of rights-based concerns such as surveillance, privacy, inclusion, and AI governance [2-6][17-19][20-24][58-59][98-110][120-140][171-182].
High consensus. Speakers from organizers, youth participants, and institutional respondents largely reinforced one another rather than disagreeing. This suggests a shared policy narrative: youth participation is not peripheral but necessary for legitimate, future-oriented digital governance.
The discussion showed low direct conflict and high substantive alignment. Most speakers agreed on the importance of YouthDig, youth inclusion, digital rights, and the seriousness of issues such as surveillance, AI harms, child protection, and inclusion [17-19][58-59][96-110][120-140]. The main disagreements were procedural and strategic: how to turn diverse views into actionable messages, whether to build new institutions or enforce existing ones, and whether youth impact depends more on detailed policy content or on large-scale visibility and mobilization [79-81][127-132][143-149][164-170][202-204].
Low to moderate. The disagreements were mostly constructive and centered on methods rather than ends. This suggests a strong shared foundation for collaboration, but also indicates that future work will need clearer pathways from problem identification to policy design, especially on surveillance governance and on the institutional form of youth participation.
The most impactful comments collectively transformed the session from a descriptive report on YouthDig into a richer discussion about power, governance, participation, and action. Early remarks from the youth representatives introduced substantive policy concerns, but the discussion deepened significantly when Fabrizia Benini and Sophie Kwasny reframed those concerns as evidence of youth capacity to influence real policy and critique digital power structures. Comments by Liana Vasil and Cecile Vicquery then added important realism by showing how difficult consensus-building is in practice, which made the YouthDig process itself appear as a microcosm of multistakeholder internet governance. In the final phase, the tone shifted again toward empowerment and mobilization, with senior participants urging youth not only to participate but to demand rights, use institutional mechanisms, and sustain their influence over time. Overall, these key comments shaped the discussion into a progression from presentation, to validation, to structural analysis, to a call for continued youth agency in digital governance.
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
