Lightning Talk #22 Eurodig Inviting Global Stakeholders

Summary

This discussion was a networking session about the 18th edition of EuroDIG (European Dialogue on Internet Governance), which took place in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe. Sandra Hoferichter welcomed participants and explained that this year’s conference returned to where EuroDIG originally began, making it particularly special. The overarching theme was “balancing innovation and regulation” with an added focus on “safeguarding human rights” given the Council of Europe venue.

Thomas Schneider, Swiss ambassador and president of the EuroDIG Support Association, presented key messages from the WSIS+20 review process. He emphasized that the European community strongly supports the multi-stakeholder approach as fundamental to solving digital issues, with regional diversity and National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) being crucial for bringing diverse voices into global processes. The community advocates for making the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) a permanent institution rather than renewing its mandate every 10 years, and calls for the WSIS+20 process to be more open, transparent, and inclusive rather than conducted behind closed doors.

Frances Douglas-Thompson, a YouthDIG participant, highlighted two controversial areas that emerged from youth discussions. First, regarding digital literacy, young people disagreed on how to approach generative AI in education—whether it should be seen as a positive assistant or as something that creates complacency and erodes critical thinking skills. Second, on content moderation, there was significant disagreement between those favoring strict moderation to combat misinformation and violence, and those concerned about freedom of speech and expression. The youth ultimately agreed on improving algorithm transparency so users can better understand why they receive certain content.

The session concluded with audience questions addressing broader challenges in internet governance, including the role of these dialogues during humanitarian crises and how to increase youth participation in policy discussions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS+20 Review and Internet Governance Framework**: Discussion of EuroDIG’s input on the World Summit on the Information Society plus 20 review process, emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, making the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) a permanent institution rather than renewing it every 10 years, and ensuring the review process remains open and inclusive rather than conducted behind closed doors.

– **Youth Participation and Controversial Digital Policy Issues**: Presentation of YouthDIG findings highlighting divisions among young Europeans on key issues like digital literacy curriculum design, the role of generative AI in education, and content moderation approaches – with some favoring strict moderation while others worried about freedom of expression implications.

– **AI Governance and Human Rights**: Focus on artificial intelligence governance challenges, particularly around privacy and data protection in environments where distinguishing private from non-private data becomes increasingly difficult, and the need to safeguard human rights in digital spaces.

– **Democratic Participation and Crisis Response**: Discussion of how internet governance forums can address humanitarian crises, misinformation during conflicts, and the broader challenge of maintaining democratic engagement when people may be losing faith in democratic institutions and seeking simpler answers from authoritarian figures.

– **Practical Youth Engagement Strategies**: Exploration of effective methods for involving young people in internet governance, including financial support for participation, bottom-up rather than top-down approaches, and creating spaces where youth voices are taken seriously in policy discussions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a networking session and report-back from the 18th EuroDIG conference, aimed at sharing key outcomes and messages from the European internet governance community, particularly focusing on WSIS+20 review input and youth perspectives, while fostering dialogue about current digital policy challenges.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional yet accessible tone throughout, beginning with formal presentations but becoming increasingly interactive and engaged as audience questions introduced more complex and sometimes challenging topics. The tone remained constructive and solution-oriented even when addressing difficult issues like democratic backsliding and humanitarian crises, with speakers demonstrating both realism about current challenges and optimism about the potential for continued progress through multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sandra Hoferichter** – Session moderator/facilitator for EuroDIG networking session

– **Thomas Schneider** – Swiss ambassador, President of the EuroDIG Support Association

– **Frances Douglas Thomson** – YouthDIG participant, youth representative

– **Hans Seeuws** – Business operations manager of .eu (operates top-level domain on behalf of the European Commission)

– **Chetan Sharma** – Representative from Data Mission Foundation Trust India

– **Janice Richardson** – Expert to the Council of Europe

– **Audience** – Various unidentified audience members who asked questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Thomas** (different from Thomas Schneider) – Former youth delegate/youth digger from the previous year

– **Audience member from Geneva** – Representative from Geneva Macro labs University of Geneva, active with program committee

# EuroDIG 18th Edition: Networking Session Summary

## Introduction and Context

The 18th edition of EuroDIG (European Dialogue on Internet Governance) took place at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, marking a symbolic return to where the initiative originally began in 2008. Sandra Hoferichter, serving as session moderator, welcomed participants to this 30-minute networking session during the lunch break, designed to share key outcomes and messages from the conference. As Sandra noted, this return to “where it all started” made the event particularly special.

The overarching theme focused on “balancing innovation and regulation” with particular emphasis on “safeguarding human rights,” reflecting the significance of hosting the event at the Council of Europe. Although Council of Europe representatives were unable to attend due to the Deputy Secretary General having another mission, the session proceeded with its planned agenda.

This networking session served multiple purposes: reporting back on conference outcomes, sharing key messages for the WSIS+20 review process, presenting youth perspectives through YouthDIG findings, and fostering dialogue about contemporary digital governance challenges. The discussion brought together diverse stakeholders including diplomats, youth representatives, business operators, and civil society experts.

## WSIS+20 Review Process and European Messages

Thomas Schneider, Swiss ambassador and President of the EuroDIG Support Association, presented the European community’s key messages for the World Summit on the Information Society plus 20 (WSIS+20) review process. These represent “messages from Strasbourg number two” – the first being from 2008 – continuing EuroDIG’s tradition of producing consolidated input from the European internet governance community. Notably, EuroDIG invented the concept of “messages” that has since been adopted by the global IGF and other local IGFs.

The input gathering process was facilitated by Mark Harvell, a former UK government member, and the messages will be delivered to Suela Janina, the Albanian permanent representative who serves as European co-facilitator for WSIS+20.

The European community strongly advocates for maintaining and strengthening the multi-stakeholder approach as fundamental to solving digital issues. Schneider emphasized that regional diversity and National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) play crucial roles in bringing diverse voices into global processes, ensuring that internet governance remains inclusive rather than dominated by any single stakeholder group.

A significant recommendation concerns the Internet Governance Forum’s institutional status. The European community calls for making the IGF a permanent institution rather than continuing the current practice of renewing its mandate every ten years. This change would provide greater stability and enable better long-term planning. Schneider noted that the IGF has evolved beyond its original focus on “critical internet resources and domain names” and now serves a “decision-shaping” rather than “decision-making” role.

Regarding the WSIS+20 review process itself, there was strong emphasis on ensuring it remains open, transparent, and inclusive rather than being conducted behind closed doors among diplomats. The messages also address contemporary challenges including AI governance, human rights protection in digital spaces, and data protection challenges.

## Youth Perspectives and Digital Policy Controversies

Frances Douglas Thomson, representing YouthDIG participants, presented excerpts from the youth messages, focusing on two particularly controversial areas that emerged from their discussions. The YouthDIG programme brought together young participants who met online the month before EuroDIG, then worked together for three days during the conference to develop their positions.

Thomson revealed that these controversial areas surprised organizers with the level of disagreement among youth participants, challenging common assumptions about youth consensus on digital issues and highlighting the complexity of generational perspectives on digital governance.

### Digital Literacy Curriculum Debates

The first controversial area concerned digital literacy curriculum development, specifically “who decides on the syllabus for digital literacy and how do these issues get presented,” particularly regarding generative AI in educational contexts. Youth participants were divided between those who view AI as a beneficial educational assistant that can enhance learning experiences and those who worry about creating dependency and eroding critical thinking skills.

This disagreement reflects broader questions about educational governance and how emerging technologies should be framed for young learners, suggesting that educational approaches may need to acknowledge multiple perspectives rather than presenting singular narratives.

### Content Moderation: Balancing Safety and Freedom

The second major area involved content moderation approaches, where youth participants were fundamentally split between strict safety measures and freedom of expression concerns. One group supported comprehensive content moderation including warnings, banning, and flagging of harmful content, while another group viewed such measures as threats to free speech.

However, youth participants found common ground in supporting algorithmic transparency. Their compromise solution focused on increased user understanding of “why is the algorithm feeding me this” with options to access “the other side” or “other sources.” This approach emphasizes user empowerment through information rather than content restriction.

### Social Media Regulation Approaches

When asked by a former youth delegate whether the goal should be to “lessen time spent online for youth” or ensure they see the “right type of stuff,” Frances emphasized focusing on content quality rather than quantity restrictions. She argued that time-based restrictions could limit access to valuable democratic spaces where young people engage with political and social issues, advocating instead for approaches that recognize social media’s potential as venues for civic engagement.

## Business and Technical Stakeholder Perspectives

Hans Seeuws, business operations manager of .eu (operating the top-level domain on behalf of the European Commission), provided insights from the technical and business stakeholder perspective. His participation highlighted the importance of involving infrastructure operators in internet governance discussions, as these stakeholders bring practical implementation experience.

Seeuws expressed particular interest in seeing EuroDIG messages influence decision-makers, especially regarding AI governance, human rights protection, data privacy, and youth involvement in policy processes, emphasizing the need for translating policy discussions into practical implementation.

## Crisis Response and Humanitarian Challenges

Chetan Sharma from the Data Mission Foundation Trust India raised challenging questions about internet governance platforms’ effectiveness in addressing humanitarian crises. He argued that these forums had missed opportunities to build advocacy roles during recent crises, suggesting they could contribute more meaningfully to raising awareness about urgent humanitarian situations.

Frances Douglas Thomson responded by highlighting that EuroDIG does address conflict-related issues through discussions on autonomous weapons, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders to examine how digital technologies are used in conflicts.

Thomas Schneider acknowledged the challenges facing multilateral approaches while suggesting that crises can create opportunities for rethinking governance approaches. He noted that despite government knowledge gaps and engagement difficulties, other stakeholders can continue advancing important policy discussions.

## Democratic Participation and Governance Challenges

An audience member from Geneva raised fundamental questions about fixing internet policy when governments lack technical expertise and multilateral approaches appear insufficient. This prompted reflection on traditional governance limitations in addressing rapidly evolving technological challenges.

Schneider provided context suggesting that current challenges may reflect consequences of previous success, where people may be losing appreciation for the effort required to maintain democratic institutions. He emphasized that maintaining democracy and quality information requires continuous effort, particularly during crises when people may seek simple answers to complex problems.

## Youth Engagement Strategies and Implementation

The session explored practical strategies for expanding youth participation beyond current programs. Sandra Hoferichter emphasized the importance of promoting programs like YouthDIG through schools and social media to increase awareness among young people who might not otherwise encounter internet governance discussions.

A significant challenge identified was providing structural support, including financial assistance for travel and accommodation. Sandra made a specific appeal for support for participants from distant countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, noting the expensive flight costs that create barriers to participation.

Frances emphasized the importance of bottom-up rather than top-down approaches to youth engagement, ensuring young people feel taken seriously in policy spaces rather than being treated as token participants. She highlighted how these dialogues “impact when people go away from these dialogues how they perceive this issue.”

## Regional Diversity and Global Coordination

Throughout the discussion, speakers emphasized maintaining regional diversity within global internet governance processes. The European approach recognizes that different regions may have different priorities and approaches while still requiring coordination on global issues.

This perspective acknowledges that internet governance challenges manifest differently across regions due to varying legal frameworks, cultural contexts, and technological infrastructure. Regional initiatives like EuroDIG provide opportunities for developing contextually appropriate approaches while contributing to global policy discussions.

## Conclusions and Future Directions

The networking session demonstrated both achievements and ongoing challenges of multi-stakeholder internet governance approaches. While there was strong consensus on fundamental principles such as inclusivity, transparency, and multi-stakeholder participation, significant disagreements remain on specific policy approaches.

The revelation of disagreements within the youth community challenged assumptions about generational consensus and highlighted the need for more nuanced approaches to youth engagement that acknowledge diverse perspectives rather than treating young people as a monolithic group.

Sandra concluded the session by encouraging participants to visit the joint booth with other NRIs and to reach out for deeper discussions on the topics raised. The session reinforced that internet governance remains a work in progress, requiring continuous adaptation to address emerging challenges while maintaining commitment to inclusive, transparent, and participatory approaches.

The diversity of perspectives represented – from youth participants to business operators to diplomatic representatives – demonstrated both the complexity of achieving consensus and the value of maintaining spaces for constructive dialogue across different stakeholder communities as the internet governance community prepares for the WSIS+20 review process.

Sandra Hoferichter: So, welcome to this session, nice to see you, I appreciate that you interrupt your lunch break in order to have a short networking session about EuroDIG this year. It was the 18th edition of EuroDIG, the 18th in a row, we have been to a different European country ever since every year, but this year we came back to where it all started from and that made it a very special session. Unfortunately, the Council of Europe will not join us today, they were supposed to be with us here, but the Deputy Secretary General had to go to another mission and had to be accompanied by those who agreed being here on stage today, so unfortunately, but I should submit my best greetings to you. You will see that over there and also at our booth we have our annual messages and as I said already, messages from Strasbourg number two, because messages from Strasbourg number one were drafted in 2008. Just to remind us all, EuroDIG was the forum that invented the concept of messages which was later on adapted by the global IGF and by many other local IGFs as well and if you want to have a hard copy, get one after the session over there, if you want to have two, get two or three, whatever. The overarching theme this year was not super creative because we recycled the overarching theme from last year which was so good, that was balancing innovation and regulation and because we were at the Council of Europe, we added safeguarding human rights. We found that was a good idea and safeguarding human rights is possibly something that is of great importance in these times. Of course, WSIS plus 20 review was one of the focuses in this year’s EuroDIG as it is here at the IGF and of course we have prepared our messages on the WSIS plus 20 review which we would like to briefly share with you but possibly not going too much into detail because this is subject to many other sessions here at the IGF and then we would also like to highlight one element of EuroDIG which is very close to our heart which is youth participation and Frances Douglas-Thompson, got it right, she was one of our YouthDIG participants this year and she has prepared an excerpt of the YouthDIG messages from this year’s YouthDIG. They met already the month before online, prepared for their participation in EuroDIG and YouthDIG. They had three days of hard work, discussion but also fun I hope at EuroDIG and then EuroDIG as the conference was of course also included. And then I hope we have a little bit of ten minutes, it’s only a 30-minute session, ten minutes of exchange with you on either what the two of our speakers, Thomas, our president and Frances, our YouthDIG participant are telling us or we have also prepared some guiding questions, let’s put it that way. But if you would like to engage with us on any other topic, we are very flexible here. And without further ado, I hand over to Thomas Schneider, Swiss ambassador, well known to most of you and president of the EuroDIG Support Association to share the WSIS plus 20 review messages. Thomas, I think you should stand up and I take your seat for the moment. I don’t have a seat, so it’s possibly better.

Thomas Schneider: So we need, you see, we are working on very low resources, so we share almost everything. Okay, so yes, Sandra has already said it. In addition to thematic sessions, of course, the EuroDIG community also cares about the architectural issues about global digital governance. And we had before already like community gathered voices from Europe, not just the EU or the governments or single stakeholders, but already for the IGF improvement discussion for the GDC, EuroDIG collected input. It was facilitated by a former UK government member by Mark Harvell, who is very good at this. And also with him, we spent some time gathering information or views from European stakeholders on the ongoing WSIS plus 20 process, review process. And of course, the outcomes are absolutely surprising in the sense that, first of all, everyone thinks that multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental to successfully finding solutions for all kinds of digital issues, and that the regional diversity, also the NRIs are key to actually bring in as many voices as possible into global processes. So we need global processes, you need regional processes, national processes that then are able to distill everything so that the variety of voices are able to be heard. Of course, the EuroDIG community thinks that the IGF is a fundamentally important platform for multi-stakeholder, global multi-stakeholder dialogue. It’s not a decision-making platform, but it is a decision-shaping platform. We have had many instances where new issues have come up at the IGF or EuroDIG or elsewhere, and then have then picked up by decision-making bodies like intergovernmental institutions, but also by businesses and so on. And of course, the request, what a surprise, is that the EuroDIG community thinks that we should now move from renewing the IGF mandate only on a 10-year basis, which is always difficult than to plan if it goes at the end of the 10-year phase. So it should be a permanent, the IGF should become a permanent institution that you don’t have to renew every 10 years like what is it now. And of course, another key element is that the WSIS plus 20 process should not be happening behind closed doors in New York among some diplomats, but it should be as open, as transparent, as inclusive, and also as diverse as possible. So this is a very clear message and there’s still, things are getting better, but there’s still some room for improvement. And another point is also that the IGF is not just about critical internet resources and domain names like it used to be, mainly, not only, but that was in the focus 20 years ago when it was created, the IGF has moved on, has taken on all the new relevant issues from AI to data governance to other things, and that this should continue, the ITU should be the place where new and emerging issues are discussed and first ideas, first perspectives of common opportunities and challenges should be developed. And just to say that, of course, we had an exchange with the European co-facilitator for the WSIS plus 20 process with Suela Janina, the Albanian perm rep in New York, and she’s also here around, so if you happen to see her, of course, you may also, again, pass on European messages to her. Thank you very much.

Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you very much, and I would suggest we invite for one intervention, one reply to what Thomas just said, or question, whatever you like. I come down with a microphone. You have a microphone? Fantastic. So, please, signal to that lady with a microphone if you would like to speak up. There is only a chance now. Yeah, thank you, Thomas. You said that you’re like… Please introduce yourself.

Hans Seeuws: I’ll introduce myself, Sandra. My name is Hans Seuss. I’m the business operations manager of .eu, so we operate a top-level domain on behalf of the European Commission. You mentioned earlier that you like messages to be picked up and also, in a way, by decision-makers and intergovernmental bodies. What is then one of the key topics that you would like them to see picked up in the very near future?

Thomas Schneider: From this year’s Euro, it’s not just one, it’s several ones. One, of course, that was all over the place was AI governance, human rights aspect data, how to deal with something like privacy in an environment where it’s very difficult to actually say what is private data, what is not private data. Another big… But we’ll get to that, is how to involve young people, not just in a dialogue, but also then in decision-making. You get the key points on a few pages here in this leaflet, of course, also online, so I recommend you to read it. I must have forgotten all the other eight or ten important points, so forgive me if I didn’t mention the ones that you care most. But yeah, it’s basically from human rights economic angles. Geopolitical discussions, of course, were also there, so it covered the whole range. Thank you.

Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you. And as I said, only one intervention, we give another chance after the contribution from Frances. Frances, please, go ahead.

Frances Douglas Thomson: Okay. So, yes. As Sandra rightly said, I am a youth digger, which means that I attended both the sessions online and also the sessions in person. We had three days. They were very youth-led. At all points, it was the youth who were saying what mattered to us, what was pertinent to us, and what were our stances on these issues. And I think in this short amount of time, what I really would like to focus on is where controversies lie. Yeah, I think it’s very easy as a young person to think that everyone in your network in Europe has similar ideas about things like content moderation digital literacy The role of generative AI and whether these things are good or bad and how we should regulate or not regulate Against these issues. And so this is what I am hoping to present today and then get your advice or opinions or Perspectives on these issues. So the first one we had five broad messages. I’m going to focus on two today The first one is about digital literacy. So we all broadly speaking a lot of digital literacy operates, right? So who decides on the syllabus for digital literacy and how do these issues get presented? so for example, do we see generative AI as something that’s necessarily a positive and Wholesale good for society and education. Is it as an assistant or is it actually something that? creates complacency within young students and means the skill sets they leave education with and Not nearly as good as they used to be doesn’t mean that young people aren’t aware of the sources of information like they used to be and the kind of Skills you got in things like history about learning where resources and sources come from is now eroded So we had different ideas about this and we didn’t come to any clear Agreement on what the syllabus looks like but just that the syllabus is incredibly important because the digital space is Increasing in How much it’s going to be part of young people’s lives and you can’t just not be in the digital space And so you must know how to engage with it in a way that’s sensible and be aware of the benefits and the risks So yeah, this is the first thing The second thing is on content moderation and this is what surprised me the most because myself and another sector or contingent of the The group of youth diggers when we were coming to discuss in our discussion and debate spaces before the euro dig Some of us said content moderation is great. We think that things like warnings bannings flagging information that is clearly misinformation is clearly deep fakes or is clearly inciting violence or is Harmful to us this should be very strictly dealt with and then another group said this is very worrying for us and this idea of very harsh stringent content moderation is worrying for freedom of speech freedom of expression and The capacity for young people and all people to be engaging with information of all different types So then this was very surprising to me And so what we did decide on was something that could be very good is if we had Increased how users on places like social media can Better understand where what they’re being given Comes from right so you can press maybe an information thing on the corner of your post and see why is the algorithm feeding me? This so that instead of passively sort of being led into echo chambers on social media You therefore have more of a conscious awareness as to why you’re being fed the things you’re being fed and then you can also Say actually I don’t want to see more of this or I do want to see more of this or even I want to see The other side of this if it’s a political issue or if it’s a fact and you doubt it Then can I see other sources that are also reporting on this topic? So that’s what we all agreed was good But yes we didn’t agree exactly what should be strictly banned and taken off and whether anything should be strictly taken off these online sites is The very point of social media and these online spaces to have anyone saying whatever they want and is that good if you can have a critical awareness and and then also you get into the Is it censorship and who decides what gets taken off and why and is there bias there? So yeah, that was another point that I think was very important the last thing I’d say is I very much agree with Thomas when he says that the European dialogue is a place where policy issues Informed right so decisions are not necessarily made but they are very much informed and the kind of content that I saw at Euro dig was so varied and so informative and things that I wouldn’t have been able to engage with if I hadn’t had gone and Topics that I hadn’t I wouldn’t have been able to Yeah Conceptualize in the way I can now if I hadn’t had been able to attend these panel discussions and being taken very seriously in the Process so yeah that I’m very grateful for and that’s all I would say Thank

Sandra Hoferichter: You very much Francis and I I think we all agree we could feel the enthusiasm that came out of this year’s you stick Cohort and we are very happy that we can offer this element in our program I would ask you know One intervention already, but as I said if you would like to have a greater conversation on what Francis just said Flag us and we will change our plans and continue on this one Please introduce yourself is it it’s on.

Audience: Okay. Thank you. My name is Thomas I’m a former youth delegate or youth digger for last year and I thought what you said about how some of the Conversations that you end up in there are quite interesting and how you didn’t realize that there are so many perspectives You know there’s always a counterpoint to your point and that is the whole point right you’re in a space where you get to debate these things with other engaged youth And then on a tangent point of what you you said Do you see food for youth on online? And it’s the is the overall policy goal to lessen time spent online for youth or do you think it is more about making sure that people or younger people get to see the Right or wrong type of stuff online Do you wanna make clarification point on that?

Frances Douglas Thomson: I think that’s a very good question So I guess you could rephrase it to be like is it quality or quantity? I think that the there was a session yesterday about social media bands, and this is also something we talked a lot about At the Euro dig and youth dig should you just get children off social media completely so that it’s zero time spent on these apps I think when we think about information pollution and What content you are consuming obviously the quality matters? That’s the well yeah the first thing, but what matters more. I mean I also think there’s a lot of youth voices I don’t necessarily. I think I’d be quite happy completely off social media to be honest and I Have very limited interaction with social media, but when we were talking with the youth voices What was so good about the youth dig was that you also met a lot of people who said that’s a crazy thing for much older Politicians and policymakers to be deciding on my behalf that suddenly I as a 15 or 16 year old Now I’m not allowed into these spaces which are meant to be open accessible and free democratic spaces and even if you know the content Isn’t always good some of the good content is life-changing for some people so of course you have this argument I think that was it’s a very good example of an issue that is yeah So multifaceted and has people who feel very strongly who are young about this issue And so yeah, I think It’s difficult to just say people can’t go on it at all I think time spent on it does matter because it’s an opportunity cost you’re not spending time doing other positive things like being outside

Sandra Hoferichter: But yeah Any other intervention or question in the back, please introduce yourself as well

Audience: I m from Geneva Macro labs University of Geneva also active with the program committee in junior where Geneva people say multilateralism is dead and At the same time we see governments Often don’t have a clue. So how can we fix this if we leave? internet policy Internet policy Technology regulation to governments that don’t want to talk to each other neither to us. How how can we fix? The issues that we are have at hand

Sandra Hoferichter: Thomas that’s possibly something you could take on

Thomas Schneider: Yes, first of all, I need to say that I’ve been working for the Swiss government now for 22 three something like this years and In all these years there has always been whenever we talked with the foreign ministry, but Geneva the UN is in a crisis It is in it has never not been in a crisis But of course, that’s one thing. But of course the crisis now is slightly more serious than earlier perceived crisis is so so but and And then it may sound silly but every crisis can also be a chance It can it may force you to to rethink a few things to try and do things differently so crisis, yes, but I wouldn’t say it’s dead or crippled or something and Things may change quickly. Also if a few people that are powerful in the world change sometimes Things can change but I think it is now also the time and this is also part of the UN 80 discussions the 80s anniversary What does not work How can we try and make things work? But of course if member states don’t agree Then they will not let the UN or the IT or whatever the UNESCO do anything and this is and this is why it is Even more important that in these institutions you do not just have the governments But you have the other stakeholders you have civil society business academia because they want things done And if their own government is maybe not constructive for whatever reason actually Constructive for whatever reason actually businesses and people are more constructive than Governments that have their own interest I say this as a strong defender of direct democracy because we have we have made not such bad experiences in in my country Yeah, and who knows what of course politicians are not most knowledgeable in average about digital issues But they are neither on space issues or on how a car works and so on and so forth It is important that if they are not Experts themselves that they have experts that they listen to and that the society discusses these things I hope that answers at least partially what you Asked thing.

Sandra Hoferichter: Are there any other fantastic

Janice Richardson: Yes, Janice Richardson, expert to the Council of Europe, at the Council of Europe we believe that active participation especially of young people is really important. Do you have any great ideas to get a lot more young people involved in the type of work that you’re now involved in?

Frances Douglas Thomson: That’s a very good question. I think Youthdig is an incredible example of youth participation and achieving. I would say that something like Youthdig takes people who might not necessarily have a background in something like internet governance, provides the opportunity for them to be involved because it provides financial assistance for travel, for accommodation, it provides a space for open dialogue that isn’t top-down. And I think that’s important because if you want youth to be able to clearly express what they feel and their opinions and their perspectives, then it can’t be top-down, it can’t be someone dictating to you what you ought to think or how you ought to feel about this or how you should conceive of these ideas. It should be bottom-up basically. And I think as well another way to involve youth is not only through something like Youthdig, but also just making sure that young people feel like they’re taken seriously in these spaces. And that’s what I found so surprising about Eurodig and Youthdig was that at all times our questions were very much always answered, taken seriously, even outside of the conferences and panel discussions, conversations with older experts were encouraged, and it all felt very, very nice. So I think schemes like Youthdig, making sure that it’s feasible in terms of economics, and then also making sure that this gets out there, right? So that people who have gone post it on LinkedIn so other people can press on it, sharing it through schools, just making sure that there’s an awareness there of these kind of schemes. And maybe also encouraging young people and giving them spaces in things like the European Parliament, so that they can understand how the Parliament works, how commissions work, how councils operate, and therefore know that these kind of topics are being talked about and have a seat at the table.

Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you. There’s a gentleman in the back.

Chetan Sharma: Hello. Am I audible? This is Chetan Sharma from Data Mission Foundation Trust India. I’d like to apologize at the outset. Some of the questions that I’m asking are very frank. In this age and time when we’re seeing one humanitarian crisis unfolding after another, one crisis just right next door from where we all are assembled in Ukraine, the Internet policy dialogues or the governance platforms have, what has been their role and contribution? I’d like to just know. As opposed to even some of the mainstream media that have played a humongous role in sensitizing communities and raising up the deep humanitarian issues, we had this opportunity to build an advocacy. We had an opportunity to build opinions because this is a much closer community. Sadly, it has not happened. Now, if this was not enough, then we seem to be not even receiving proper information or the information which is transparent, accountable. We have said, no, no, this seems to be fake, AI generated, et cetera, et cetera. This is happening even on many of the social media and on the Internet platforms. I’d like to ask, sir, what is your view on this and how is it that we can prevent further degradation which seems to be exaggerating the humanitarian crisis we already are in? Thank you.

Sandra Hoferichter: Is that question directed to one specific, to Francis or to Thomas? To Thomas or to both?

Thomas Schneider: Yes, it’s quite complex, the development that you describe, if I understand it correctly. And the answer is probably also not an easy one. In the end, yeah, we do have tendencies. I’ve been talking to Wolfgang Kleinwächter actually at the IJF in Riyadh. This is an old German friend of mine and he said that, yeah, he’s losing faith in the German people, in the American people, in democracy because you elect people that do not take the truth serious, that say A, today and B, tomorrow and so on. To some extent, we may be a little bit also victims of a success in particular here in Europe where we had some decades of peace and after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we maybe thought that now everything will be fine. But then people realized that working in a free competitive society is also hard. You have to struggle every day for paying your bills, for, I don’t know, competing with other people and so on. And you have lots of information, lots of media. They all struggle, also compete to survive economically. So that maybe at some point in time, people get tired of the freedom because in the Internet you could check everything where it comes from. But this takes time and if you work hard and are tired in the evening, you don’t want to be a good democrat and spend three hours informing yourself actually. So to some extent, it is a period where people maybe start forgetting the value of democracy, but also what it means, the work, the effort that it needs to keep a democracy, keep free and quality media alive. And then they are sometimes inclined to follow people that tell them, just follow me, you don’t have to worry, I will sort everything out for you, now it’s your turn. But I’m also a historian, so maybe I hope, and it has happened in the past, when people start believing simple answers by people that give them simple answers, things normally get worse. Unfortunately, some people suffer in these periods, but at some point in time people realize that the simple answers may not be the right ones. And then they will start fighting again for democracy, for freedom of expression, for quality information. So things come and go in ways and I think that also the gathering like this is, we just need to keep on fighting. We need to keep on fighting for good governance, for fairness in societies, for a public debate. Other people fight for other things. We should together fight for a society which is fair and balanced and free. So the fight will never stop. Those that think that once you have achieved something you can stop fighting, you will lose it because there are others that fight against it. So that’s a little bit of my recollection.

Sandra Hoferichter: You are not audible, gentlemen, without a microphone. And I must also say we are in the red timer now. Possibly you don’t see the timer, but I see it. We have a couple of seconds. Yes, so we give the last word to you. How are you perceiving the world and how do we turn it into a good one again? That would be interesting to hear.

Frances Douglas Thomson: Well, I just wanted to say on the topic you raised about humanitarian crisis and even war and conflict, at the EuroDIG there were quite a few sessions about conflict. And they were very important for policymakers, the private sector, and also NGOs and governments. We talked about drones, autonomous weapon systems. We had perspectives from the private sector about why they thought these should be used. We also had NGOs saying why there are serious ethical concerns and the use of these drones in current contemporary warfare. That was very important. Because then you have people of all different stakeholders discussing these issues and sharing why they are so concerned and the reasons for that. Then we had one about Internet and using Internet or taking away a country’s Internet and using that as a form of attack. This is weaponizing the Internet or lack of access to it and how that affects people and how that can create very bad humanitarian crises. And we also had one about, as you say, the proliferation of misinformation about war and humanitarian crises and how we can deal with that, how we can put in place regulation, different ideas about how people can come to know this image is fake and this is not actually a real picture from the scene. This is something that’s been generated. So I think these dialogues are very important for addressing issues in humanitarian crises and for addressing issues in conflict zones. And I don’t think that this is just a discussion. I think it actually impacts when people go away from these dialogues how they perceive this issue. So I think it does make a real change.

Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. Thank you very much. I feel it’s time to wrap up. We graciously got two more minutes of which one is already over. And since I have the mic, I have to say examples like Francis, but there are many others that are really the ones that are making us proud that we are actually going in the right direction in engaging youth. Just to let you know, for our call for application for youth, it was responded by 428, 29 applications. We had really struggled this year of inviting them, of paying the travel costs in particular for youth participants from countries that are a bit further away from Strasbourg, like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, because flight tickets are just out of the space. So if there is someone in the audience who has deep pockets, it’s good invested here. It’s good invested in the next generation. So please help us to continue bringing up programs, not just the EuroDIG, but also in particular the YouthDIG. And thank you very much. Reach out to us. We have a joint booth with the other NRIs if you would like to have a deeper discussion on this. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for digital governance

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental for solving digital issues, with regional diversity and NRIs being key to bringing various voices into global processes

EuroDIG addresses conflict-related issues including autonomous weapons, drones, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of involving multiple stakeholders (governments, civil society, business, academia) in digital governance discussions rather than limiting participation to single stakeholder groups

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Youth participation requires proper support and inclusive approaches

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson
– Janice Richardson
– Sandra Hoferichter

Arguments

Youth participation requires financial assistance, bottom-up approaches, and ensuring young people feel taken seriously in policy spaces

Active participation of young people is important, and programs like YouthDIG should be promoted through schools and social media to increase awareness

EuroDIG was the 18th edition held at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, focusing on balancing innovation and regulation while safeguarding human rights

Summary

All speakers agree that meaningful youth engagement in internet governance requires structural support including financial assistance, proper promotion, and creating environments where young people are taken seriously

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

IGF and similar platforms serve as important decision-shaping forums

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

IGF should become a permanent institution rather than being renewed every 10 years, and should continue addressing emerging issues like AI and data governance

The focus should be on content quality rather than just time spent online, as complete social media bans may restrict access to valuable democratic spaces

Summary

Both speakers view internet governance platforms as valuable spaces for shaping policy discussions and decisions, even if they don’t make formal decisions themselves

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for inclusive, transparent, and participatory approaches to internet governance that go beyond traditional diplomatic or top-down processes

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

WSIS+20 process should be open, transparent, inclusive and diverse rather than happening behind closed doors among diplomats

YouthDIG provides youth-led discussions where young people determine what matters to them and express their stances on digital issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers see internet governance platforms as spaces that can constructively address contemporary challenges including conflicts and crises through multi-stakeholder dialogue

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Despite challenges with multilateralism and government knowledge gaps, crises can create opportunities for rethinking governance approaches

EuroDIG addresses conflict-related issues including autonomous weapons, drones, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Unexpected consensus

Content moderation complexity among youth

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

There are divided opinions among youth on content moderation – some favor strict measures against misinformation and harmful content, while others worry about freedom of speech implications

Explanation

Frances expressed surprise at discovering significant disagreement among youth participants about content moderation, challenging assumptions that young Europeans would have similar views on digital rights issues. This unexpected division led to consensus on algorithmic transparency as a compromise solution

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Democratic resilience requires continuous effort

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider

Arguments

Maintaining democracy and quality information requires continuous effort and fighting, as simple answers from authoritarian figures often lead to worse outcomes

Explanation

Thomas’s historical perspective that democracy and quality information require constant vigilance and effort represents an unexpected consensus point about the fragility of democratic institutions in the digital age

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, meaningful youth participation, and the value of inclusive internet governance platforms. There was also agreement on the need for transparency and openness in governance processes, and recognition that digital governance platforms can address contemporary challenges including conflicts and humanitarian crises.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles of internet governance, with particular strength around inclusivity, transparency, and multi-stakeholder participation. The implications suggest a mature understanding of internet governance challenges and broad agreement on democratic approaches to addressing them, though specific implementation details may still require further discussion.

Different viewpoints

Content moderation approach – strict vs. freedom-focused

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

There are divided opinions among youth on content moderation – some favor strict measures against misinformation and harmful content, while others worry about freedom of speech implications

Summary

Within the youth community, there’s a fundamental split between those who support strict content moderation (warnings, banning, flagging of misinformation, deepfakes, and violent content) and those who view such measures as threats to freedom of speech and expression

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Generative AI in education – beneficial tool vs. harmful dependency

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Digital literacy curriculum is crucial as digital spaces increasingly become part of young people’s lives, but there’s disagreement on how to present issues like generative AI

Summary

Youth participants disagreed on whether generative AI should be presented as a positive educational assistant or as something that creates complacency and erodes critical thinking skills like source verification

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Social media regulation approach – time limits vs. quality focus

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

The focus should be on content quality rather than just time spent online, as complete social media bans may restrict access to valuable democratic spaces

Summary

There’s disagreement between those who support complete social media bans for youth (zero time approach) and those who argue this restricts access to valuable democratic spaces, with the latter favoring quality over quantity approaches

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Role of internet governance in humanitarian crises

Speakers

– Chetan Sharma
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Internet governance platforms should play a stronger advocacy role during humanitarian crises, similar to mainstream media’s contribution to raising awareness

EuroDIG addresses conflict-related issues including autonomous weapons, drones, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders

Summary

Chetan argues that internet governance platforms have failed to play adequate advocacy roles during crises like Ukraine, while Frances counters that EuroDIG does address conflict issues through stakeholder discussions on weapons, internet weaponization, and misinformation

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Youth division on content moderation

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

There are divided opinions among youth on content moderation – some favor strict measures against misinformation and harmful content, while others worry about freedom of speech implications

Explanation

Frances explicitly states this was ‘what surprised me the most’ – she expected youth to have similar views on content moderation but discovered fundamental disagreements between those favoring strict measures and those prioritizing freedom of expression

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Diverse youth perspectives on digital issues

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

YouthDIG provides youth-led discussions where young people determine what matters to them and express their stances on digital issues

Explanation

Frances found it surprising that youth in her European network had such different ideas about fundamental issues like content moderation and digital literacy, challenging assumptions about generational consensus on digital issues

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around content moderation approaches, the role of AI in education, social media regulation strategies, and the effectiveness of internet governance in addressing humanitarian crises. Most significantly, there are fundamental divisions within the youth community itself on key digital rights issues.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements reveal deep philosophical divisions about balancing freedom versus safety online, the role of technology in education, and the responsibilities of governance platforms during crises. The unexpected youth divisions suggest that generational assumptions about digital consensus may be incorrect, requiring more nuanced policy approaches that account for diverse youth perspectives rather than treating them as a monolithic group.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for inclusive, transparent, and participatory approaches to internet governance that go beyond traditional diplomatic or top-down processes

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

WSIS+20 process should be open, transparent, inclusive and diverse rather than happening behind closed doors among diplomats

YouthDIG provides youth-led discussions where young people determine what matters to them and express their stances on digital issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers see internet governance platforms as spaces that can constructively address contemporary challenges including conflicts and crises through multi-stakeholder dialogue

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Despite challenges with multilateralism and government knowledge gaps, crises can create opportunities for rethinking governance approaches

EuroDIG addresses conflict-related issues including autonomous weapons, drones, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Key takeaways

EuroDIG successfully demonstrated the value of multi-stakeholder dialogue in addressing digital governance issues, with the 18th edition focusing on balancing innovation and regulation while safeguarding human rights

The IGF should transition from 10-year mandate renewals to becoming a permanent institution to ensure continuity and better long-term planning

Youth participation in digital governance is crucial and effective when properly supported through programs like YouthDIG, which received 428-429 applications demonstrating high interest

Digital literacy curriculum development is critical as digital spaces become increasingly central to young people’s lives, though approaches to teaching about technologies like AI remain contested

Content moderation presents a fundamental tension between protecting users from harmful content and preserving freedom of expression, with transparency in algorithmic content delivery emerging as a potential middle ground

Internet governance forums like EuroDIG serve as important ‘decision-shaping’ platforms that influence policy even when they don’t make formal decisions

The WSIS+20 review process needs to be more open, transparent, and inclusive rather than conducted behind closed doors among diplomats

Maintaining democratic governance and quality information requires continuous effort and vigilance, especially during periods of crisis and political polarization

Resolutions and action items

EuroDIG community formally recommends that IGF become a permanent institution rather than requiring 10-year mandate renewals

Messages from EuroDIG 2024 have been compiled and made available both in hard copy and online for stakeholders to reference and act upon

Continued promotion of YouthDIG program through schools, social media, and professional networks to increase youth awareness and participation

Seek additional funding sources to support travel costs for youth participants from distant countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

Unresolved issues

How to determine appropriate digital literacy curriculum content, particularly regarding the presentation of generative AI as beneficial versus potentially harmful

Where to draw the line on content moderation between protecting users and preserving freedom of expression

How to effectively engage governments that lack technical expertise in digital issues while maintaining multi-stakeholder participation

How internet governance platforms can play a more effective advocacy role during humanitarian crises and conflicts

How to address the broader crisis in multilateralism and democratic engagement that affects digital governance

Who should decide what constitutes misinformation or harmful content, and how to avoid bias in content moderation decisions

How to balance quality versus quantity of online engagement for youth

Suggested compromises

Implement transparency features that allow users to understand why algorithmic systems show them specific content, enabling more conscious engagement rather than passive consumption

Focus on improving content quality and user awareness rather than implementing blanket restrictions on social media access for youth

Combine strict content moderation for clearly harmful content (violence, misinformation) with enhanced user tools for understanding and controlling their information environment

Maintain both global and regional governance processes to ensure diverse voices can be heard while still enabling effective coordination

Yeah, I think it’s very easy as a young person to think that everyone in your network in Europe has similar ideas about things like content moderation digital literacy… And so this is what I am hoping to present today and then get your advice or opinions or perspectives on these issues.

Speaker

Frances Douglas Thomson

Reason

This comment is insightful because it challenges the assumption of generational homogeneity on digital issues. Frances reveals that even among European youth, there are significant disagreements on fundamental digital governance questions, particularly around content moderation and AI regulation. This breaks the stereotype that young people have uniform views on technology.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from presenting consensus youth positions to exploring nuanced disagreements within the youth community. It set up the framework for discussing controversial topics and invited audience engagement on complex issues rather than simple advocacy.

Some of us said content moderation is great… and then another group said this is very worrying for us and this idea of very harsh stringent content moderation is worrying for freedom of speech freedom of expression

Speaker

Frances Douglas Thomson

Reason

This reveals a fundamental tension within youth perspectives on one of the most critical digital governance issues. It’s thought-provoking because it shows that the traditional left-right political divide on content moderation exists even among digital natives, challenging assumptions about youth consensus on platform governance.

Impact

This comment deepened the conversation by introducing genuine complexity and controversy. It moved the discussion away from simple policy recommendations toward exploring the underlying tensions between safety and freedom that define modern digital governance debates.

In this age and time when we’re seeing one humanitarian crisis unfolding after another… the Internet policy dialogues or the governance platforms have, what has been their role and contribution?… We had this opportunity to build an advocacy… Sadly, it has not happened.

Speaker

Chetan Sharma

Reason

This is a provocative challenge to the entire internet governance community, questioning whether these forums are actually making a meaningful difference in addressing real-world crises. It forces participants to confront the potential gap between policy discussions and tangible humanitarian impact.

Impact

This comment created a pivotal moment in the discussion, forcing both Thomas and Frances to defend and contextualize the value of internet governance forums. It shifted the conversation from internal process discussions to fundamental questions about relevance and impact, leading to more substantive responses about how these dialogues address conflict and humanitarian issues.

To some extent, we may be a little bit also victims of a success in particular here in Europe where we had some decades of peace… people maybe start forgetting the value of democracy, but also what it means, the work, the effort that it needs to keep a democracy

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Reason

This comment provides a profound historical and sociological analysis of current democratic backsliding, connecting it to complacency born from success. It’s insightful because it reframes current challenges not as failures but as consequences of previous achievements, offering a nuanced perspective on democratic fragility.

Impact

This response elevated the discussion to a higher analytical level, moving from immediate policy concerns to broader questions about democratic sustainability and civic engagement. It provided a framework for understanding current challenges that went beyond simple technological solutions.

Do you see food for youth on online? And it’s the is the overall policy goal to lessen time spent online for youth or do you think it is more about making sure that people or younger people get to see the Right or wrong type of stuff online

Speaker

Thomas (former youth delegate)

Reason

This question cuts to the heart of youth digital policy by forcing a choice between two fundamentally different approaches: time-based restrictions versus content-based curation. It’s thought-provoking because it reveals the underlying philosophical divide in how we approach youth protection online.

Impact

This question prompted Frances to articulate the complexity of youth perspectives on social media bans and parental controls, leading to a more nuanced discussion about agency, access, and the diversity of youth opinions on their own digital rights.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a routine policy presentation into a substantive exploration of fundamental tensions in digital governance. Frances’s revelation of youth disagreement on core issues challenged assumptions and invited deeper engagement. Chetan’s provocative questioning forced participants to justify the relevance of their work, while Thomas’s historical analysis provided broader context for understanding current challenges. The former youth delegate’s question about online time versus content quality highlighted practical policy dilemmas. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from procedural updates to philosophical debates about democracy, youth agency, content governance, and the real-world impact of policy dialogues, creating a more intellectually rigorous and practically relevant conversation.

What is one of the key topics that you would like them to see picked up in the very near future?

Speaker

Hans Seeuws

Explanation

This question seeks to identify priority areas from EuroDIG messages that should be addressed by decision-makers and intergovernmental bodies

Who decides on the syllabus for digital literacy and how do these issues get presented?

Speaker

Frances Douglas Thomson

Explanation

This addresses the governance and content of digital literacy education, particularly regarding how emerging technologies like AI are framed in educational contexts

Is the overall policy goal to lessen time spent online for youth or do you think it is more about making sure that people or younger people get to see the right or wrong type of stuff online?

Speaker

Thomas (former youth delegate)

Explanation

This question explores whether youth online safety policies should focus on quantity (time limits) versus quality (content curation) of online engagement

How can we fix internet policy and technology regulation when governments don’t have a clue and multilateralism appears to be failing?

Speaker

Audience member from Geneva Macro labs University

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of effective governance in digital policy when traditional multilateral approaches seem inadequate

Do you have any great ideas to get a lot more young people involved in the type of work that you’re now involved in?

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Explanation

This seeks practical strategies for expanding youth participation in internet governance and policy discussions beyond current programs

What has been the role and contribution of Internet policy dialogues or governance platforms in addressing humanitarian crises, and how can we prevent further degradation of information quality that exaggerates these crises?

Speaker

Chetan Sharma

Explanation

This questions the effectiveness of internet governance forums in addressing real-world humanitarian issues and the challenge of misinformation during crises

How to involve young people not just in dialogue, but also in decision-making processes?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

This addresses the gap between youth participation in discussions versus actual influence in policy decisions

How to deal with privacy in an environment where it’s very difficult to say what is private data versus non-private data?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

This highlights the technical and policy challenges of defining and protecting privacy in the context of AI and big data