World Environment Day 2025: The Hidden Cost of Our Digital Lives
On June 5th, the world comes together to reflect on how the way we live impacts the environment. We discuss conserving water, cutting back on plastic, and planting trees, but how often do we think about the environmental impact of our digital lives?
The internet is ubiquitous but invisible in a world that is becoming more interconnected by the day. It drives our communications, meetings, and recollections. However, there is a price for this digital convenience: carbon emissions.
A Digital Carbon Footprint: What Is It?
Electricity is necessary for every video we stream, email we send, and file we store on the cloud. But almost 60% of the electricity produced today is generated from burning fossil fuels. The digital world uses an incredible amount of energy, from the energy-hungry data centres that house our information to the networks that send it. Thus, the greenhouse gas emissions produced by our use of digital tools and services are referred to as our "digital carbon footprint."
To put it in perspective:
- Up to 150–200 grams of CO₂ can be produced by streaming an hour-long HD video on your phone.
- A typical email sent can release about 4 grams of CO₂, and more if it contains attachments.
- Comparable to the airline industry, the internet as a whole accounts for 1.5% to 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Why It Matters
Ironically, despite the fact that digital life frequently feels "clean" and weightless, it is backed by enormous, power-hungry infrastructures. Additionally, our online activity is growing at a rapid pace as digital penetration increases. Plus, with the advent of AI and big data, the demand for energy is only going to rise. The harms of air, water, and soil degradation, and biodiversity loss are already upon us. It's high time we reconsider how we use technology on World Environment Day.
What Can You Do?
The good news is that even minor adjustments to our online conduct can have an impact.
🗑️ Clear out your digital clutter by getting rid of unnecessary emails, apps, and files.
📥 Unsubscribe from mailing lists that you no longer use.
📉 When HD is not required, stream videos with lower quality.
⚡ Make use of energy-saving gadgets and disconnect them when not in use.
🌐 Make the move to renewable energy-powered, environmentally friendly cloud providers.
🗳️ Support informed policy by engaging with your elected representatives and advocating for greener tech policies. Knowing your digital rights and responsibilities can help shape smarter policies and a healthier planet.
We at the CyberPeace Foundation think that cyberspace needs to be sustainable. An eco-friendly digital world is also a safer one, where all communities can thrive in harmony. We must promote digital responsibility, including its environmental component, as we work towards digital equity and resilience.
On this World Environment Day, let's go one step further and work towards a greener internet as well as a greener planet.
Related Blogs
%20(1).webp)
Introduction
Bumble’s launch of its ‘Opening Move’ feature has sparked a new narrative on safety and privacy within the digital dating sphere and has garnered mixed reactions from users. It was launched against the backdrop of women stating that the ‘message first’ policy of Bumble was proving to be tedious. Addressing the large-scale review, Bumble launched its ‘Opening Move’ feature, whereby users can either craft or select from pre-set questions which potential matches may choose to answer to start the conversation at first glance. These questions are a segue into meaningful and insightful conversation from the get-go and overstep the traditional effort to start engaging chats between matched users. This feature is an optional feature that users may enable and as such does not prevent a user from exercising the autonomy previously in place.
Innovative Approach to Conversation Starters
Many users consider this feature as innovative; not only does it act as a catalyst for fluid conversation but also cultivates insightful dialogue, fostering meaningful interactions that are devoid of the constraint of superficial small talk. The ‘Opening Moves’ feature may also be aligned with unique scientific research indicating that individuals form their initial attractions within 3-seconds of intimate interaction, thereby proving to be a catalyst to the decision-making process of an individual in the attraction time frame.
Organizational Benefits and Data Insights
From an organisational standpoint, the feature is a unique solution towards localisation challenges faced by apps; the option of writing a personalised ‘Opening Move’ implies setting prompts that are culturally relevant and appropriate in a specific area. Moreover, it is anticipated that Bumble may enhance and improve user experience within the platform through data analysis. Data from responses to an ‘Opening Move’ may provide valuable insights into user preferences and patterns by analysing which pre-set prompts garner more responses over others and how often is a user-written ‘Opening Move’ successful in obtaining a response in comparison with Bumble’s pre-set prompts. A quick glance at Bumble’s privacy policy[1] shows that data storing and transferring of chats between users are not shared with third parties, further safeguarding personal privacy. However, Bumble does use the chat data for its own internal purposes after removing personally identifiable information from chats. The manner of such review and removal of data has not been specified, which may raise challenges depending upon whether the reviewer is a human or an algorithm.
However, some users perceive the feature as counterproductive to the company’s principle of ‘women make the first move’. While Bumble aims to market the feature as a neutral ground for matched users based on the exercise of choice, users see it as a step back into the heteronormative gender expectations that most dating apps conform to, putting the onus of the ‘first move’ on men. Many male users have complained that the feature acts as a catalyst for men to opt out of the dating app and would most likely refrain from interacting with profiles enabled with the ‘Opening Move’ feature, since the pressure to answer in a creative manner is disproportionate with the likelihood their response actually being entertained.[2] Coupled with the female users terming the original protocol as ‘too much effort’, the preset questions of the ‘Opening Move’ feature may actively invite users to categorise potential matches according to arbitrary questions that undermine real-life experiences, perspectives and backgrounds of each individual.[3]
Additionally, complications are likely to arise when a notorious user sets a question that indirectly gleans personal or sensitive, identifiable information. The individual responding may be bullied or be subjected to hateful slurs when they respond to such carefully crafted conversation prompts.
Safety and Privacy Concerns
On the corollary, the appearance of choice may translate into more challenges for women on the platform. The feature may spark an increase in the number of unsolicited, undesirable messages and images from a potential match. The most vulnerable groups at present remain individuals who identify as females and other sexual minorities.[4] At present, there appears to be no mechanism in place to proactively monitor the content of responses, relying instead on user reporting. This approach may prove to be impractical given the potential volume of objectionable messages, necessitating a more efficient solution to address this issue. It is to be noted that in spite of a user reporting, the current redressal systems of online platforms remain lax, largely inadequate and demonstrate ineffectiveness in addressing user concerns or grievances. This lack of proactiveness is violative of the right to redressal provided under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. It is thought that the feature may actually take away user autonomy that Bumble originally aimed to grant since Individuals who identify as introverted, shy, soft-spoken, or non-assertive may refrain from reporting harassing messages altogether, potentially due to discomfort or reluctance to engage in confrontation. Resultantly, it is anticipated that there would be a sharp uptake in cases pertaining to cyberbullying, harassment and hate speech (especially vulgar communications) towards both the user and the potential match.
From an Indian legal perspective, dating apps have to adhere to the Information Technology Act, 2000 [5], the Information Technology (Intermediary and Digital Media Ethics) Rules 2021 [6] and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, that regulates a person’s digital privacy and set standards on the kind of content an intermediary may host. An obligation is cast upon an intermediary to uprise its users on what content is not allowed on its platform in addition to mandating intimation of the user’s digital rights. The lack of automated checks, as mentioned above, is likely to make Bumble non-compliant with the ethical guidelines.
The optional nature of the ‘Opening Move’ grants users some autonomy. However, some technical updates may enhance the user experience of this feature. Technologies like AI are an effective aid in behavioural and predictive analysis. An upgraded ‘matching’ algorithm can analyse the number of un-matches a profile receives, thereby identifying and flagging a profile having multiple lapsed matches. Additionally, the design interface of the application bearing a filter option to filter out flagged profiles would enable a user to be cautious while navigating through the matches. Another possible method of weeding out notorious profiles is by deploying a peer-review system of profiles whereby a user has a singular check-box that enables them to flag a profile. Such a checkbox would ideally be devoid of any option for writing personal comments and would bear a check box stating whether the profile is most or least likely to bully/harass. This would ensure that a binary, precise response is recorded and any coloured remarks are avoided. [7]
Governance and Monitoring Mechanisms
From a governance point of view, a monitoring mechanism on the manner of crafting questions is critical. Systems should be designed to detect certain words/sentences and a specific manner of framing sentences to disallow questions contrary to the national legal framework. An onscreen notification having instructions on generally acceptable manner of conversations as a reminder to users to maintain cyber hygiene while conversing is also proposed as a mandated requirement for platforms. The notification/notice may also include guidelines on what information is safe to share in order to safeguard user privacy. Lastly, a revised privacy policy should establish the legal basis for processing responses to ‘Opening Moves’, thereby bringing it in compliance with national legislations such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Conclusion
Bumble's 'Opening Move' feature marks the company’s ‘statement’ step to address user concerns regarding initiating conversations on the platform. While it has been praised for fostering more meaningful interactions, it also raises not only ethical concerns but also concerns over user safety. While the 'Opening Move' feature can potentially enhance user experience, its success is largely dependent on Bumble's ability to effectively navigate the complex issues associated with this feature. A more robust monitoring mechanism that utilises newer technology is critical to address user concerns and to ensure compliance with national laws on data privacy.
Endnotes:
- [1] Bumble’s privacy policy https://bumble.com/en-us/privacy
- [2] Discussion thread, r/bumble, Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bumble/comments/1cgrs0d/women_on_bumble_no_longer_have_to_make_the_first/?share_id=idm6DK7e0lgkD7ZQ2TiTq&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1&rdt=65068
- [3] Mcrea-Hedley, Olivia, “Love on the Apps: When did Dating Become so Political?”, 8 February 2024 https://www.service95.com/the-politics-of-dating-apps/
- [4] Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Volman-Pampanel, D., Opuda, E., & Tarshish, N. (2024). ‘Dating Apps: A New Emerging Platform for Sexual Harassment? A Scoping Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 752-763. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162969
- [5] Information Technology Act, 2000 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf
- [6] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics) Rules 2021 https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology%20%28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf
- [7] Date Confidently: Engaging Features in a Dating App (Use Cases), Consaguous, 10 July 2023 https://www.consagous.co/blog/date-confidently-engaging-features-in-a-dating-app-use-cases
Introduction
In April 2026, there was a fascinating example of the risks of generative artificial intelligence (AI). An Indian medical student, aged 22, developed a fake AI-driven influencer "Emily Hart" and leveraged the persona to amass a substantial social media following, engagement and revenue.
It isn't just a case of online fraud. It is a turning point in the nature of influence, veracity, and profitability in the digital world. Ultimately, it poses a troubling question. If users can't tell the difference between real and fake people, then what is online trust?
The Making of a Synthetic Influencer
“Emily Hart” was a young, conservative American nurse. The identity was completely made-up, created with the help of AI programs that produced eerily realistic images, captions and engagement techniques.
The creator did not work with random content. They crafted the influencer to cater to a particular audience. With this in mind, the account was able to target conservatives in the United States who are politically active. It is reported that some of its posts have achieved millions of views, and within a few months, the influencer had thousands of followers.
Monetisation followed naturally. The account owner monetised through subscriptions and the sale of merchandise, reportedly earning thousands of dollars a month with fewer than an hour a day of "work" on the account.
The disproportionate effort and reward is what is interesting about this case. This is a unique example of how people can now use very little capital to create digital personas that attract value.
Why It Worked: Engagement, Identity, and Algorithmic Incentives
The "Emily Hart" case was no accident. It was enabled by three complementary factors.
First, identity targeting was crucial. The persona was constructed to fit a particular worldview and culture, making it more relevant and resonating with the target audience. AI platforms were even deployed to better target and position the persona, and it is suggested that micro-targeting would increase engagement.
Second, it was amplified by algorithms. Social media algorithms favour engagement, sometimes favouring emotional and divisive content. The account exploited this by producing visually appealing content with a strong political message, what the creator called "engageable" content.
Third, the authenticity of the AI content minimised distrust. Generative models have become so realistic that it is hard to tell if images are real or not. Specialists point out that AI increases the credibility and scalability of fake profiles, increasing their influence and reach.
All of this combined to make deception profitable.
The Blurring of Authenticity in Digital Spaces
The "Emily Hart" phenomenon is emblematic of a broader shift in authenticity. Historically, influence was correlated with human personalities who establish trust over time. But AI upends this paradigm by allowing the creation of entirely fabricated personalities capable of mimicking, and even surpassing, human influencers.
This has two immediate consequences.
First, the truth is harder to discern. While platforms might require that AI-generated content be disclosed, there are inconsistencies in how this is policed. Here, the account apparently didn't disclose until it was banned for fraud.
Second, authenticity may not be as important to consumers. Consumers may view content for ideological or emotional reasons, rather than for its accuracy. This indicates that the rise of synthetic influencers is not just a technical problem but also a behavioural one.
The implication is stark. The internet is evolving into a place where authenticity is more important than truth.
Economic Incentives and the Rise of Synthetic Monetisation
The key difference between this fraud and previous ones is the business model. This creator didn't break into a computer or steal personal information. He cultivated an audience and sold attention.
This is an example of how the internet economy works. Attention is a commodity and platforms aim to generate it. AI reduces the cost of creating attention-generating artefacts, enabling people to amplify their reach.
This gives rise to synthetic monetisation. Online characters can be developed, fine-tuned and leveraged as money-spinning assets. In this case, identity is a product.
This raises regulatory challenges. Current laws on fraud, advertising and consumer protection may not be sufficient to cover cases of deceptive content sourced from an identity.
Platform Responsibility and Enforcement Gaps
The role of platforms in enabling such scenarios cannot be overlooked. Although platforms have policy guidelines on disclosure of AI-generated content, these are inconsistently applied.
In the case of "Emily Hart", the account apparently existed for some time before being shut down for scamming. This implies that either the ability to detect such accounts is weak or the tools used are reactive.
The challenge is structural. Companies are rewarded for engagement, and fake accounts can help to achieve this. But they must also promote authenticity and protect against fraud.
This presents a challenge between commercial interests and user safety. Without enforcement, synthetic influencers will become more prevalent.
Policy Implications: Rethinking Trust and Verification
The "Emily Hart" incident highlights a number of policy issues.
First, disclosure policies must be improved and harmonised. Consumers need to be clear when content is generated by AI, and platforms need to police this.
Second, identity verification needs to be updated. Classic forms of verification may not hold up in an era of imaginary characters amassing legions of fans. Alternative digital verification may be needed.
Third, new regulations should apply to synthetic identities. This means clarifying distinctions between art, commerce and fraud.
Finally, digital literacy becomes critical. Consumers need to be equipped to operate in a space where virtual personas aren't always human.
Conclusion
The rise of "Emily Hart" is not just an example of one person using AI to make money. It is a glimpse of a digital revolution.
AI is redefining how influence can be generated, trust can be established and value can be monetized. As digital personas become more realistic, the distinction between human and machine will remain unclear.
The challenge will not be to stop AI being used to generate content. It is to ensure that the systems that mediate our online interactions are able to tell the difference, and that we are not left on our own to sort it all out.
When anyone can make a convincing identity for themselves, trust will no longer be a given. It will need to be engineered, policed and protected.
Executive Summary
Claims are circulating that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a major attack allegedly carried out by Israel and the United States. Amid these claims, a video is being widely shared on social media in which Khamenei can be heard saying, “Beware of fake news, I am alive.” Research conducted by CyberPeace has found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the video being shared is old and that Khamenei’s voice has been altered using artificial intelligence to support a misleading narrative.
Claim
On March 1, 2026, an Instagram user shared the viral video in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is heard saying, “Beware of fake news, I am alive.” The link to the post and its archived version are provided above along with a screenshot.
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found the same video on the YouTube channel of Sky News Australia, published on June 19, 2025. In the approximately 43-minute-long video, the portion used in the viral clip appears around the 10-minute mark.
According to Sky News Australia’s report, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had rejected US President Donald Trump’s demand for unconditional surrender. The Ayatollah regime also warned that any American military intervention would be accompanied by “irreparable damage.” Upon closely listening to the viral clip, we noticed that Khamenei’s voice sounded robotic, raising suspicion that it may have been AI-generated. We then analyzed the video using the AI detection tool AURGIN AI. The results indicated that the viral clip had been generated using artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
Our research establishes that the viral video is old and has been digitally manipulated. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s voice has been altered using artificial intelligence and the clip is being shared with a misleading claim.
