By Marianna Richardson
– – –
On Tuesday, February 3rd, the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Summit continued into its second day in Washington, D.C., bringing together many of the world’s foremost religious freedom experts and advocates. The G20 Interfaith Forum attended the summit, sponsoring a booth and a side session on G20 priorities. This blog is Part 2 of a three-part summary covering the second day of the conference, and it covers a session on technology as a tool of oppression featuring Mirian Lexmann, Levi Brode, Bill Marczak, and Samandar Hindami.
Technology as Oppression & the Need for Democratic Responsibility
Technology is being used as a new tool of oppression. Miriam Lexmann opened the session by warning that digital technologies—especially AI and facial recognition—are increasingly used to undermine human dignity. She cited China’s surveillance systems, social‑credit scoring, and censorship of religious content as examples of technology enabling repression. She noted that some of these tools were developed through partnerships with Western institutions, underscoring the need for accountability.
Lexmann also highlighted global misuse of deepfakes, blasphemy accusations, and AI‑driven dress‑code enforcement in countries such as Iran. She stressed that democratic governments and tech companies must take responsibility for preventing their innovations from becoming instruments of persecution.
Lexmann’s remarks underscored that freedom cannot exist without responsibility. She warned that early cooperation between Western and Chinese institutions—often driven by naivety or profit—helped build technologies now used for repression. She urged democratic governments and private companies to recognize the consequences of their innovations and to work together to ensure that technology serves human dignity rather than undermining it.
Authoritarian Technology & the Suppression of Religious Freedom
Speakers emphasized that modern technology has enabled methods of repression used by authoritarian regimes and extremist groups to become far more extensive. Terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram in Nigeria now coordinate attacks through social media, targeting Christian communities and amplifying fear. Even within democratic societies, digital tools are being used in ways that threaten freedom of belief. A Finnish political leader, Päivi Räsänen, is facing legal charges for quoting the Bible on social media, raising concerns that content‑removal requirements under EU law could have broader implications for religious expression across Europe.
The panel stressed that while it is difficult to pressure authoritarian governments or violent groups, democratic states and technology companies must strengthen accountability and uphold their responsibility to protect fundamental freedoms.
Digital Repression Across Borders: Example from Tibet
Tsela described how digital repression extends beyond China’s borders. Inside Tibet, any sensitive content is shadow‑banned, while influencers are encouraged to promote sanitized “good news” narratives. Algorithmic bias and short‑form videos distort global perceptions of Tibet, suppressing evidence of abuses. Chinese authorities also use surveillance technologies to track Tibetans abroad. One example involved a Tibetan religious figure who refused to host a Chinese‑appointed “fake” Panchen Lama; after fleeing to Vietnam, he was detained and died in custody, a tragedy enabled by advanced tracking systems.
Minority Religious Persecution: Example from Bahá’ís in Egypt
Samandar Hindami shared his experience of discrimination against Bahá’ís in Egypt. His family members were detained simply for their faith. Bahá’ís face systemic barriers, including refusal of marriage registration, denial of burial grounds, confiscation of property, and constant surveillance. Religious gatherings are monitored, and participants are interrogated or harassed. Because the Bahá’í Faith is not recognized by the state, its followers lack basic civil protections.
A Way Forward: Promoting Transparency & Combatting Online Terrorism
Levi Brode argued that transparency is central to countering these types of digital repression. He highlighted the need for clearer public‑policy frameworks, especially around media institutions that receive significant funding and enjoy special protections. He noted that platforms often demonetize or restrict content without clear conduct rules. He also emphasized supporting groups inside China who work to circumvent the Great Firewall, and he pointed to the need for better mechanisms to track terrorist threats transmitted through online communication systems.
Bill Marczak also advocated for transparency when describing the rapid evolution of disinformation campaigns. Fake news websites now blend fabricated and believable content, while direct‑message campaigns push targeted narratives. With AI tools, a single individual can operate multiple personas, replacing the need for large teams. AI‑generated content is more polished, free of typos, and increasingly effective at social engineering. Meanwhile, funding for researchers and platform moderators is shrinking, making it harder to detect and remove coordinated disinformation. Beyond transparency, Marczak called for greater research investment and accountability to reduce repeat offenses.
– – –
Marianna Richardson is the Director of Communications for the G20 Interfaith Forum. She is also an adjunct professor at the Marriott School of Business at Brigham Young University.