After Geneva, AI Governance Must Confront the Trust Deficit | TechPolicy.PressPerspective<br>After Geneva, AI Governance Must Confront the Trust Deficit<br>Marcelle Chagas / Jul 15, 2026United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres speaks at the opening of the first session of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva, Switzerland, July 6, 2026. (Photo by Lian Yi/Xinhua via Getty Images)
Republish
Share
Last week, Geneva hosted the first session of the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance, the most recent multilateral effort to coordinate international responses to the risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Opening the meeting, Secretary-General António Guterres warned:<br>The computing power, the data and the talent behind the most advanced systems are concentrated in a handful of companies, and in a handful of countries. Most nations — including many developing countries — have had no say in decisions that will shape their futures. When power imbalances are hard-wired into technology, inequality becomes part of the code.<br>The Dialogue, alongside the release of a preliminary report from the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, signals that global governance is advancing from ethical principles toward questions of implementation and institutional capacity.<br>But a significant challenge remains: the Dialogue reaches organizations with the capacity to participate in multilateral processes. It does not naturally reach quilombola communities in Rio de Janeiro who associate AI with surveillance risk, nor low-income families in Albuquerque who learn technology through community libraries. This is not a design flaw unique to the Dialogue; it is a structural trust deficit. Without trust, participation becomes decoration.<br>Two contexts, one structural problem<br>Between 2024 and 2025, Public Knowledge, UnidosUS, and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance conducted focus groups in Denver, Atlanta, New Mexico, and Appalachia. The resulting report, “The Blueprint for Equitable Digital Participation,” documents something that rarely appears in AI debates: what it actually means to live in digital exclusion. Despite the barriers described, participants did not reject technology — they sought digital learning through libraries and trusted local networks, not through government portals or technology companies. Communities had already built the social infrastructure; what was missing was institutional recognition of it.<br>In Brazil, the Territórios Digitais research — conducted by GERATE Lab with Instituto Peregum and UNEafro Brasil in Quilombo Santa Rita do Bracuí and the Multiethnic Indigenous Village Filhos da Terra — reached a remarkably similar conclusion: trust is produced by territorial ecosystems of legitimacy — leaders, educators, health workers, and, in particular, women community leaders. In both cases, the lesson is the same: digital policies fail when they treat communities as end users and ignore the institutional ecosystems that already organize trust locally.<br>Recent initiatives reinforce this shift. The newly created Participatory AI Research Network, inspired by the work of researchers such as J. Nathan Matias and Megan Price, argues that communities, journalists, and researchers should collaborate to produce reliable evidence about AI's impacts. Even so, Latin American territorial methodologies remain largely absent from these emerging international conversations — highlighting the need to diversify not only participation, but the very empirical foundations of AI governance.<br>The community navigator and sociotechnical mediation<br>Both contexts point to a practical answer that AI governance has only begun to recognize: the role of trusted intermediaries embedded within communities. The “Blueprint for Equitable Digital Participation” describes digital navigators — trained community members who help neighbors access connectivity — as one of the most effective interventions for digital equity. In Denver, the housing authority conducted outreach through already-trusted spaces; in Atlanta, without that mediation, the same programs remained invisible. The difference was not the quality of the program — it was the presence, or absence, of trusted mediation.<br>Territórios Digitais names this layer sociotechnical mediation: the relationship between communities and technological systems is never direct or neutral, it is mediated by power, language, and a history of trust. Within quilombola and Indigenous territories, leaders, elders, and educators already mediate relationships between different knowledge systems. When this mediation operates without recognition or sustained investment, communities bear the weight of maintaining trust while external institutions capture the benefits.<br>This does not mean that every territorial leadership is automatically representative or immune to capture — communities also face internal disputes over legitimacy, and recognizing trust infrastructures does not replace...