Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: how does violence actually manifest in the digital world? Dr. Yasemin Yazan and Sabine dig into a genuinely unsettling landscape — a wave of AI-generated fake job applications assembled straight from people’s public online data, a “Horst” who cloned a profile just to drop a few nasty comments in the room and vanish, and a look behind the scenes at Wikipedia edit wars where the same recurring anonymous players quietly steer entries back toward whatever version they want the public to see. A guest, Jürgen, raises the sharper underlying question: have digital tools actually changed why people bully each other at all, or just dragged something that was always there up to the surface? The room lands on a genuinely useful distinction for telling harmless trolls from real targeted harm: intent aimed at nobody in particular versus intent aimed at someone very specific.
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
Good morning, the host said, opening today’s room on cyberbullying, with the question: how does violence manifest in the digital world? She thought there was plenty of real-world experience to draw on here, plenty of examples to open up different perspectives, and was genuinely curious what would come together today. As always, everyone was warmly invited to join right from the start and share their first thoughts and impulses, so the room could kick off its reflection together and see where the dialogue would lead. As every morning, the whole session gets recorded and published afterward, so joining counts as agreeing to that. Three small room rules: a profile photo you can be recognized in, a last name, and at least one sentence in the bio. Anyone who’d rather not is welcome to use the chat instead, and she’d pick up on comments from there too.
Sabine opened, after a brief audio hiccup: she’d heard the host mention “cyberbullying” the day before and wondered whether she’d actually heard the term before, so she’d googled it a bit. What struck her was that three terms almost always show up together — cybermobbing, cyberbullying, and cyberstalking — all described, roughly, as online harassment, psychological harassment of people, without much real distinction drawn between them. There’s even a definition on a federal ministry site, but she admittedly hadn’t spent that much time on it. She suspects it barely matters whether you call it cybermobbing, cyberbullying, or cyberstalking — it’s all an unpleasant thing regardless, and often the other person doesn’t identify themselves at all, or does, but it’s still deeply distressing for whoever’s on the receiving end. She notices this a lot with children specifically — there are frequent warnings on TV or elsewhere about photos of children being shared in ways they never wanted, or a half-naked child photographed by a friend from an odd angle, and those images spread fast, everyone dropping likes or comments. She finds that genuinely harsh.
Wonderful, thank you so much, the host said — and indeed, looking at the terminology, there’s barely any real distinction made. She’d brought Wikipedia’s definition along and read it out: the English-derived terms cybermobbing or cyber-mobbing (spelled variously, with or without a hyphen), also internet mobbing, cyberbullying, and cyberstalking, refer to different forms of defamation, harassment, coercion and intimidation of other people or companies using electronic communication tools — over the internet, in chatrooms, via instant messaging and/or mobile phone. This also includes the theft of virtual identities, in order to make insults or conduct business under someone else’s name. And cybermobbing is listed as one of the central dangers of using the internet and new media. So these terms seem to be used fairly interchangeably — essentially describing the same underlying thing in slightly different configurations, just under different labels. Cyberstalking might be worth differentiating a bit more, though, since it carries more of a “digital pursuit” quality that doesn’t necessarily map onto cybermobbing or cyberbullying — it can take on entirely different forms. But cybermobbing and cyberbullying really do seem largely synonymous in most usage. If anyone had found a source drawing a sharper distinction, she’d be curious to look at it more closely. What we do all recognize is that dynamic of leaving comments, maybe leaning toward personal attacks, dropping a quick dislike — we do have the option to leave likes and dislikes — and where does that actually start becoming something more? That’s one question worth sitting with. The second thing she found genuinely interesting in that definition was the inclusion of stealing virtual identities specifically to insult people or conduct business in someone else’s name. That sparked an immediate thought for her: in the past, it might have felt necessary to insult people under someone else’s name, but today that’s often not even needed — you don’t have to steal someone’s identity to do that, you could just create a fake identity instead, unless the actual goal is specifically to appear as that other person, using their profile, in order to target and harm them directly — worth distinguishing those two cases.
And she found the “conducting business” angle interesting too, because of something genuinely new that had just happened — interesting in the sense of what’s apparently emerging in this space right now through technological development. Here’s the situation: over recent years, they’d increasingly seen more and more unsolicited job applications coming in, and had to figure out at some point how to handle that, since not every application can realistically get a personal response. They’d recently found a more systematic way of handling it, rather than just leaving it hanging unanswered. And interestingly, once they started responding to these unsolicited applications with a standardized reply, that led to even more applications coming in. What was striking, and what led them to look at some of these applications more closely, was discovering that these appeared to be bots scraping data about specific people off the internet and generating “fake applications” from it, for whatever purpose — testing email addresses, who knows exactly. That, after the initial responses went out, led to a massive spike in application volume, which of course forced another round of internal discussion about whether to shut the whole process down entirely. Genuine people sending genuine unsolicited applications inevitably get caught in that too — they simply don’t have the capacity to differentiate case by case, so the same rule ends up applying to everyone. And since the company doesn’t actually do open hiring or unsolicited applications by structure anyway, positions are always advertised specifically, so they can’t really accommodate unsolicited applications at all. This connects directly to now having AI-powered tools online that make it even easier to pull information together and generate these kinds of fake applications. A genuinely fascinating development happening right now, she thought — worth talking about what this means for companies, what the interest behind it might be, and what it actually leads to. She wanted to bring that in specifically under the theft-of-virtual-identity angle. Sabine, thoughts?
That’s genuinely wild, Sabine said — you really have to sit with that for a moment. How do you even distinguish anymore what’s real and what isn’t? It’s only a matter of time before there’s someone on the other end of a conversation who isn’t even real either. That genuinely unsettles her a bit. She’d also recently heard that 60% of the internet is the dark net and only 40% is the “real” net — which shook her too, since that would mean more than half of everything is somehow floating around on the black market. She isn’t personally affected by that, not being in that world, but she can imagine it’s very real in the host’s line of work. What do you even take seriously anymore, what do you not take seriously? Do you even still explore unfamiliar paths at all? Because with applications specifically — the host’s company clearly does go down these paths, being quite innovative and AI-forward — but this just keeps compounding, keeps accelerating. It’s genuinely wild.
And it really is getting harder to tell, the host agreed — whether something is a fake profile or not, including on social media. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate or verify. And once it’s not just isolated cases you can shrug off, but something with a certain organization behind it — that’s another example she could open up. Everyone knows the double opt-in process, largely for data-protection reasons, to make sure nobody signs someone else up for a newsletter out of spite or otherwise. That double opt-in process is familiar to most, both as users and as companies, and it’s often been a source of frustration for businesses too, since it adds friction for genuine sign-ups, creating a competitive disadvantage in some cases. But months ago, another situation came up that made her think, actually, the double opt-in process is a genuine blessing here — worth looking at from the positive side too. There are developments now where bots regularly sign up using “stolen” email addresses, generating a constant stream of sign-ups across various lists, some of which are publicly accessible. That means these lists constantly need cleaning up. But the good news is, thanks to double opt-in, these signups don’t immediately land in the newsletter and start getting served content, which would also incur extra cost, since email distribution systems bill based on contact volume and emails sent. Instead, they get filtered out right at that first layer, that first door, because the bot apparently still can’t complete the second confirmation step. Since these are stolen email addresses — addresses that exist but aren’t the bot’s own — the confirmation email never gets clicked, so they never actually land on the list itself, just in the raw contact data, which still needs periodic cleanup. And we’re not talking about one or two sign-ups here — because it’s bots, it’s literally pages of contacts that need clearing out at regular intervals. And then there was the recent situation with “Horst” — who almost certainly isn’t actually named Horst — who set up an identically-named profile on Clubhouse specifically to get into the room, drop a few unpleasant comments in the chat, and disappear again. That profile no longer existed afterward either. So there are genuinely different forms all converging here. The real question is: where does cybermobbing or cyberbullying actually begin, and where does something remain merely annoying without crossing into that territory? A genuinely interesting question worth sitting with. She wanted to invite everyone else in too — this is a massive topic, room for personal experience on one hand, and on the other, some genuinely fresh examples in this specific context worth examining more closely: what does this actually mean, how is the landscape shifting, and what new approaches are required to deal with it?
Sabine, thoughts?
This genuinely unsettles her a bit, Sabine said. Anything you read online, you initially take at face value, think, okay, sounds fine — but really you should be reading it the other way around now, wondering whether this could be faked. Because there’s more fake out there than real at this point. And the speed on the faked side moves so much faster than in the real world too. She finds that genuinely alarming, and wonders how people are actually coping with it — do you become more cautious about things? She happened to attend a cybersecurity workshop the week before, not because she was personally affected, more out of interest, and it was genuinely wild what’s going on there and in what form. Now she understands why so many IT specialists are needed — it was a training institute, and the CEO speaking said he has 160 people whose entire job is IT security. She wasn’t sure how many staff the company had overall, but that number alone was startling, and he showed a live case — not bullying exactly, genuine cybercrime. What struck her even more was that there were also representatives from a state authority present, three of them, and someone from the audience asked, half-joking, whether they even feel comfortable with just three people, since they clearly can’t keep up — and the answer was, yes, that’s just our daily business. Her point being: we need to build up far greater capacity on the defensive side just to keep pace.
Absolutely, the host agreed — resources are a huge topic here. Of course it’s worth exploring how much of this could be automated versus how much still genuinely requires manual oversight, or fundamental policy decisions. But there are so many varied examples across every direction — identity theft, fake stories, fraudulent business dealings. And that’s where, independent of the resource cost, you get into genuine, real damage. That’s exactly the point where it tips into cybermobbing, cyberbullying territory for her — the moment it becomes a deliberate, targeted act of harm, not incidental. That’s the distinction she’d draw: the moment a specific company or person is deliberately singled out, with targeted activity aimed at them, that’s where it slides into cybermobbing or cyberbullying territory, because that’s no longer coincidence. There’s a difference between someone creating a fake profile just to stay anonymous, leaving scattered comments across various profiles without targeting anyone specifically — versus someone creating a fake profile specifically to engage with a targeted person or company in order to cause harm in some way. Whether that’s about the capacity drain we’ve discussed, or something like the review-and-rating rooms they’d had before, where reviews build trust, and they’d discussed how ratings or likes can nowadays be bought too. There’s a flip side there as well — people deliberately using fake accounts to leave negative reviews, targeting a specific person or company to cause damage. That’s something else she thought of in this context, since they’ve experienced this themselves as a company in exactly this form. You really have to think about how to respond and counteract it, and here again we’re back to resources and the costs involved, because a genuinely targeted attack demands genuinely targeted attention in response. The real challenge is that with many profiles, it’s simply not easy to figure out who’s actually behind them, especially once multiple profiles get used instead of just one.
She also wanted to bring in something they’d briefly touched on before: Wikipedia, which has a lot of genuinely wonderful content, but also — there’s even a YouTube channel, something like “Wikimania” or similar, that she’d discovered at some point, run originally by people who’d volunteered as Wikipedia contributors themselves. Wikipedia’s underlying concept, a free encyclopedia where volunteer authors can register and contribute entries on various topics, is a genuinely lovely idea — the thought being that with enough contributors involved, the whole thing gets self-regulated, so if something doesn’t quite fit, other contributors will catch and correct it. A nice idea in principle, but apparently, if you actually take the time to analyze it, you can find certain profiles that clearly, and she couldn’t say whether they’re paid to do this or acting on their own motivation, deliberately target specific public figures whose views don’t fit some agenda, in order to actually defame them — genuine, targeted attacks happening behind the scenes. And the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is you can actually view the entire edit history and discussion logs in the archive, follow along with it yourself. It’s genuinely fascinating what kind of discussions unfold there — different contributors coming together, arguing, say, over whether someone can be labeled a “biologist,” what qualifications that requires, whether there’s documented proof, and so on, with various arguments brought together. But this isn’t just one person — it operates almost like an organized structure behind the scenes, the same recurring players, publicly known by name, against whom apparently nothing is done, or can be done, she couldn’t say — who repeatedly override these discussions and, in the end, steer the entry back to whatever version they wanted presented publicly in the first place. This certainly doesn’t happen with every entry, she wanted to strongly emphasize — overall there’s genuinely great content on there. But when it’s deliberately targeted — and here we’re back at cybermobbing or cyberbullying in essence — when specific people are deliberately targeted to harm them or a company, structures that exist specifically to prevent abuse can be circumvented or restructured in ways that still cause real damage.
Sabine, thoughts on all these different points?
Genuinely concerning, all of it, Sabine said — and it connects back to their mass-media conversation from the day before. In principle, you can manufacture “fake” enthusiasm through media, and ultimately volume often wins — if a fake bot or similar mobilizes more and more voices, and in the end you can’t tell what’s genuine and what isn’t, that clearly drifts in the wrong direction. And she wondered whether this might create a kind of two-tier society too — people like Sabine’s workshop contact, genuinely skilled and professional about handling something like “Horst,” versus other people who encounter this once, get spooked, and simply withdraw from the whole topic entirely, staying behind in some sense.
There are certainly different ways of coping with it, the host agreed. There’d been a chat contribution on trolls specifically — something like “ignore them, they can’t handle that” from one participant. There are various ways of dealing with it on one hand, and on the other, a certain need to simply accept, in a sense, that through all these technological developments, which make certain things easier for certain people, this is simply part of the landscape now. The positive spin, she said, is that awareness of the problem sharpens our senses over time and gives us the chance to become more mindful, more attentive in how we handle these things. That connects to something they’d touched on before too — distinguishing between information and knowledge, not simply accepting everything unquestioned just because it’s presented to us online, but always doing our own research. The same applies to all these profiles and accounts — in many cases, we genuinely don’t know: are we dealing with a bot, a real person, or a fake account? A fake account could mean a real person using a false identity, just an incorrect name attached to a real human — or it could genuinely be bots operating, meaning we’re not even dealing with a human at all in that case, where targeted attacks are still carried out regardless. Sabine, any thoughts on that distinction?
Sabine said she wasn’t sure it made much difference to her in the end — whether it’s a fake account run by a real person deliberately using it differently, or a bot — except for one key disadvantage: a bot can be scaled infinitely. With a fake account, there’s still someone behind it steering it, and their labor isn’t infinitely scalable. The bot is what she finds genuinely alarming. And really, nothing seems to work without bots anymore these days — she’d experienced it herself just the day before with an insurance company, which formally announces upfront that there’s some kind of automated system, not calling it artificial intelligence exactly, but something routing your call before eventually reaching a human. So there’s a threshold you cross, and then you believe you’re talking to a person. But the question is how much longer she’ll even be able to reliably tell the difference. It’s not the AI itself that unsettles her, it’s that she can no longer differentiate at all, doesn’t even know anymore — the burden of figuring out what’s actually true keeps climbing higher, and it feels like being pulled entirely over the edge of her own capacity. But maybe she’s a bit more negative about it — the host clearly sees it more positively, which is also a valid way of thinking. Every time someone tries something on you, you learn something from it, and know better how to handle it next time.
That’s roughly how she’d put it, the host said — as long as you’re not directly harmed by it, you can approach it fairly calmly, look at what the opportunity is, what you can actually extract and learn from it. She found it genuinely fascinating discovering the applications example she’d shared — genuinely wild to realize that, and then actually diving into the analysis, looking closely at the CVs and finding inconsistencies that made her pay closer attention, cross-checking them against whatever else could be found about these people online. And it turns out these aren’t applications intercepted somewhere and forwarded on — no, it’s clearly that these CVs are being assembled straight from information available online, complete with photo and everything. Genuinely wild. And when you think about it, it’s actually fairly easy, since we all have profiles somewhere, whether Facebook, Instagram or elsewhere, and anywhere information is publicly accessible online, AI-driven tools can now genuinely crawl entire websites, gather information about people, and so on — theoretically at high speed, generating these kinds of CVs and applications. She also wanted to pick the troll point back up, since it had come up in the chat too. She’d draw a distinction there: she personally finds trolls fairly easy to deal with, since they usually don’t have serious malicious intent and tend to be quite impatient. They get trolls on Clubhouse too — showing up briefly, raising a hand, and the goal is essentially to cause a little disruption in the room and then vanish again. That’s exactly why they’d set certain room rules, which, incidentally, work beautifully, because trolls are fairly impatient — if someone raises their hand within the first three seconds of joining and isn’t acknowledged within about 20 seconds, which is already a long wait, they’ve usually already left the room. Some might drop a comment in the chat on the way out, but if you don’t engage with it, they’re gone fairly quickly too. Looking at a definition here: Internet ABC describes a troll as someone online who deliberately disrupts a discussion in a forum or blog through unqualified contributions — the behavior is called trolling, and a notable characteristic is a high degree of uniformity across their posts. It’s generally not directed against a specific person; usually the intent, say on Clubhouse, is to jump into various rooms with comments or behavior on stage that has nothing specifically to do with that room or any particular person — fairly arbitrary which room they land in, doing it essentially for their own amusement. In that sense, she personally finds it relatively harmless. But once we’re actually talking about cybermobbing and similar, we’re in territory where there’s a deliberate intent to harm a specific person or company — and there she sees a genuinely major distinction. Sabine, how would she assess that?
That was actually part of the workshop topic too, Sabine said — both the political and the economic angle. This one’s already been in the press, so she could mention it: the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IHK) had been hacked via a data center. People initially wondered what anyone would want with IHK data economically — nothing much to gain there financially — so the conclusion was that it was likely politically motivated, wanting access to company addresses and similar. Nothing ultimately happened, they managed to handle it, but it cost real money, and that was really the overall takeaway: it costs an enormous amount, because in that moment you have to disconnect from the network entirely and do a lot manually again, starting essentially from scratch. And that’s where you really recognize it as a genuine threat — there are now thousands of cyber-insurance policies out there, and people already affected report real doubts about whether the insurance even pays out in the end. The real question is whether this genuinely threatens a company’s existence — if it can’t recapitalize and get back online fast enough, the company itself could go under. And exactly the same holds for an individual’s existence — if someone experiences personal mobbing, they might also, in a sense, be destroyed by it, if it goes far enough psychologically that they simply can’t cope anymore. Quite a while back there was a film where a woman genuinely had her identity stolen and driven half-mad by it — nobody took her seriously anymore, because officially she no longer existed. She couldn’t tell anyone, because nobody believed her. Sabine couldn’t quite remember how it ended, but just imagining something like that is genuinely wild.
And unlike the offline world, the host added, where clear traces do get left behind, those traces do exist online too in a sense, but they’re considerably harder and more complex to actually trace, especially once it’s run in an “organized” way. Not just someone wanting to harm someone else spontaneously — that’s where it genuinely crosses into criminal territory. When it’s truly organized, it becomes genuinely difficult to trace at that point — imagine someone operating in an organized way, meaning not just one fake account but deliberately switching between accounts to make it hard to trace where the person is actually located, since you’re always a step behind trying to uncover it. She noticed another raised hand and wanted to bring Jürgen in before it got too late — and maybe he’d have thoughts on this “organized” angle specifically. She also noticed different understandings of the word “troll” showing up in the chat, and wanted to quickly bring that in as an impulse too: if a genuine troll challenges you, the only winning move is not to play. Impatient, attacking people aren’t true trolls — those are just cranks; true trolls disarm you passively, lead you out onto thin ice. Those are hackers, not trolls. And there was a reference too, to the film “The Net” with Sandra Bullock — a reminder that there are good and bad hackers, worth distinguishing. Jürgen, good morning — what did he think?
Good morning to the host and to Sabine, Jürgen said. He apologized for needing to mute briefly — his voice was a bit rough today, and he could only partially follow the discussion. What he took away, though, and he had two question marks in his head from it, still not entirely sure after everyone’s contributions: as he understands it, cybermobbing is, by definition, an action directed against a person — not against a company, even if that company is made up of people. For him the term is quite clearly defined as one person, or a group of people, wanting to disturb, harm, insult, or otherwise affect another person or group. That felt essential to him, especially in contrast to the day before’s topic, since we’re again dealing with a mass phenomenon — and for him, comparing it to practices he remembers from past decades, the actual mechanism of mobbing has always been the effect of a mass acting against an individual, someone potentially neutral beforehand, who becomes, through specific exercise of power, an instrument used to act on others. He wanted to lay that out as his understanding, but was open to correction — is this fundamentally a human-to-human relationship? Was he right about that, or did others see it differently? Thanks for listening.
The host said she largely agreed with the underlying principle, with one caveat: we do distinguish, for instance, between a personal brand and a corporate brand, and it’s often the case today that companies present themselves as personal brands too. The moment you have a personal brand, backed by a company, and the mobbing appears to focus primarily on that person as the public face, the company itself is instantly and inevitably pulled into it too.
Jürgen was happy to concede the point — a genuine learning moment for him, one he was glad to expand his understanding with. His second question mark, genuinely still an open question he planned to keep thinking about: going back to his original position, of a human-to-human relationship, or now a human-to-company relationship identified through a specific person — where does the actual root problem lie? The thing that immediately popped into his head was that mobbing has always existed; only the instrument has changed. And he was reluctant to just say “only the instrument changed” — he wasn’t done thinking this through yet. But thanks for the spark today: have the tools now available through social media or the digital world changed, or possibly intensified, the underlying motive to bully at all, or has it simply amplified it through the new means available? Fundamentally, are these root motives — to harm someone, to be destructive — simply things already present in us, now just brought to the surface, in a sense, by this new instrument, but which existed all along, throughout the past too? That was the question he was taking away from today’s room. Apologies, he was a bit under the weather today and needed to mute again. Thanks for the chance to talk with everyone, and a good day to all. Thanks.
Wonderful, thank you so much, the host said. Sabine, what did she think of Jürgen’s points?
On the first point, Sabine said, she’d actually seen it the same way before this room even started — that mobbing really does operate more on a personal level. But she also sees it as fluid. At that cybersecurity workshop, there were both very small businesses and larger ones present, and if you scale it down to a small business — say, a doctor’s practice gets hacked — that hits the doctor personally, right at their core. She doesn’t think you can say that doesn’t affect the doctor. Whether the perpetrator’s intent is aimed at that specific person is a separate question, but with classic mobbing, the intent is always directed at a specific person doing something specific. And she thinks that’s exactly the difference between then and now that Jürgen touched on today: in the past, it was clearly a one-to-one relationship, building something up over time. Sure, the bully might try to pull others onto their side too, turning it into nine-against-one instead of strictly one-to-one, but online today, she’s no longer sure whether it’s even about a specific one-to-one target at all, or simply, “who can I bother here right now.” She also had a follow-up question about the earlier applications story: what’s actually behind it? Is it some HR research institute just blasting these out en masse to see what happens, or is someone specifically trying to bother the host and expose her capacity limits? Genuinely interesting thoughts to sit with, the kind that naturally make you think about how to protect yourself personally, or what path to take going forward given all this. She had to get on her bike now, unfortunately, so she’d attach her closing word here: wonderful room — definitely not her area of expertise, but she’s brushed up against it here and there, whether among friends, among students, or elsewhere. Personally, she chooses to treat all of this as an alarming exception, and hopes there are plenty of people like the host who see it positively and handle it constructively, and who help clarify things for others too. Thanks so much.
Thank you so much, the host said — and that timing worked out nicely too, since it let her start bringing the room toward a close. She wanted to pick up a couple more things herself. She thinks what they’d genuinely managed today was opening up a lot of different facets and making clear that this is a growing challenge, precisely because of the tools now available — in some ways it’s become easier, in a sense, while at the same time harder to actually trace. And the question Jürgen raised as his second point, she found genuinely interesting too. On one hand, because it’s become easier, there may simply be more people making use of it more quickly, more often, whatever the case. That’s one side of it. The other side: mobbing has always existed — is what we’re seeing now just that same underlying root cause surfacing more visibly, simply because it’s become easier, and, not just or, but and, from her perspective, there’s also the broader question of how much time we spend online overall, and what that does to us in terms of socialization. She immediately thinks of terms like empathy and social interaction, which, especially looking at younger generations — though really this applies across generations, not just one, since Andreas Wollermann has been on discussing Gen Z, for instance — are worth examining. What does it actually do to us, societally, spending increasingly more time online? We’ve just come through roughly three years of a pandemic where in-person social encounters were barely possible at all, and she thinks that feeds into this too, and possibly, while not changing the root cause — how humans are fundamentally wired, what they’re capable of, and how they choose to use certain things — it does affect this social interaction specifically, which may have declined in some places, or simply looks different than it used to. What effects that has here, what influence it exerts, is worth looking at from that angle too. That’s another thought alongside the “tools have made it easier” point — worth also examining how interpersonal communication and social interaction are shifting more broadly, and not only online; if you look closely, you’ll find shifts in in-person encounters too, sometimes starting with small things. That felt like a genuinely interesting point too. Nothing they needed to fully answer today, just something worth taking as an impulse, letting it sit, letting it work on you, maybe researching a bit further on your own, to form your own opinion out of it.
And with that, she wanted to bring today’s room to a close. Heartfelt thanks for such active participation and for opening up so many different perspectives. Tomorrow they’d continue with power and gender — how do gender roles shape power structures — that’s the question they’d dig into in detail. Everyone was warmly invited to join again tomorrow at 8am. She wished everyone a wonderful day and looked forward to tomorrow. Until then. Ciao.
