Author: Tábata

Digital Activism —Who is behind it and who does it actually benefit?

Image

  By

Source: Freepik.

In my first post, I looked into the evolution of the internet and its impact on social movements and digital activities. I focused on two key concepts: affordance and affordability. Today, I am going to expand on that by looking at different research that examines how these inequalities manifest and who is positively and negatively impacted by them. 

Affordability and Access

As I previously mentioned, differences in affordability refer to differences in purchasing power. This means that wealthier people might be able to afford the latest, most expensive and most efficient technology, while others cannot. This disparity also affects digital activism, where costs are higher for lower-income groups (Schradie 2019: 17).

But in the context of the digital activism gap, class is not just about buying the latest iPhone. Access to education and skills are also crucial. In her book The Revolution that Wasn’t: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives, Schradie (2019: 30) notes that ‘all of the working-class groups lacked a dedicated person, either staff or volunteer, who knew how to maintain and update their online presence.’

Digital organisations –an obsolete entity?

Another of Schradie’s findings (2019: 18) is that the success of digital activism depends on the strength of organisations. After analysing several working-class organisations in the US, the groups that ranked highest on the digital activism index were effective because they operated within a well-structured organisation. 

Her findings align with Pierri’s (2022: 2-7), who examined a digital campaigning organisation associated with the OPEN Movement in Europe. The author finds that, far from being obsolete, digital campaigning organisations have grown more professional over time and have become important mediators between activists and formal political institutions. The current landscape is crowded and very competitive, which means that organisations with greater resources tend to thrive. In contrast, smaller, less formal groups often struggle and may need to merge with larger entities to stay afloat.

The significance of organisation and hierarchy challenges the common and academic view that the internet inherently democratises society. Access to investment, resources, and money remains unequal, meaning that not everyone can fully benefit from the opportunities the digital world offers (Schradie 2019: 19).

The Question of Affordances 

During her ethnographic research, Pierri (2022: 12–13, 18) found that affordances play a key role in the internal dynamics of digital campaigning organisations. Tensions arose between Campaign and Tech Teams, with campaigners feeling restricted by data-driven decisions and a lack of tailored solutions. The Tech Team’s focus on data was seen as limiting the campaign’s flexibility. Additionally, while women are well-represented in staff and leadership, they are notably underrepresented in technical roles, highlighting a gender gap in tech positions.

But another important, yet often overlooked, aspect of digital affordances is the accessibility of the internet for people with disabilities. To them, the Internet is inherently unfriendly. People with visual impairments might face issues like incompatible screen readers and missing image descriptions. Mobility-impaired individuals may face challenges with small buttons and non-responsive designs. Individuals with hearing impairments are affected by the lack of text alternatives for audio content. Cognitive and learning disabilities are exacerbated by poor site design, while flashing elements can trigger seizures for those with epilepsy (Jaeger 2012: 2).

Beyond affordances and affordability: Providing safe spaces

Something that might not often be considered when discussing access to digital activism is  how physical spaces might be the only safe spaces for some communities (Schradie 2019: 46–47). Besides fears of hacking, phishing and security breaches, the internet can be an incredibly hostile space for women,  people of colour, LGBT+ people, or people with disabilities, among other minorities. It might discourage them from participating in the digital space, sharing their thoughts, ideas and experiences. 

Oftentimes, social media community rules are set by a small group and may not fully address users’ safety needs. Furthermore, these rules can shift when circumstances change. For instance, when Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion on April 14, 2022. This acquisition not only came with a complete rebranding—the platform is now called ‘X’—, but with the dissolution of its Trust and Safety Council. This advisory body, established by the company in 2016, was composed of 100 independent organisations focused on civil and human rights and other social issues to address hate speech, child exploitation, suicide, self-harm, and other potentially harmful content on the platform. Musk’s controversial update to the block feature, allowing blocked users to view posts from those who blocked them, is presented as increasing transparency but may leave some users feeling more vulnerable to harassment.

So, who is currently benefiting from digital activism and an active digital presence? 

Schradie (2019:  28–29) found that working-class organisations faced important challenges with digital activism. Their overall online engagement was two to three times lower than that of middle- and upper-class groups. Even when these working-class groups managed to establish an online presence, their community interaction—measured through likes, comments, retweets, and followers—remained limited. 

The digitisation of news, along with a growing conservative media ecosystem of right-wing outlets (see Dori’s post for a different take on this issue) favours conservative activists (Schradie 2019: 20-21). In her analysis, Schradie (2019: 146–147) found that right-wing groups consistently outperform their left-wing counterparts in digital activism. Conservative groups were more hierarchical in their decision-making, more active online, and had more sophisticated websites that were updated more frequently and a stronger presence on platforms like Twitter. They not only had higher engagement, but also a larger share of social media activity overall. 

Men, able-bodied, and neurotypical individuals typically face fewer barriers to digital access, allowing them to engage in online spaces more easily. In contrast, women, people with disabilities, people of colour (PoC) and LGBT+ communities encounter additional challenges, including harassment and discrimination. To this, it is important to add that the design of the internet is not always inclusive. Inaccessible websites, incompatible screen readers, and poor navigation create significant obstacles for people with disabilities. All these barriers can limit or discourage their participation in digital activism.

 

References: 

Jaeger, T. P. (2012) Disability and the Internet: Confronting a Digital Divide. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Pierri, P. (2022) ‘Who Can Still Afford to Do Digital Activism? Exploring the material conditions of online mobilisation’ Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society 2, (2) 1–23.

Schradie, J. (2019) The Revolution That Wasn’t: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/technology/elon-musk-twitter-deal-complete.html 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/12/twitter-safety-council-dissolved-before-meeting 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/10/17/x-will-soon-let-users-see-tweets-from-people-who-block-them-the-controversial-change-explained/#:~:text=Musk%20has%20stopped%20short%20of,receiving%20further%20criticism%20from%20users.

Online Inclusivity for Senior Citizens and Disabled Adults

  By

Source: Pixabay

The main objective of this section is to challenge the belief of the internet as a ‘great-equaliser’. However, when used correctly, it can provide opportunities for people of all ages, allowing access to information, social connections, and important services. For senior citizens, the digital landscape can feel threatening and overwhelming. They might fall for online scams, phishing and other online threats. That’s why it is essential to teach them to navigate the online world safely.

The AbilityNet webinar on “Empowering Seniors: 5 Essential Tips for Online Safety and Support” hosted by Annie Manion with guest speaker Lucy Walsh took place on October 17. The aim of the event was to offer an opportunity for people and caregivers to learn more about improving the digital literacy of seniors to keep them safe in the digital age. It also brought attention to the intersection between age and disability, as, according to the data presented, 42% of seniors in the UK have some disability. The event focused on providing practical guidance and resources for seniors to make the most of the internet while protecting themselves from common online scams and other threats.

So which tips did the webinar offer?

Accessing Support Services and Resources

Lucy Walsh shared helpful tips on how seniors can use the internet to find important services and support. From looking up healthcare info and applying for benefits to joining online support groups, the internet has a lot to offer. AbilityNet introduced several user-friendly websites and apps that can help with everything from managing money to finding mental health support.

Thanks to these online resources, seniors can live more independently and access new, important services harder to reach before. The webinar also showed how easy it can be to download apps that are safe and accessible. For example, Seeing AI is an app that narrates the world around you, while Be My Eyes connects blind and low-vision people with volunteers who can help them see things in real time.

Making text bigger, adding captions to videos and using voice commands (with Siri, Google, or Alexa) are also features that can make interactions with technology more accessible for people who are visually impaired or struggle to use their phones with their fingers, for example. These  can make a big difference in their everyday lives.

Tips to Stay Safe Online

One of the biggest threats to seniors online is scams. Phishing attempts, fraudulent emails and suspicious pop-up ads are on the rise, so it’s very important that seniors learn how to identify red flags. During the webinar, they played Moira Stuart tips video, where she suggests setting up a group chat with family and friends, downloading trusted news apps, and reaching out to loved ones or trusted organisations when something feels off.

According to Lucy, it is also important to be careful with phone calls, SMS, WhatsApp messages or emails asking for personal or financial details, especially if they make urgent requests or offer deals that seem too good to be true. Further advice included keeping antivirus software up to date, avoiding suspicious links, and using tools like “Have I Been Pwned” to make sure personal information hasn’t been exposed in data breaches.

The need to protect privacy online by being careful about sharing personal information on social media was another important topic brought up. Contrary to popular belief, most information theft happens when people share their personal information (phone number, financial details) through fraudulent links. The webinar also emphasised the importance of online security for seniors, covering everything from creating strong and unique –but memorable– passwords to using two-factor authentication (2FA). Lucy recommended using Dashlane, a password manager app that helps to create, store, and manage passwords securely, along with saving payment details in an encrypted way.

Staying Connected and Entertained Online

While online safety is essential, the webinar also emphasised how the internet can help seniors combat social isolation by staying in touch with family, friends and communities. Social media, instant messaging apps like WhatsApp, video calls, and online gaming were all mentioned as great ways to build relationships.

Practical tips for using popular platforms like Zoom, Skype and WhatsApp were also provided. Such platforms make it easier for seniors to connect virtually. The session also covered how to access online entertainment like BBC, YouTube, and subscription TV services, showing how the internet can enhance social engagement and overall well-being.

The importance of education and patience 

In today’s digital world, it’s important for seniors to know how to navigate the internet safely. The AbilityNet webinar shared simple tips to help seniors stay safe online and make the most of what the internet offers. However, AbilityNet also offers free digital skills courses to people over 65 and adults with disabilities all over Britain. If you know someone who might benefit from such courses, do not hesitate to search for similar trainings in your area.

Although family members and caregivers are a good source of support, they might not always know how to approach a senior’s needs. Forgetfulness or a slow learning pace might make some lose their patience. For this reason, Lucy says it is important to stick to teaching what the person needs and wants, through consistent repetition and one step at a time. 

You can visit AbilityNet’s website for more helpful info on digital accessibility and assistance.

Reflection on Interviewing Methods for Communication for Development (C4D)

Image

  By ,

Rome, Italy. La Città dell’Utopia from above.

The participants

As someone currently involved in a journalistic project, when I set out to complete this task, I already knew how difficult, potentially burdensome, even, the whole process could become, especially when you try to make contact with a complete stranger. So, to make things a bit easier for myself, I thought that asking several people I already knew to some extent would maximise my chances of getting the interviews done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Originally, I had contacted four or five potential participants. I finally managed to interview two of them, David and Fabrizio. 

My first interview was a phone interview on October 27th with David, who runs his own company and develops social intervention projects in socioeconomically marginalised communities in Madrid. His work includes educational programs to facilitate Spanish language acquisition for migrant and refugee communities in collaboration with major NGOs in the country, such as CEAR, and initiatives promoting active citizenship. I had originally connected with David while looking for job opportunities in the migration field, so when it came time to reach out for the interview, we already had an established rapport. 

Fabrizio, on the other hand, is the main coordinator of the Rome branch of Service Civil International Italy. Service Civil International is a volunteer organisation that promotes a culture of peace and focuses on climate issues, refugees and migrants, women’s rights, culture, and antimilitarism. They achieve this through work camps, events, training courses, and long-term volunteering programmes, including exchanges across Europe via the European Solidarity Corps and worldwide. In Rome, their main project, La Città dell’Utopia, provides a space for local collectives and NGOs to organise, host events and share ideas. Fabrizio and I met when I was volunteering at La Città dell’Utopia, where our interview took place on November 2. 

The Interviews 

I chose a semi-structured interview format with open-ended questions that allowed space for follow-up. I wanted to create an open dialogue where both participants could express themselves freely and share their perspectives on their jobs. This idea matches Holstein and Gubrium’s argument in The Active Interview (1995), where they see interviews as joint efforts to create meaning instead of just collecting data. 

This approach meant that my conversations with David and Fabrizio felt less like a formal Q&A session and more like a dynamic dialogue. My first question was designed to encourage them to talk about their backgrounds and their connections to their work, which helped to break the ice and create a comfortable atmosphere. Later questions went deeper into the specifics: their roles, the nature of their work, challenges, etc. The questions asked were as followed:

For David:

  • Tell me a bit about yourself and what drew you to this type of work.
  • What are some of the current projects your are working on or involved with?
  • What are some of the biggest challenges you faced? And your biggest achievements?
  • Follow-up question: In your experience, what are some of the most problematic aspects in the field?

For Fabrizio:

  • What inspired you to join Service Civil International, and what drew you to this type of work?
  • Can you share a memorable experience or project that has had a significant impact on you personally?
  • Can you tell me a bit about the main mission and goals of Service Civil International?
  • Follow-up question: How can individuals or communities get involved with SCI, and what impact can they have by supporting your mission?

Establishing Rapport and the Interview Tone with David and Fabrizio

As I mentioned before, I first contacted David while looking for a job. The first contact was made through a family member. Having a previous connection probably helped reduce some initial awkwardness, and made our interaction quite friendly from the beginning. The interview felt positive and conversational. David was open to my questions and felt comfortable talking about his work on projects like educational programs for migrants and citizenship initiatives. This created a space for an honest conversation.

La Città dell’Utopia’s loggia, connecting to the garden and outdoor spaces.

My connection with Fabrizio, on the other hand, had been limited to the workplace. We didn’t work closely or socialise outside of work, which is why I thought of him as a suitable participant. However, he was still familiar to me. I found that this initial familiarity helped establish a rapport similar to my experience with David.  

Our mutual connection helped build a fluid interaction, something that Holstein and Gubrium (1995) describe as essential for active engagement in an interview. The authors emphasise the construction of meaning between the interviewer and interviewee. I found this very helpful as I encouraged both David and Fabrizio to elaborate on their experiences and perspectives.

Anticipated Differences Between In-Person and Phone Interviews

I expected differences in rapport and dynamics between in-person and phone interviews. In-person allows one to read the participant’s body language and non-verbal cues and provides a sense of presence (Trier-Beniek 2012: 636). All this helps to build a positive relationship between the interviewer and the interviewees. It also allows for the collection of visual material, which often complements the final presentation.  

For the phone interview, I decided to prioritise the participant’s needs (ibid.: 641). Initially, I expected it to feel less personal and anticipated potential technical interruptions or challenges in maintaining engagement. Nonetheless, this was far from the truth in this case. As the interview consisted of only three main questions and a follow-up question, it turned out to be quick, convenient for both of us and flowed smoothly.  

Personal Learning and Professional Development

While setting up these interviews, I ran into some unexpected challenges that taught me a lot about recruiting participants and handling the interview process. To begin with, although I knew a few people in the field, finding suitable participants was harder than I originally thought, with many either not responding or unavailable, which made it uncomfortable to keep following up. I realised how much interviews rely on patience and the cooperation of others. On top of that, the Zoom interview with David, the first participant, had to be done over the phone at his request, since he didn’t have time for a video call. This last-minute change meant I had to adjust quickly to a different setup. Even though it turned out to be a very smooth, light-hearted interview, this might not always be the case. Delays and last-minute changes can be very stressful when you have to meet deadlines in a work or academic context, which might make it an unsuitable method in some situations.

Photography Exhibition at La Città dell’Utopia.

Another take from this experience is that interviewing is a skill that requires adaptability, patience, and sensitivity to participants’ availability and comfort. I’ve realised the importance of balancing persistence in securing interviews with respect for participants’ time and boundaries. It has also expanded my understanding of interviews as interactive and evolving processes, in line with Holstein and Gubrium (1995).

In the context of Communication for Development (C4D), these skills are very important. Interviews are useful for understanding community narratives, and knowing how to engage participants actively is essential to any research process. On the other hand, last-minute changes or delays can create pressure. Therefore,  it is essential to plan ahead and build in extra time to accommodate any issues that may arise. This ensures that the quality of the research does not suffer due to time constraints.

 

References:

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. SAGE Publications.

Trier-Bieniek, A. (2012). ‘Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research: A methodological discussion.’ Qualitative Research, 12 (6), 630-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439005

Digital Technologies and Social Mobilisation

  By

 

Source: Freepik.

Hi, I’m Tábata, a Communication for Development student at Malmö University with a keen interest in social equity and technology.

In this section, we’ll be exploring the history of the internet and the inequalities that accompany it, from the digital divide to disparities in access and digital literacy. We’ll delve into how these issues affect various communities and examine the broader implications for development and social change. Join me as we uncover the challenges and potential solutions to creating a more equitable digital landscape for everyone! 👩🏻‍💻

Today, I am going to introduce you very briefly to the history of the internet, the relationship between digital technologies and social mobilisation and the discourse around digital inequalities during each stage.

In recent decades, both the internet and digital technologies have become easily accessible and an essential tools in our daily lives. Think about it; could you go a day without texting on your phone, looking something up online or using navigation apps such as Google Maps to find a place? You couldn’t, could you? These innovations have transformed how we work, communicate and navigate society. Because of their accessibility, many people think that digital organising is easy and free, and that the Internet increases participation in our society and reduces inequality. However, the so-called ‘great equaliser’ is not as universally accessible or empowering as it is often thought to be. The assumption that the digital space offers everyone an equal voice hides another reality: that digital inequality continues to reproduce broader societal inequalities—particularly those rooted in class power.

But, before we have a deeper look into specific examples of digital inequality (and its consequences), it’s important to have a look at the two main stages of the relationship between digital communication and social mobilisation. 

WEB 0.1 

In the 1990s, during the phase often referred to as Web 0.1, the internet was characterised by one-way communication. Information was published by a few and consumed by the many. Users mostly read and accessed content, rather than contributing to it. Additionally, user interaction was very limited and features like comments, forums, and social networking were very basic. Websites acted more like digital brochures, focusing on information dissemination without significant user engagement.

Despite these limitations, there was a significant connection between social movements and digital platforms. This era brought about the emergence of ‘activist networks’ and the concept of ‘connected multitudes,’ where collective identities were formed through shared struggles. Social movements benefitted from the growing viral communication flows, and prioritised autonomous development in reaction to the increasing commercialisation of the Internet. Free software models inspired these movements by showing that cooperation could be an effective strategy to follow.

WEB 0.2

In the 2000s, Web 2.0 transformed the internet into a more interactive, participatory space, characterised by user-generated content, dynamic websites, and rich multimedia integration. Knowledge-sharing became more accessible since platforms allowed users to create content and share it. Social networking sites like MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter gained immense popularity, facilitating many-to-many conversations and building online communities. These platforms gradually displaced older communication tools like email and blogs.

During this time, social movements we all saw on TV such as the Arab Spring and #MeToo used social media to spread their messages. Nonetheless, relying on these platforms meant giving up some control over how their content was managed because of the way such platforms operate.

Digital inequalities

To understand digital inequality a bit better, there are two key concepts we need to consider. The first one is affordance. So, what’s an affordance? It’s something that hints at or allows a specific action. In the digital world, affordances are tied to how tools and platforms are designed. For example, when a button looks clickable, people are likely to click it. Likewise, a user-friendly design can encourage people to get more involved and interact more actively. So far, so good. But the problem at hand is that affordances are not neutral. They can benefit certain actions, groups, or viewpoints over others and they often privilege users with specific skills, digital literacy or resources. Thus, individuals or groups who are better equipped to navigate these platforms are more likely to succeed in digital activism.

On the other hand, there is the question of affordability. This concept is more straight-forward. It simply refers to what you can afford to buy. Here, we are talking about the cost of devices, internet services, etc., all of which can limit participation in the digital sphere. This often means that wealthier individuals or communities have a clear advantage when it comes to using digital platforms for activism and other types of participation.

During the early days of the internet, these inequalities were already visible, leading to the widespread use of the term ‘digital divide’, whose main focus was on access to technology and the internet, particularly in educational settings, and prompted efforts to reduce it. As internet usage expanded, research on digital inequality evolved, moving beyond simple access to address a broader range of factors—including the ability to create, produce and effectively use digital content.

The shift from the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality’ during the Web 2.0 era raised new questions about not just who had access to online content, but also who was shaping it. These ongoing disparities, which we will explore further in future posts, highlight the fact that, in practice, becoming part of the media landscape today demands a significant amount of organisational effort, resources, and digital literacy. All of these are skills and opportunities which are far from universally accessible or low-cost.

Let us know!

We’d love to hear from you: have you or anyone in your community experienced unequal access to digital tools? How has it impacted your ability to participate in activism?

In our next blog post, we’ll take a closer look at digital inequalities by providing examples from existing literature, focusing on how these disparities continue to shape emerging social movements. Stay tuned!

Also, follow us on Instagram for more insights: @ida_insidedigitalactivism 📲

References: