{"id":170,"date":"2024-10-23T09:34:03","date_gmt":"2024-10-23T09:34:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpmu.mau.se\/msm24group4\/?p=170"},"modified":"2024-11-10T19:02:00","modified_gmt":"2024-11-10T19:02:00","slug":"digital-technologies-and-social-mobilisation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wpmu.mau.se\/msm24group4\/2024\/10\/23\/digital-technologies-and-social-mobilisation\/","title":{"rendered":"Digital Technologies and Social Mobilisation"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\r\n\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n

\"\"

Source: Freepik<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\r\n

Hi, I\u2019m T\u00e1bata, a Communication for Development student at Malm\u00f6 University with a keen interest in social equity and technology.<\/p>\r\n

In this section, we\u2019ll 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\u2019ll delve into how these issues affect various communities and examine the broader implications for development and social change.\u00a0Join me as we uncover the challenges and potential solutions to creating a more equitable digital landscape for everyone! \ud83d\udc69\ud83c\udffb\u200d\ud83d\udcbb<\/p>\r\n

Today, I am going to introduce you very briefly to the history of the internet, the relationship between digital technologies and social mobilisation\u00a0and 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.<\/span> 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.<\/span> 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 \u2018great equaliser\u2019 is not as universally accessible or empowering as it is often thought to be.<\/span> The assumption that the digital space offers everyone an equal voice hides another reality: that digital inequality continues to reproduce broader societal inequalities\u2014particularly 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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

WEB 0.1\u00a0<\/b><\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

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.<\/span> Websites acted more like digital brochures, focusing on information dissemination without significant user engagement.<\/span><\/span>

Despite these limitations, there was a significant connection between social movements and digital platforms.<\/span> This era brought about the emergence of \u2018activist networks\u2019 and the concept of \u2018connected multitudes,\u2019 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.<\/span> Free software models inspired these movements by showing that cooperation could be an effective strategy to follow.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

WEB 0.2<\/b><\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

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.<\/span> 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.<\/span>

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.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Digital inequalities<\/b><\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

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<\/a>. In the digital world, affordances are tied to how tools and platforms are designed.<\/span> 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.<\/span> So far, so good. But the problem at hand is that affordances are not neutral.<\/span> 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.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

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.<\/span> 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.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

During the early days of the internet, these inequalities were already visible, leading to the widespread use of the term \u2018digital divide<\/a>\u2019, whose main focus was on access to technology and the internet, particularly in educational settings, and prompted efforts to reduce it.<\/span> As internet usage expanded, research on digital inequality evolved, moving beyond simple access to address a broader range of factors\u2014including the ability to create, produce and effectively use digital content.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The shift from the \u2018digital divide\u2019 to \u2018digital inequality\u2019 during the Web 2.0 era raised new questions about not just who had access to online content, but also who was shaping it.<\/span> 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.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Let us know!<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

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\u2019ll 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!<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Also, follow us on Instagram for more insights: @ida_insidedigitalactivism \ud83d\udcf2<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

References:<\/h5>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n