APrIGF Document Platform

The integration of marginalized communities does not end with Internet connectivity and providing access to new digital tools, such as e-commerce. Inclusion means benefiting from digitalization in all its dimensions, not only as end users. With appropriate policies and a local-based approach focusing on marginalized communities’ needs, innovation can flourish, and digitalization can spur local entrepreneurs and startups, multiplying the economic impact in the communities.

Underserved communities face market access challenges and lack access to financial tools to support local entrepreneurship. Moreover, local nuances, language barriers, and cultural and behavioral issues make digital adoption and entrepreneurship particularly challenging and context-based. These adoption constraints can be minimized when digital solutions are developed within the community and by local entrepreneurs. People from underserved communities are talented and innovators, and they can solve the digital adoption challenges if appropriate policies and market incentives are provided.

The constraints for digital adoption are particularly expressed among indigenous people’s communities, where the lack of context-based solutions from some apps does not match with the societal cosmovision of the communities. For example, the relevance of a long-term intergenerational view to define the present, the lack of apps in local languages, or the underlying biases in new AI developments. Biases are embedded in the technologies, and they will persist unless marginalized communities are part of the entrepreneurship ecosystem.

Finally, the digital tool itself can promote inclusion. For example, apps can help women entrepreneurs in underserved communities to avoid the “middleman” market power issue by connecting them with new markets. But these cases will only be sustainable if there is a long-term commitment to expand access, spur competition, and take into account local voices.

The session highlighted some key points on the state of digital rights in different countries in the region post-pandemic:

1. There has been a backsliding of democracies, with increase in human rights violations, censorship and surveillance particularly through digital technologies.

2. The pandemic proved to be opportunity for many states to increase surveillance – this has been done through unfiltered collection of data from health tracking applications, laws and policies that give states greater control over people’s data and the ability to obtain such data without regard to privacy and data protection norms and the use of spyware such as pegasus on activists, journalists and other dissidents. Governments are using public funds to purchase spyware from other countries to use on their citizens without any legal oversight or accountability.

3. Civic space online is shrinking along with an increase in censorship and arrests of citizens for online expression, particularly expression criticising the state.

4. Hate speech and misinformation online, targeting particular individuals and groups, is being used as a political weapon to influence public discourse and sway elections.

5. On the other hand, there is also a growing awareness among people, especially online and through the internet, of their rights, particularly with respect to privacy and their data.

6. Increasingly, people are using online spaces to discuss, mobilise and coordinate to fight for their rights and hold states accountable.

7. There is a need for an international recognition of this problem of digital authoritarianism and its rise in Asia, particularly as it pertains to sale and purchase of surveillance technologies by private companies to states and other entities.

8. There is also a need for strong data protection frameworks in countries across the region that not only protect internet users from private companies but also the collection and use of their data by the state.

The session brought up many important issues related to ensuring that internet governance spaces like the APrIGF are inclusive and welcoming of new entrants:

1. For many who are interested in internet governance, spaces like the APrIGF seem daunting as they feel their lack of expertise or experience on these issues prohibits them from making a meaningful contribution. For them, programs like APSIG are very important but are not always accessible. There was a consensus on the importance of having more programs like this that build capacity of internet governance practitioners who are new to the field.

2. Diversity is critical in APrIGF and other internet governance spaces but it is not only enough to have diverse representation in the room, it is also important that the conditions for them to meaningfully participate are created. For instance, provisions for language, disabilities and creating awareness among the broader audience about being mindful and sensitive to the needs of diverse groups.

3. People need sustained opportunities to participate in spaces like APrIGF. One of the key factors is the lack of availability of resources. For instance, fellowships allow individuals only one-time opportunity to participate in IG spaces like APrIGF but it doesn’t provide opportunity for sustained engagement. There is a need to allocate more resources to allow new people to participate but also allow for sustained participation of groups.

4. Online engagement has been very important in the context of the pandemic, and it is also much more accessible for many people and groups; however, it doesn’t compare to being in these spaces in person since that is the only way to truly understand how they function, to meet people, build a network and engage meaningfully, without feeling disconnected from the process.

5. The APrIGF is a multi-stakeholder process but it doesn’t have equal representation from all stakeholders. Important stakeholders like the government and private sector are not as engaged as they ideally should be. There is a need to engage them more actively to bring them into the conversation. Similarly, there is a need to engage under-presented groups and regions within Asia. The work of the stakeholder engagement committee is very important in this regard.

6. Internet governance in Asia is not just the APrIGF. The APrIGF is not a decision-making forum but a discussion forum. A lot of important decisions around the internet get made in other spaces and at the national level. New entrants must learn about and engage more in these processes as well, especially at the national level and push for more change there.

7. The APrIGF is a space for everyone, irrespective of their background, identity or expertise. Anyone interested in this process can and should become a part of it by joining the MSG and other committees, so that newer and more diverse voices can shape its future.

This is quite relevant as the spread of health-related misinformation and scare have been running rampant on the internet, especially on social media platforms where anyone and everyone can write anything. This adds to the stress and eventually, physician burnout of having to correct the wrong notions (and even deal with the hardheadedness) of the general public.

The latest report by UN Women and UNFPA in 2021 indicates that online misogyny has risen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes trolling, sexual harassment, and victim blaming….

The challenges faced by students with disabilities (SWDs) worsened by COVID-19:
1. Lack of digital literacy a lack of sign language interpreters. Students with visual learning material lack of competence in using screen readers.
2. Difficulty using learning platforms and course exams or assessment. Students with visual impairments experienced a lack of descriptions for informative images in teaching notes, and difficulties in using learning management systems.
3. Difficulty communicating with support services, faculty/instructors and fellow students when SWDs live in family homes.

And localizd contents

Have to develop contents in accessible formats

In some countries, social media is regulated. Regulating the internet or social media violates the basic human right – everyone should have the freedom to express online or via social media but they need to do it with common sense. Because they have a sense of responsibility so you can make a point but with kindness.

I agree with everyone but we should also allow new voices from marginalised communities (they are usually left behind). I would also include new voices from rural and remote communities, persons with disabilities, LGBTQI communities etc.