Session
ARTICLE 19, Office for Mexico and Central America
- Sara Fratti, Fundación Avina
- Valeria Betancourt, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
A presentation of 10 minutes on behalf of ARTICLE 19 on the main results of the three papers, followed by two 5 minute reactions (each) by respected members of the IGF community regarding -lacking and needed- technological and democratic responsibilities. At the end there will be 10 minutes for participants to propose other ideas or compliment the ones that have been mentioned.
English
Digital rights are not only expected to be guaranteed by universal connectivity, meaningful access and inclusivity. Experience has showed us that techno-solutionism and mere regulatory frameworks, even if useful, have become insufficient to tackle the extent of social inequality among our communities. With the presentation of the main results of three papers regarding (1) the digital breach, (2) the status of the right to information during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (3) the disinformation strategy on behalf of the government to reduce accountability on diverse matters, ARTICLE 19, Office for Mexico and Central America aims to discuss, through the Mexican experience (which is inserted in a regional perspective), why we need to aim higher and come together with different demands and solutions to empower the societies around the world.
The main focus of the session will be to analyze social inclusion and human rights thought Internet connectivity from a broad perspective, taking not only into account the role of connectivity itself, but also the context in which such connectivity is provided or achieved. When governments decide to promote online disinformation campaigns, at a time when the press is silenced and the people need to stay at home for their own physical safety, “meaningful connectivity” needs to be redefined. Particularly, we seek to discuss technological and democratic responsibilities on behalf of governments, businesses, the technical community, civil society, the academic and research sector and community-based actors with regard to digital inclusion and respect for human rights.
The session is planned to work both on the online and hybrid formats. The presentation of the papers and the participation of the experts will take place orally, with the support of a simple visual material (PPT). During the 10 minute period for open participations we plan to mix digital and physicial participations, being conscious about the time and seeking that they do not exceed the 1.5 minute mark. The moderator will take notes on her computer that will be projected / shared on the screen; so that participants can follow up the conversation. This helps to be more efficient, respectful and it makes it easier for people to see if an idea has already been mentioned.
Report
Although there is infrastructure for connectivity, the digital divide implies other barriers in terms of economic power, language, gender and age for meaningful connectivity.
Public policies for connectivity that do not take into account or ignore social inequalities and other forms of disparity do not solve the digital divide, they only manage it.
Meaningful connectivity entails that we stop relying only on regulatory frameworks and the provision of infrastructure, other public policies need to be developed at the same speed to tackle social, cultural and economic disparities between people.
The session centered on an in-depth discussion around the implications of the pandemic in the digital rights of people, parting from the Mexican context as a case-study. The aim was to analyze and cross-reference (1) other forms of “social distance” the digital divide exacerbated (in terms of, health, education, work, entertainment, etc.), (2) the overall status of the right to information (right of access to public information and transparency, journalism, etc.), and (3) the government’s accountability on different issues (violence against women, militarization, extractive-projects, etc.); and how all this is related to what we usually understand as “meaningful connectivity”.
Main findings include that:
- The provision of infrastructure for connectivity and regulatory frameworks in that regard help, but do not actually solve anything regarding the digital divide. Once there is infrastructure and devices for connectivity it does not mean people can or will use them.
- Intersectionality matters when you analyze connectivity. Weak economic structure, intertwined with the social and cultural circumstances of certain populations, create a panorama defined by different layers of social gaps and exclusion.
- The people that are “connected” are using technologies more to communicate via social media than to search for information. What triggers this situation cannot be seen as a "lack of interest" or a "deficient digital education". Concrete conditions are the ones that open or close the possibilities of network use: economic, gender and age situations.
- We cannot rely on communities to guarantee human rights for everyone, specially for women. One of the main challenges that the communities face is that the companies that sell the internet connection service usually offer coverage and technical service, but the signal range at the distribution point is far away from their homes. This technical detail has social implications, especially for women who, due to the social assignment of gender roles and the risks involved for them in public spaces, are limited in their ability to access the only source of connection in public spaces. Women are not free enough to have access to devices or the internet, and are not free to go out at certain times of the day. Indigenous women suffer most from the consequences of these inequalities.
- One device is not enough for a family that has to use that same device for different activities.
- At the federal level there is a tendency to distort reality through the public discourse of the authorities.
- The pandemic circumstances generated fertile ground for disinformation by omission and insufficient information. In this regard, two facts became evident: how inequalities in access to technologies had an impact on the lack of timely information for communities and indigenous people and, on the other hand, the concern and fear generated in those who did have access to networks, due to the overexposure of unverified information.
- For the population without access to traditional media, the way to learn about the circumstances were the people who commented on videos or messages they received via messaging services or social media, but that is all they got because they only had access to those services because of zero-rating practices. The main effect of this was the denial of reality.
- When governments decide to promote online disinformation campaigns, at a time when the press is silenced and people need to stay at home for their own safety, the term meaningful connectivity needs to be challenged.
- Meaningful connectivity entails that we stop relying only on regulatory frameworks and the provision of infrastructure, other public policies need to be developed at the same speed to tackle social, cultural and economic disparities between people. Public policies for connectivity that do not take into account or ignore social inequalities and other forms of disparity do not solve the digital divide, they only manage it.