{"id":63647,"date":"2019-11-12T10:06:32","date_gmt":"2019-11-12T09:06:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hiig.de\/?p=63647"},"modified":"2023-03-28T17:06:51","modified_gmt":"2023-03-28T15:06:51","slug":"critical-voices-visions-and-vectors-for-internet-governance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hiig.de\/en\/critical-voices-visions-and-vectors-for-internet-governance\/","title":{"rendered":"Critical Voices, Visions and Vectors for Internet Governance"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Internet has changed our world. But has it also irritated hierarchical power structures and given a meaningful voice to all? Are offline differentials in terms of access to individual and societal progress, and their narrations, challenged by the Internet \u2013 or replicated and technologically perpetuated? Internet governance, as broad and multistakeholder-driven as it has become, is still not broad enough, not open enough and not flexible enough to encompass all voices. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This collection edited by <\/em>Katharina Mosene <\/em><\/strong>and<\/em> Matthias C. Kettemann<\/em><\/strong> provides space for some of them. In the run-up to the 14th Internet Governance Forum in November 2019 in Berlin, the editors have developed a catalog of 30 visions for an emancipatory Internet without discrimination. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
Visit Publication<\/a><\/center>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Prefaces <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n

\nTowards an internet that empowers those who foster democracy through human rights based research\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Center for Internet and Human Rights<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nMarginalized groups and individuals remain underrepresented in internet governance regimes. To guarantee that online communities are free, safe, and truly democratic, we need to stop relying on technological solutions proposed by digital platforms. Only by including marginalized voices in debates about the future of technology can we make sure that human rights of all actors are protected. To strengthen democracy, we should support those individuals and organizations\b who defend human rights in adverse situations around the globe. In order to protect freedom of expression we also need to take a clear stand against those who try to silence others with hate and extremism. Moreover, as automated decision-making becomes ever more pervasive in everyday life, it is crucial that states and businesses are required to comply with human rights law in the process of developing and deploying algorithms, and evaluating their impact. Human-centric design must go hand in hand with the strengthening of the legal frameworks protecting individual and collective rights. Our own research about the impact of technology in the workplace shows that new tools of digital control undermine workers\u2019 rights and increase the power imbalance in the favor of companies. All workers, be they employees or self-employed, should have data protection rights, as well as the right to participate in the decisions about the technology they work with. Research can play an important role in fostering more inclusive design and governance of technology, but only if research institutions apply principles of diversity and transparency in their daily work. Support for an open and heterogeneous research community from public institutions is instrumental to ensure that technology has a positive impact on human rights.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

\nBetween borrowed identities and online self-fashioning: A case for content diversity\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Baldeep Grewal, IGF Dynamic Coalition on gender and internet governance<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nI have been thinking for some time now about spurts of irrational anger that erupt in social media against young girls* every now and then. The target varies from teenagers who like Twilight to poets like Rupi Kaur: the common attack is of deriding the content that this fan base admires and endorses, and by extension, the fans themselves. While it is debatable whether Twilight or Rupi Kaur are ideal role models for young girls*, there is a case to be made for the protection of the content that speaks to them. Growing up in India, the artists and influencers I followed the most online were all cis white women. There were several reasons for this: they enjoyed greater visibility, ease of sharing content, less restrictions and censorship, algorithms that played in their favor etc. Later, when I started following more relatable handles \u2013 specifically non-binary PoCs \u2013, the content I received from them was noticeably riddled with a lot more violent feedback, frequent censorship by the social media platforms, shadowbanning, and, in some cases, entire profiles were taken down. And these were content-creators who had managed to carve a space for themselves online and build a public profile which is in itself a feat. The echo-chamber that normative content creates has several offline ramifications: it determines the range of options people think they can choose from when they go about fashioning their on\/offline identities, it influences the curricula of cultural studies and media classrooms, and, worst of all, it carries with it the implication that while the internet has room for all content, some content enjoys more protection than other content. This connects to a larger problem where commercial platforms often steal from smaller, marginalized content-creators without endorsements or payments. In short, the average social media user is consuming a flat version of content without ever being aware of the \u2018minor\u2019 emotional and intellectual labor that this normative discourse is built on.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

\nFeminism affects everyone\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Christina Dinar & Katharina Mosene & Francesca Schmidt, Netzforma*<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Digitization affects everyone, but not everyone benefits equally.<\/h4>\n

From a feminist perspective, we therefore call for equal access to the Internet and digital content, protection against online violence and the creation of non-discriminatory spaces. We demand the right to personal data, to privacy, data security and data protection. We call for and promote a critical digital public sphere and a sustainable copyright-policy.<\/p>\n

Digital Violence<\/h4>\n

We need to fight Digital Violence. Digital violence is a form of discrimination that aims at excluding people through sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic or other inhuman hate speech. It is the violent continuation of discrimination. Digital violence undermines freedom of expression and poses a threat to democracy. It includes identity theft, rumours and false allegations, intimidation\/pressing, insult, threat, stalking, defamation\/ obeyance, doxing, swatting and threats of rape. Often feminist positions are tackled by digital violence, this is what we call \u201csilencing\u201d. There are well-organized communities built upon anti-feminism in the area of gaming, in the context of Reddit’s nerd supremacy, in right-wing extremist to right-wing populist milieus, and even in Incel forums.<\/p>\n

Surveillance<\/h4>\n

We need to fight unauthorized mass surveillance. We’re being watched every step of the way. Whether we travel by public transport, withdraw money, shop online or ask search engines. We are observed by various actors: the state, private security service providers, multinational corporations and not least ourselves. In public spaces, even our mere presence is enough to consent to video camera surveillance. Surveillance in public spaces comes with the promise of greater security and often feminist demands for the prevention of violence against women in public spaces are used as legitimation. But greater security always means greater control. Those groups who are most affected by this are marginalized groups. For LGBTQI*, surveillance carries a much higher risk.<\/p>\n

Big Data<\/h4>\n

We need to develop feminist AI. Autonomous driving, household robotics and language assistants* – the buzzword AI nearly pops up everywhere. One thing is clear: technology in general and algorithmic processes in particular are not conceivable without reference to power and domination. It is precisely for this reason that these systems must be viewed critically, evaluated and redeveloped against the background of feminist perspectives and values. The basic mathematical formula of the algorithms must therefore be as follows: If AI, then feminist. Algorithms or artificial intelligence can enable or help if, for example, they detect tumours on X-ray images with much greater accuracy and much faster than would be possible for humans. But artificial intelligence can also restrict or discriminate against people if, for example, AI decides whether a person is creditworthy or gets health insurance. Neither the data basis nor the technologies are neutral. Discriminatory stereotypes, which have already manifested themselves in the world and thus in the data, are (unconsciously) transferred into the code. Lacking transparency then leads to a consolidation\b and intensification of discrimination.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The statements<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n

\nOffline or online. Mine!\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Nana Kesewaa Dankwa, University of Kassel<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nAs an African and woman living in Germany, I am over-cautious of what I post on Twitter.\nI am not that bold, I must confess, and not ready to put my sanity and life on the line yet\nfor my posts. I wish I could comment, be more involved, making politically constructive\ncontributions. I want to comment about the riots in Chemnitz, about the murder that\noccurred right here in my town of the person who stood up for the rights of migrants.\nI want to be bold and loud. I am afraid. I cannot.\nBecause I know how easy it is to find me. I do not only know how easy it is to find me\nbut also how easy it is for you to walk away untraceable. So I do not! I follow the conversations\nand hold on to my freedom to express and be heard. And even as a researcher of\nGender in Technological Innovation, I feel my options of expression outside the research\nfield are limited. I wish to make my voice louder and clearer and perhaps speak up as\none who belonged.\nMake my voice louder and perhaps assert the relevance of my research, especially now\nthat the internet has moved beyond browser access and is available in your kettle and\ndoorknob. Is it not time we acknowledged how diverse our skills, persons, and contexts\nare in designing things that can access the Internet in our spaces. With digital abuse and\nviolence advancing as the new form of abuse and violence, we need to make this as clear\nand visible as possible as these devices empower abusers.\nI envision an Internet that is available in my cup but that this cup is mine which means it\ncan only be used by me, when I want to and at my own will. I do not want others using it\nwithout my permission or hiding to use it when I am not looking. If it is indeed my cup,\nit should be mine whether offline or online.\n\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nNana Kesewaa Dankwa is currently a doctoral candidate at the Scientific Research Centre for\nInformation Systems Design in Kassel. Her research interests are in Smart Home and IoT\nTechnology and how they can be designed to with persons for them and she is also a writer.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nDealing with the cause, rather than trying to clear up afterwards: changing men\u2019s attitudes to women and technology\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Tim Unwin, Chairholder, UNESCO Chair in ICT4D<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nDigital technologies are created and sold primarily to generate profit; in contributing to\neconomic growth, their use has been one of the most important reasons for increasing\nglobal inequalities. They are designed and crafted for particular purposes by people with\nvery specific interests; these interests are usually not primarily to serve the poorest and\nmost marginalised.1 It is therefore scarcely surprising that multifaceted poverty and marginalisation\nhave increased alongside the global spread of digital technologies.\nPoverty and marginalisation are multi-dimensional. Yet one of the most significant\naxes of inequality that the use of digital technologies continues to sustain is that between\nmen and women.2 Despite all of the initiatives created to reduce gender digital inequality,\nthis still remains persistently high.3\nOne reason is that many of these initiatives have been developed by women for\nwomen. Most are trying to deal with the impact of male uses of technology, both intended\nand unintended, rather than with the root causes of the problem. We must change\nmen\u2019s attitudes and behaviours towards women in and through digital technology if\nwe are to have any fundamental impact. TEQtogether has been created to do just this:\ninforming men how their actions impact gender digital inequality; providing guidance\nnotes on the actions they can take to change this; providing research evidence on the use\nof digital devices for sexual harassment; and reverse mentoring. Join us; only by working\ntogether can we indeed achieve gender digital equality.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nTim Unwin is UNESCO Chair in ICT4D, and Emeritus Professor of Geography at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is also an Honorary Professor at Lanzhou Univeristy in China.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nOnline Freedom of Expression in the Era of #MeToo\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Shmyla Khan, Digital Rights Foundation<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nFreedom of Expression is widely accepted as a fundamental civil and political right, however within free speech discourse there is a tendency to ignore the particular claim feminists have to the right as a means of political emancipation and recognition. We call for a re-examination of the rigid prisms through which speech on the internet is viewed in light of feminist perspectives. \n\nSpaces and opportunities for speech are often foreclosed for womxn even before they find their voice. Feminists and queer activists have carved out spaces for themselves on the internet, even when these spaces have been actively hostile towards them. Despite attempts to reclaim the internet, it seems that the patriarchy is fighting back. On one hand, the internet is the site of political expression for women, non-binary folks and transgender individuals; on the other, these individuals are being silenced through widespread, and oftentimes targeted, online harassment. The internet serves as a last resort for womxn who are failed by justice systems in their respective countries; but these very womxn are being silenced through the defamation notices and lengthy litigation for speaking up online\u2014silenced by the very systems they sought to call out. The internet is paradoxically giving expression to both a new wave of the feminist movement and misogynistic speech of a percolating anti-feminist movement. Queer users who used the internet to assert their sexuality are being censored under ham-fisted content regulation policies of tech giants\u2014their expression is now labelled \u2018obscene\u2019.\n\nThe internet has always been the site of discourse, contestation and difference; however, it is important to recognise that our digital spaces are becoming unwelcoming and hostile for womxn. Fixing the internet requires deep soul-searching regarding who we envision as the subject of the internet and reforming laws that curtail and exclude womxn\u2019s speech. We demand that the lived experiences of women, non-binary folks, queer individuals and transgender community\u2014along with intersectionalities of oppression such as race, class and ability that undercut gender and sexualities\u2014be placed at the centre of policy discussions regarding speech and content regulation.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nDigital Rights Foundation is a non-profit based in Pakistan that works on issues of online freedom of expression, right to privacy, digital safety and online harassment. We strive to make online spaces safe and accessible, particularly for marginalised members of society.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nDigitalisation is not just bounded to technology, it affects our society at large\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

Tatiana Bazzichelli, Disruption Network Lab<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nA critical analysis of AI implies a close investigation of network structures and multiple\nlayers of computational systems. It is our responsibility as researchers, activists and experts\non digital rights to provoke awareness by reflecting on possible countermeasures\nthat come from the technological, political, and artistic framework.\nIn the current discussion around big data, deep learning, neural networks, and algorithms,\nAI has been used as a buzzword for proposing new political and commercial\nagendas in companies, institutions and the public sector.\nPublic debates should make an effort not only to address the topic of AI in general,\nbut to focus on concrete applications of data science, machine learning, and algorithms.\nIt is crucial to foster a debate on how AI impacts our everyday life, reflecting inequalities\nbased on social, racial and gender prejudices. Computer systems are influenced by implicit\nvalues of humans involved in data collection, programming and usage. Algorithms are not\nneutral and unbiased, and the consequence of historical patterns and individual decisions\nare embedded in search engine results, social media platforms and software applications\nreflecting systematic discrimination.\nAt the Disruption Network Lab conference \u201cAI TRAPS: Automating Discrimination\u201d\n(June 14-15, disruptionlab.org\/ai-traps), Tech Policy Advisor Mutale Nkonde, who was part\nof the team that introduced the Algorithmic Accountability Act to the House of Representatives,\ndescribed how in the US police\u2019s \u201cstop & frisk\u201d programme mainly targets Black and\nLatinx: 90% are innocent. This activity allows them to collect biometric data like fingerprints,\nreinforcing criminalisation of people of colour.\nACLU tested Amazon\u2019s facial recognition software used by a number of police departments\non photos of members of Congress, which were compared to a public database of\nmug shots. The test disproportionally misidentified African-American and Latinx members\nof Congress as the people in the mug shots. According to Os Keyes, Human-Centred Design\nEngineer at the University of Washington, a just AI should be bias free, and shaped\nand controlled by the people affected by it. Automated Gender Recognition is used by\ncompanies and the public sector to target advertising and to automate welfare systems,\nbut it is based on old norms which divide genders into binary male and female, thereby\nexcluding trans communities, and helping to cement and normalise discrimination.\nThe problem is not AI per se \u2013 but that this technology is developed in a biased\ncontext around gender, race and class. We need to build systems around the values we want\nour present and future societies to have.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nDr. Tatiana Bazzichelli is a curator and researcher on network culture, hacktivism and\nwhistleblowing. She is the artistic director and founder of Disruption Network Lab, a Berlin-\nbased nonprofit organisation in Germany that has since 2014 organised international\nevents at the intersection of human rights and technology with the objective of strengthening\nfreedom of speech. https:\/\/www.disruptionlab.org\/.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nYouth voices in Internet Governance \u2013 visibility\nbeyond tokenism?\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Elisabeth Schauermann, German Informatics Society<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nYoung people under 25 are the most active Internet users, they are more networked, and\nthey tend to adopt new services and technologies earlier than other demographic groups.1 2\nHowever, digital inclusion of youth can \u2013 and should \u2013 go beyond teaching digital\nskills. Questions around the extent of meaningful youth participation have preceded the\nInternet. Ladder models visualize the idea that participation is not binary, but exists in\ndegrees.3 In low degrees of participation, young people might be used as decoration to\ngive a process a more inclusive appearance, without being included in the \u201cimportant\u201d\nconversations that the \u201cadults\u201d have somewhere else. In higher degrees, it is young people\nthemselves who initiate and lead projects while being part of the larger process at hand.\nIn this context, the larger process is Internet Governance. By definition, Internet Governance\ninitiatives have to be open, inclusive, transparent, and non-commercial.4 This can\ncreate environments that are more accessible than other, more traditional, policy spheres.\nThe multi-stakeholder model of Internet Governance allows for different groups to have a\nlegitimate say in discussions, therefore gives youth the opportunity to become a recognized\nstakeholder group. The growing number of local, national, and regional Youth IGF\ninitiatives shows rising interest and mobilization.\nWhat is more, if judged by the effect that Internet regulations take on different parts\nof society, by mere numbers and exposure, young people are affected in many cases, and\nshould be consulted. These are all obvious reasons to have youth participate and be visible\nin Internet Governance.\nIn any case, there are several preconditions for meaningful youth participation:\n– Acceptance: understanding that youth have legitimacy in policy making\n– Opportunity: active support of participation\n– Capacity: education and opportunities for capacity building\n– Advocacy: sustainable processes to further youth-relevant policies\n– Inclusion: youth active on all levels of policy-making\nThis list is not exhaustive, but shall be a starting point to discuss how youth can actively\nshape Internet policy.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nElisabeth Schauermann in her role as a project coordinator at the German Informatics Society (GI) organises the global Youth Internet Governance Forum Summit 2019. Since 2015, she has been involved in Internet Governance in academic, professional, and volunteer contexts with a strong focus on human rights, diversity, and new forms of participation.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nThe Portals to the World are Locked for Millions\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Raul Aguayo-Krauthausen, Sozialhelden<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nThe internet offers possibilities for everyone. But its accessibility is still sorely wanting.\nIn order to change that, we must reconsider its institutions, its premises and its\ntechnology – and along with that, the relationships between people with and without\ndisabilities.\nThe invitation to this year\u2019s IGF meeting in Berlin contains the very welcome proclamation\nthat \u201cwe must leave no one behind in accessing the benefits of the Internet and\nthe digital age.\u201d Great, so let\u2019s do it!\nThe internet has all the potential for being a great equalizer among people of different\nbackgrounds and abilities. The anonymity of the internet gives us the opportunity\nto be in contact with each other on equal footing and to create a digital age that is truly\nfor everybody. But because the internet is also a mirror of our societies and of human\nnature, it also has the potential for perpetuating existing inequalities, prejudices and\ndiscrimination.\nWe have everything we need to make the vision of an inclusive internet a reality:\nlegislation, guidelines, experience, best practices and capable people. Unfortunately,\nthere are far too many people making decisions, writing code and designing apps who\nthemselves do not have a disability, who do not listen to people with disabilities and who\nhave not learned to take accessibility into account. Except maybe as an afterthought, after\neverything else has been decided, coded and designed.\nThis will only change if the disability rights movement\u2019s call for \u201cNothing about us\nwithout us\u201d is finally put into practice. People with disabilities need to be at the table all\nthe time, including during the development of internet governance policies and open\ndata standards, so that their perspectives, their needs and their innovative ideas are\nbrought into the process from the beginning.\nAnyone who has watched a silly YouTube video at work is glad that subtitles are\navailable, anyone trying to understand a website in a foreign language is relieved to find a\nversion of the site in plain language. It\u2019s easy – everyone stands to gain from the internet\nbecoming more accessible.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nRa\u00fal Aguayo-Krauthausen was born in 1980 in Peru and now lives in Berlin. His second home\nis the Internet. There he tweets, blogs and posts about the things that move him. Sometimes\nhumorous, sometimes serious and sometimes with a pointed tongue. He studied social- and\nbusiness communication and design thinking. After a few detours in the advertising industry,\nhe worked for four years at Radio Fritz, rbb. Together with other comrades-in-arms*, he\nfounded two non-profit associations, SOZIALHELDEN e.V. and AbilityWatch e.V., where he is\nan activist, speaker and consultant for inclusion and accessibility.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nEffective legal protection against hate speech online\nas anti-discrimination measure\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Kathrin Ganz & Kathy Me\u00dfmer & Kelda Niemeyer, Otherwise Network e.V.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nOnline hate speech particularly affects members of marginalized communities that\nuse the internet to fight against discrimination. In order to protect their freedom of\nexpression, Internet Governance needs to find effective measures that take power\nimbalances into account.\nIn current debates on legislative measures against online hate speech, the vulnerability\nof marginalized groups is often instrumentalized for political purposes.\nUnder the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), social network providers\nare obliged to delete obviously illegal content within a short period. The NetzDG does\nnot establish its own definition of a hate crime, but refers to 21 offences including insult,\ndefamation, slander, and the loss of the most personal sphere of life through image\nrecordings and threats.\nInternationally, the NetzDG has been greeted as a bold approach against hate\nspeech precisely because it places social media providers into the obligation to enforce\nthe law. However, the deletion of content under the NetzDG cannot replace the effective\ninvestigation of criminal offenses and the prosecution of the offenders through governmental\nauthorities.\nTo define the social rules of a new, dynamic communication environment, publicly\naccessible legal reasoning and commentary are indispensable. These do not come about\nif the decisions are taken by anonymous ‘deletion teams’ on behalf of private companies\nthat work under dire, physically harming conditions and strict NDAs. First reports by\nnetwork operators indicate that the majority of the reported content was not deleted after\nreviewing. From an anti-discrimination perspective, this is decisive: by focusing on individual\npunishable statements, the NetzDG is not suited to provide effective protection\nfor discriminated groups.\nWhile the NetzDG has many problems, other proposals are even worse: The duty to\nuse a full legal name in online communication would strip marginalized communities not\nonly of ways for expressing their identities but of the protection through pseudonymity.\nEffective measures against digital violence must take power imbalances into account.\nIn particular, legislation and authorities need to take into account the extensive\nimpacts on victims of online offenses and governance needs to ensure equal access to\nauthorities and civil justice.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nDr. Kathrin Ganz is a researcher at Freie Universit\u00e4t Berlin. Currently, her focus is on open\naccess publishing and on hate speech. She is on the board of Otherwise Network. Kelda Niemeyer works as a lawyer in Berlin in the fields of data protection law, copyright\nlaw, e-commerce and open source. She is a co-founder of Otherwise Network. Dr. Kathy Me\u00dfmer is a sociologist and member of Otherwise Network. She engages in all questions concerning digital publics and hate speech.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nTyranny by Database in Kenya\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Kedolwa Waziri, Nubian community<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nDigitalization of identities in Kenya, coupled with the blatant lack of data protection\nlaws and data security, is at present a tool to further entrench institutionalized discrimination\nand exclusion. It has the potential to undermine the rights of all Kenyans, and\nmarginalized communities are especially at risk.\nEarlier this year, the Kenyan government launched the National Integrated Identity\nManagement System (NIIMS) that was intended to facilitate the issuance of digital identities\nto all people residing in Kenya via the \u2018Huduma Namba\u2019, a single document that\nwas to combine all the various identity documents issued to Kenyans. It was said that\nthe Huduma Namba would transition Kenya into the age of digital belonging, ostensibly\nan unequivocal good.\nHowever, this exercise, rolled out \u2018top-down\u2019 and conducted without the participation\nthe Kenyan people, was impressed upon the public amid many threats and coercion\nfrom state authorities. And in the context of existing issues of discrimination and\nexclusion in the current identification systems, as well as the lack of a data protection\nframework, effectively make possible the permanent legal erasure of marginalized peoples,\nwho already live at the risk of statelessness.\nThe proposed legislation, challenged in court by human rights groups, mandates\nthat every Kenyan resident must present this number in order to participate in more than\n15 civic, social and political aspects of daily life. What does this mean for the Nubians,\nand other sensitive groups such as refugees and border communities? Voting and access\nto public services will be further inaccessible, even marrying and even legally dying will\nbe impossible.\nAlso proposed are penalties of imprisonment and hefty fines for any person who\nattempts to transact or take part in public life without this number. This will see to it that\nthe most vulnerable and disenfranchised populations end up in even more vulnerable\nstates of existence, either in debt, or in prison. If the bill rolls out as is, all Kenyans are at\nrisk of intersectional discrimination and abuse of human rights. It will be a digital era of\ntyranny by database.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nKedolwa Waziri is a Kenyan writer and activist. Her work lives at the intersection of social\njustice, art and feminist politics.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nNon-discrimination by design?!\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Claude Draude, University of Kassel<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nImages of the typical user still largely inform IT development. Mostly, deviations\nare only considered when designing for a \u201cspecial\u201d group, like the elderly or people\nwith disabilities. To counter this, a systemic integration of marginalized perspectives\nthroughout all stages of IT artefact and infrastructure development is needed.\nTo countervail the discriminatory effects of digitalization the sociotechnical approach\ntowards IT development must be strengthened. Taking seriously that IT systems are always\nembedded in specific sociocultural, economic and political contexts would mean\nto regard \u201cnon-technical\u201d aspects as important as the \u201ctechnical\u201d ones \u2013 or rather\nto dissolve the separation altogether for a holistic course of action. Sadly, in most\nparts the sociotechnical approach is neither mirrored in computer science or engineering\neducation nor in research departments or tech industries or infrastructure planning.\nThe failure to educate on pressing social matters like inequality, power relations,\nin- and exclusion in their interconnection to technology is responsible for a number of\nproblematic effects of digitalization. Examples range from artificial intelligence (predictive\npolicing and people of color, transgender people and facial recognition), online communication\n(harassment, violation of privacy), smart homes (domestic violence through\nsmart devices) to the transformation of work (job loss, demand for new qualifications),\nto name just a few. These examples show the importance of always considering marginalized\nperspectives \u2013 not \u201cjust\u201d when designing for so-called \u201cniche-groups\u201d.\nRealizing that technology affects people differently depending on intersecting social\nmarkers is important for every sociotechnical system. Fortunately, there is a growing body\nof work from activists and scholars that strive for social justice. Intersectional feminist\nand gender research informs HCI (human-computer interaction), critical and post-colonial\nthought and experiences challenge computing; anti-oppressive design, design\njustice, participatory design and inclusive design formulate concrete design approaches.\nTo be effective, however, this expertise needs to be more broadly recognized and supported.\nStructural integration in academia and research institutions, sufficient resources and\nfunding, acknowledgement from policy makers and the building of infrastructures that\nsupport non-discriminatory efforts in IT design are urgently needed.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nClaude Draude is professor at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering\/Computer Science and\nhead of work group “Gender\/Diversity in Informatics Systems” (GeDIS) at the University\nof Kassel, Germany. Her work seeks to integrate approaches from gender studies, feminist\nSTS, new materialism, arts and design into computing to develop more inclusive sociotechnical\nIT systems.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nHow EU norms impact marginalized communities\naround the world\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Chlo\u00e9 Berth\u00e9l\u00e9my, European Digital Rights Movement<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nEuropean digital laws and technologies are exported to other regions of the world,\nwhere marginalized groups can be negatively affected by the adoption of regulatory\nand technical standards that do not fit their cultural needs and realities.\nNot all regions of the world equally contribute to the development of the internet\necosystem and to the regulatory framework that applies to it. The European Union (EU),\nalong with other Western countries, is actively participating in the internet governance\nregime. It does so by both building a growing body of laws specifically regulating online\nchallenges and dominating the production of software.\nAs a result, the EU exports its political and cultural norms to other parts of the world\nthrough the way it regulates the internet. For example, after the adoption of the European\ndata protection law in 2018, several countries including Brazil, Argentina, Japan and\nIndia have either adopted their first data protection law or are in the process of updating\ntheir current legal framework.1\nHowever, what works in a European context is not necessarily suited for a different\ncultural environment. When online services and apps are built with relatively poor security\nlevels, it does reflect Western-centric norms. These weak security features endanger\nvulnerable communities, such as LGBTQI+ people, when the apps develop globally and\nbecome viral. This is especially the case in the Global South where repressive governments\nuse aggressive surveillance measures.\nThe developers community remains in the majority male, white, middle aged and\nheterosexual, with limited understanding of other local realities. The main problem is\ntherefore that affected communities are not involved in the production stages.\nSimilarly, when Europe develops its standards for freedom of expression online and\nhow it regulates the role of internet companies that host users\u2019 content, it has an impact on\nthe way similar laws are designed on other continents. Whether by turning companies into\njudges or by allowing users to enjoy their rights and freedoms, Europe is and will continue\nto influence the state of human rights online around the world, for better or worse.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nChlo\u00e9 Berth\u00e9l\u00e9my is Policy and Campaigns Officer at European Digital Rights (EDRi),\nsupporting advocacy efforts in the fields of intermediary liability and surveillance policies.\nBefore joining EDRi, she was advocating for youth rights at European level. In her free time,\nshe is active in several environmental and feminist social movements.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nSomething has got to give\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Dia Kayyali, WITNESS<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nTruly inclusive global internet governance requires dismantling existing power structures\nand addressing existing power dynamics in the Internet governance world, and it requires\ntreating the needs and voices of the most vulnerable and marginalized people as\ncentral, rather than an afterthought.\nA quick look at various boards and staff pages make it clear \u2013 Able-bodied, straight,\ncisgender white men have claimed Internet architecture and policy as their own, and they\nhave consistently held positions of power and influence. As a result, Internet governance\nbodies often fail to understand that small decisions can have big impacts on everyone\nelse in the world. It\u2019s time for people to give up some of that privilege and for organizations\nto make a better effort to change the structures that are getting in the way.\nFirst, there is some level of personal responsibility here. In recent years there\u2019s been\na push to end \u201cmanels\u201d- all-male panels – with some men signing pledges not to speak\non them. But what about whinels- all white-panels? What about panels speaking about\nexperiences of people in regions where no one on the panel is from that region? Anyone\nfrom a marginalized community can relate the experience of seeing exactly this repeatedly.\nIt is frankly cringe-worthy, but somehow continues to happen. This can change.\nPeople who have historically had unearned advantage in the field can today say no to\nopportunities, and pass those opportunities on to others.\nLike global warming, though, no level of personal responsibility can change the\nsituation. Instead, the structure of Internet governance work itself has to change. The\nInternet Governance Forum has made some laudable efforts to increase access for and\nparticipation from marginalized communities, including remote and travel funding for\nrepresentatives from underrepresented communities.\nBut it\u2019s important to see these measures as stop-gap. Schengen or US visas aren\u2019t\nalways so easy to get. Taking time to travel isn\u2019t so easy. In between such in-person\nmeetings, conference calls are often in English and centered on European or US time\nzones, excluding much of the world.\nInternet governance bodies need to address these issues as much as possible, increasing\ntravel funding and being more thoughtful about meetings. But they also need to make\nnew efforts to meet vulnerable communities where they are. Major Internet governance\nbodies can send representatives to regional digital rights and technology events. They\ncan hold listening sessions, create easy guidelindes on how to get involved, and provide\nmaterials and meetings in more languages.\nOnce Internet governance bodies begin to put in as much effort towards being\ninclusive as they are expecting from marginalized and vulnerable communities just to\nparticipate at all, we will start to see truly inclusive Internet governance.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nDia Kayyali is the Program Manager for tech + advocacy at WITNESS, an organization that\nhelps people document human rights abuses with video and related technology. Dia fights\nto ensure that policy \u2013 whether made by tech companies, governments, or multi-stakeholder\nbodies \u2013 helps rather than harms those human rights defenders.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nGoverning the Flows of Information in Control\nSocieties\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Josef Barla, Goethe University Frankfurt & Christoph Hubatschke, University of Vienna<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nReflecting on the 2019 democracy protests in Hong Kong, this statement draws on the\nconcept of \u2018control societies\u2019\u2014coined by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze\u2014in\norder to emphasize that power in technologically advanced control societies works\nthrough the control and modulation of the flows of information and communication\nrather than their confinement.\nIn 1990, the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze proposed the notion of \u2018control societies\u2019\nas an actualization of Michel Foucault\u2019s concept of the \u2018disciplinary societies\u2019. For\nDeleuze, the hegemonic form of power acts not so much anymore through repressive\nconfining but through \u201ccontinuous control and instant communication\u201d. That is not to\nsay that there is no disciplinary power anymore, but rather that the aspect of controlling\nmovement and action has become a new hegemonic layer of power.\nDeleuze\u2019s analysis seems to be true all the more in the age of the internet. Instead\nof simply blocking or censoring, power seems to be more often about the control of\nmovement and attention, about keeping things moving and circulating. Hence, power,\nhere, is not so much about putting a ban on free speech, but rather about establishing a\nlogic in which only specific things are possible to say and to do.\nTake, for example, the current wave of protests against an extradition bill in Hong\nKong. In stark contrast to mainland China, in Hong Kong there has always been a strong\nremembrance of the events of Tian\u2019anmen square in 1989. As a response to the ongoing\nprotests, the Chinese government\u2014rather than repeating their tactics of repressing any\nnews about the protests\u2014not only attempts to control the flows of information but also\nactively disseminates so-called alternative news.\nSpreading manipulated photos and made up stories in order to influence the public\nopinion on the movement is power\u2019s reaction to protests in the age of control societies.\nInstead of confining and pretending that nothing ever happened, an aggressive\nand extensive spread of information is employed in order to control the public image,\ndemonstrating what Deleuze meant when he stressed that in control societies \u201cmarketing\u201d\nbecomes \u201cthe instrument of social control\u201d.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nJosef Barla is a postdoc researcher in the Biotechnologies, Nature and Society research\nGroup at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main. He specializes in science and technology\nstudies, the philosophy of technology, and feminist epistemologies. Christoph Hubatschke is a political scientist and philosopher based in Vienna. His research\ninterests are philosophy of technology, poststructuralist philosophy and critical\nperspectives on AI and humanoid robotics. He is one of the founding members of the\ntransdisciplinary research group H.A.U.S. \u2013 Humanoids in Architecture and Urban Spaces\n(https:\/\/h-a-u-s.org\/). MMag. Christoph Hubatschke, University of Vienna, Department for\nPhilosophy, http:\/\/www.diebresche.org\/\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nTowards a Feminist Data Future\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Nicole Shephard<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nA recognition that technologies are not neutral has arrived in public and policy discourse.\nData form the very basis of most technologies and algorithms that permeate\nour lives. As the unequal power relations that structure societies are deeply inscribed\nin that data, an intersectional approach to data is paramount.\nLarge amounts of data inform not only the technologies that organise digital space,\nbut also an increasing number of algorithms that affect every aspect of our lives. Data\ncreated, processed and interpreted under unequal power relations, by humans and\/or\nhuman-made algorithms, potentially reproduce the same exclusions, discriminations\nand normative expectations present in societies.\nData are manifold and pervasive: transactional data, communications data, surveillance\ndata, qualitative and quantitative data generated for research and policy purposes,\nor datasets assembled to train machine learning algorithms for corporate or state actors.\nThese and other kinds of data overlap at times, can be repurposed or aggregated, and\nmay serve aims not anticipated by those the data represents.\nThe ongoing work of identifying gaps, bias, and the ways in which racism intersects\nwith classism, sexism, or transphobia to exclude, discriminate and further marginalise those\nunderrepresented and otherwise othered in data builds the basis for a more equitable data\nfuture. To do justice to the ever-increasing amount of data that the lived experience at the\nheart of many feminist movements produces (and relies upon), however requires translating\nsuch critique into inclusive data practices.\nWhile privacy and access remain important concerns, a feminist data future also\nrequires assessing a threefold potential for digital violence inherent in all data and data\npractices: the potential for abuse and harassment of those present in the data, the potential\nfor epistemic violence that comes with the collection and processing of data about\nothers, and the potential for intersectional algorithmic discrimination.\nIf the wider internet policy arena and feminist digital rights movements collectively\naim at understanding and changing the power relations in our data and our lives, exploring\nthe implications of inclusive data and of an intersectional data practice, is an urgent\nnext step to thinking both together.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nNicole Shephard is an independent researcher, consultant and freelance writer in gender\nand technology. She takes an intersectional feminist perspective on topics like the politics\nof data, surveillance, online harassment or diversity and inclusion in the tech workplace.\nNicole combines a PhD in Gender Studies (LSE) with her professional background in ICT\nand HR roles.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nAgainst Prediction – The Power of Imagination in the\nAge of Codes and Numbers\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Katrin Fritsch & Diana Kozachek & Helene von Schwichow, MOTIF Institute for Digital Culture<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nPrediction obtains our ability to imagine. Binaries, numbers and algorithms foresee our\nfutures \u2013 based on the past. They take over the space of imagination and consequently\nthe vision for political change. Prediction simplifies, rationalises and boils down the\ncomplexities of the societies we live in. Prediction puts imagination at risk.\nFeminism welcomes complexities, it does not reduce them to relations. Hence, it\ninherently opposes prediction and functions as a basis for imagination. The internet is a\nspace structured by patriarchal, capitalist practices. However, it is also a space in which\nimagination can rapidly develop subversive potential. We need to advocate for free, imaginative\nspaces on the internet. We need more occasions in which we can practice and\nre-learn our ability to imagine. These spaces should not necessarily require knowledge\non codes or numbers but should emphasise the irrational, the new, the unthought. They\nshould not be bound to the technologically possible but to the socially desirable.\nThose who develop technologies have the power to shape them and determine\ntheir usage. Yet, technologies are products of cultures and contexts. They can be hacked\nthrough imagination. Every citizen has the ability to imagine and thus should have the\nright to co-create the digital world. Technological processes are political processes, and\nimagination can function as a powerful feminist and collective tool for social change. It\nreleases citizens from the dangerous assumption that there is a technological will. It\nenables them to envision and to actively shape the future they want to live in.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nKatrin Fritsch researches, writes, and talks about data, artificial intelligence and society.\nShe is co-founder of MOTIF Institute for Digital Culture, an independent think tank that\nadvocates for sustainable technologies and bold visions of the futures. \nDiana Kozachek is currently enrolled in the master\u2019s degree programme Future Studies at\nFreie Universit\u00e4t Berlin. Before, she has worked for several years in creative agencies such\nas Scholz & Friends Berlin as digital communications concepter for clients such as the\nEuropean Commission, BMVI, Audi and Car2Go. Helene von Schwichow holds a master degree in Communication in Social and Economic\nContexts from the Berlin University of the Arts. Before founding MOTIF, she has worked in\ncontent curation and communication in start-ups and as a research assistant at HIIG and\nUdK Berlin.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nMaking Internet Access for All a Reality\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Matthias C. Kettemann, Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) and Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nBeing able to access and use the Internet is important for human rights, human security\nand human development. From this we can derive a dual right to internet access which\nis crucial for human rights protection: access to the Internet per se and access to emancipatory\nInternet content. Both dimensions of access are threatened by discriminatory\npractices, some of which are enshrined both in law and code. It is time to identify and\neliminate them.\nDevelopment is much more than the elimination of absolute poverty: it is also the\nreduction of relative poverty and, as Amarty Sen demonstrated, the freedom of people to realize\ntheir capabilities. Together with the United Nations and its Human Rights Council and\nwith much justification we see that the potential of the Internet for human development is\ngreat. It can be, as Human Rights Council Resolution 20\/8 (2012) already put it, a \u201cdriving\nforce in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms\u201c. However, the\nsocial benefits of increased internet penetration for education, better income, enhanced\nhealthcare and increased lifestyle opportunities, especially in rural areas, are not without\npreconditions. Access to the Internet is not enough.\nThe right to access Internet content and through it receive and impart ideas is a key\nenabling right essential to realizing the full potential of human rights online. The UN 2030\nAgenda for Sustainable Development identified the building of resilient infrastructure, the\npromotion of inclusive and sustainable industrialization and the fostering of innovation as\nkey goals of sustainable development. However, it says too little about accessing content.\nGendered hate speech, persistent intersectional discrimination, and multidimensional\ndigital gaps keep too many people from fully being able to express themselves online.\nTargeted policies are required to remedy this situation: all stakeholders, especially states\nand companies, have their roles to play.\nStates need to exercise their sovereignty in a way that reflects the global common\ninterest in the integrity of the Internet and in ensuring both dimensions of access for all.\nThey need to follow up on their commitments to human development through the Internet,\nincluding in the Sustainable Development Goals. Online companies need to ensure that\nthey respect their obligations under the Ruggie Framework and do not \u2013 consciously or\ninadvertently \u2013 develop communication spaces that enable discrimination and exclusion.\nThis includes the use of algorithms which need to be ethically sound and made into tools\nto liberate, not to reinscribe themselves into traditional repressive relationships of power\nand exclusion.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nPD Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard), is Head of\nthe Research Program Regulatory Structures and the Emergence of\nRules in Online Spaces at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research |\nHans-Bredow-Institut (HBI), Hamburg, Chair ad interim for Public\nLaw, International Law and Human Rights – Hengstberger Professor\nfor the Foundations and Future of the Rule of Law, University\nof Heidelberg, and associated researcher at the Alexander von\nHumboldt Institute for Internet and Society, Berlin and the Privacy\nand Sustainable Computing Lab of the Vienna University of Economics\nand Business.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nDesigning a better internet\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Caroline Sinders<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nWhat is the problem with the social networks we inhabit online?\nIt\u2019s this: the spaces where so many of us communicate, collaborate, and stay in touch\nwith friends are also riddled with harassment. This ranges from extensive, organised\ncampaigns, to more personal attacks directed at people of colour and female public\nfigures. And we know that these can escalate, becoming something much more violent\nand menacing in nature.\n4chan is an important example of harm by design. For years, the ethnographer Whitney\nPhillips and I have been discussing how humour can be weaponised as a means of\ndisguising harassment in digital spaces. We can\u2019t see or hear someone when they type\nsomething online, therefore much of the intentionality of a conversation is obscured.\nPhillips wrote \u2018This is Why We Can\u2019t Have Nice Things\u2019, which highlights how the design\nof early 4chan, with its offensive humour and rhetoric, laid the cultural foundations for\nthe contemporary culture of harassment and trolling in so many online spaces.\nIs a rape threat a joke, for example? Or is the joking or meme-ing of a terrorist attack\nalso a joke? It is difficult to draw this line from a policy standpoint if you\u2019re designing a\nsocial network, but it\u2019s perhaps even more important to ask a deeper question of: what is\nthe impact of this violent rhetoric when it spreads as a \u2018humorous\u2019 meme?\nWhich brings us to today. What is happening right now within our internet? Social\nnetworks can exist as many things: tools, platforms, weapons, amplifiers. Our social\nnetworks allow for activism as well as harassment; if a system allows for coordination\nof a movement like #MeToo, it also allows for the coordination of #Gamergate. Can\nwe protect one kind of activity whilst curtailing the other? Should we? Misinformation,\nprotest, and harassment campaigns use social networks in similar ways for good or for ill\nbecause of how constrained social networks are by design: from the technical infrastructure\nto the policy framework to the social culture. These networks are about one thing:\nposting and responding to content, at scale. Their core design hasn\u2019t changed in years.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nCaroline Sinders is a machine learning designer\/user researcher, artist, and digital anthropologist.\nShe has been examining the intersections of natural language processing, artificial\nintelligence, abuse, online harassment, and politics in digital, conversational spaces.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nChallenges to a safer and more inclusive Internet to\nchildren and teens: should we rely so much on consent\nand informed decisions?\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Kelli Angelini & Marina Feferbaum & Guilherme Klafke & Stephane Hilda Barbosa Lima & Tatiane Guimar\u00e3es, Pontif\u00edcia Universidade Cat\u00f3lica de S\u00e3o Paulo<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nSome key regulations for internet governance are based on consent and information.\nBut how can we guarantee effective consent and informed decisions from people who\naren\u2019t fully intellectually and emotionally developed yet? How safe is an Internet based\non consent and informed decisions for children and teens?\nPeople consent with social media\u2019s terms of use while creating their accounts;\nplayers express their will while buying perks in a game; users permit that sites collect\ntheir data. The more we realize the risks of rights violation in the web, the more we\nrely on conscience, consent and information as a manner to control what may or may\nnot be done on-line. But what if we are dealing with a group of people who aren\u2019t fully\nintellectually and emotionally developed yet? What about children or teens?\nSome regulations protect children and teens by recurring to parents\u2019 consent, like\nBrazilian General Personal Data Protection Law. This strategy isn\u2019t flawless. First, it\u2019s\nprobably unfeasible that they control everything their children do on the Internet \u2013 actually,\ntwo in every three Brazilian kids say their parents stay around while they use the\nInternet, but are not looking at what they are doing.2 Second, we should consider the\ngenerational gap between youth and adults. In 2017, the app Musical.ly reached 7.5\nmillion Brazilian users, in spite of being almost unknown to adults.3 Parents may consent\nto uses unfamiliar to them. Third, many adult decisions are influenced by children\u2019s\ndesires \u2013 a Brazilian research shows that six in every ten interviewed mothers purchased\nunnecessary products after their children\u2019s request in 2015. We shall create an Internet that takes into account the existence of young users. In some\ncases, we\u2019ll need to create legal or technical locks to protect children and teens rights \u2013\nfor example, prohibiting tracking of data by default in some situations. In other cases,\nwe\u2019ll need to be creative and think about new ways of using the web \u2013 for example,\nadding filters to messenger apps5 or changing how social platforms show their content\n(videos or timelines).\nIn sum, we need to build a virtual environment for children and teens as much\nas for adults.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nKelli Angelini is\nLegal Manager at the Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br). Master in Civil Law at\nPontif\u00edcia Universidade Cat\u00f3lica de S\u00e3o Paulo. Marina Feferbaum is Professor at S\u00e3o Paulo Law School of Funda\u00e7\u00e3o Getulio Vargas (FGV Direito SP). PhD in\nHuman Rights at Pontif\u00edcia Universidade Cat\u00f3lica de S\u00e3o Paulo. Guilherme Klafke is \nProject Leader at the Center for Education and Research in Innovation of S\u00e3o Paulo Law\nSchool of Funda\u00e7\u00e3o Getulio Vargas (CERI-FGV Direito SP). PhD in Constitutional Law at\nUniversity of S\u00e3o Paulo. Stephane Hilda Barbosa Lima is \nResearcher at the Center for Education and Research in Innovation of S\u00e3o Paulo Law\nSchool of Funda\u00e7\u00e3o Getulio Vargas (CERI-FGV Direito SP). Master in Law at Federal\nUniversity of Cear\u00e1. Tatiane Guimar\u00e3es is \nResearcher at the Center for Education and Research in Innovation of S\u00e3o Paulo Law School\nof Funda\u00e7\u00e3o Getulio Vargas (CERI-FGV Direito SP). Undergraduate at Pontif\u00edcia Universidade\nCat\u00f3lica de S\u00e3o Paulo.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\n\u201cSolidarity is our weapon\u201d\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Ricarda Dr\u00fceke, University of Salzburg<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nInclude queer\/feminist perspectives, utilize them in the critique of power, and form\ncivil society partnerships to combat discrimination and exclusion as well as to confront\nhate online.\n\u201cSolidarity is our weapon\u201d: through this slogan, which originates in the context of\nsocial movements, several goals and focuses become clear. Solidarity as a basis for\nsocial coexistence, encompassing inclusivity and mutual respect, should be the central\nperspective of our societies \u2013 and thus also of internet governance. Solidarity means\nperceiving diverse social and individual positionings and providing approaches that can\nwork against discrimination, exclusion, and hate. Queer\/feminist positions in particular\npoint to this on both a theoretical and a practical level.\nLike any area of society, internet governance always has a feminist aspect in which\nfeminism is not monothematic but intersectional. This in turn enables the productive\nexpansion of internet political discourses and calls for more justice at various levels.\nAs the central concerns of internet governance, inclusiveness and solidarity require a\nconfrontation with power structures and power relationships that is effective on many\nlevels. From this perspective, the concentration of power, as reflected in structures, technologies,\nand actions as well as in norms and discourses, can be taken into consideration,\nreinterpreted, and changed.\nThis can be illustrated by the example of hate speech. Such speech acts hurt certain\n(especially marginalized) groups in particular due to their genders, races and bodies.\nOnly by examining the societal structures of power and inequality that they help to produce\nand the social discourses that provide their breeding ground can their complexity\nbe grasped. Therefore it is also necessary not to leave the assessment of such speech\nacts only to corporations such as Facebook or YouTube, but to find civil-society and political\nsolutions to form alliances and to intervene in social discourses.\nQueer\/feminist movements and actors in particular have repeatedly pointed out\nthat while hate speech has found additional forms of expression through digital media,\nthe linguistic patterns still correspond to traditional anti-gender and sexist narratives.\nEspecially in view of the current backlash, it remains important not to lose heart, and\ninstead to unite even more closely against these tendencies and show solidarity inclusive\nof the consideration of our own diverse perspectives. It is from alliances, from critiques\nof power, and from solidarity that agency can emerge.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nRicarda Dru\u0308eke is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies\nat the University of Salzburg, Austria. Her research interests are political communication\nand digital publics, digital activism and networked feminism and medial representations\nof ethnicity and gender. Her ongoing research project deals with media repertoires in contemporary\nprotest movements.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nEnabling Youth Participation in Internet Governance\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Uffa Modey, Coordinator of the Nigeria Youth IGF<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nIn recent years, the global Internet governance ecosystem has witnessed a great number\nof youth newcomers (students and young professionals). Youth make up a considerable\npercentage of Internet users globally. They play an extremely crucial role in shaping our\ndigital future. Therefore, they need to be included in defining processes, principles and\npolicies that govern the use of technology globally. Their experiences online provide intelligence\non the effects of technology on our daily lives.\nThe participation rate of youth from underserved regions in global Internet public\nmeetings has increased. Youth from developing regions are now more aware of the key\nInternet governance and digital rights issues occurring in their community. This has\nlargely been due to the amount of global fellowship programs which facilitate the participation\nof youth from these regions in Internet public meetings and provide training and\nmentorship on Internet technology and policy topics.\nWe need to do more in addition to the mentioned efforts for youth inclusion in Internet\ngovernance. Apart from being aware of the issues, how can youth actually influence\ntechnology policy decisions in their communities? Youth need support and encouragement\nfrom the community. Internet stakeholders should be able to ensure that young\npeople are integrated into the plan for global sustainability through digital technology.\nAt Digital Grassroots, one of our goals is to create a platform for youth voices to be\nheard during Internet governance discussions. We seek to collaborate with other Internet\nstakeholders to support community youth-led initiatives that enable youth to assess the\nstate of the Internet in their community and effectively communicate possible solutions\nto issues to the relevant bodies.\nWe encourage all Internet stakeholders to support the establishment of Youth IGF\nInitiatives in their regions. This will provide an avenue for them to incorporate the youth\nagenda in their activities. Youth are the future of technology. They should be properly\nequipped with the resources they need to excel as leaders in the technology sector.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nUffa Modey is the Vice President\/Cofounder of Digital Grassroots and the Coordinator of\nthe Nigeria Youth IGF. She is a Nigerian female who is passionate about capacity building\nfor youth engagement in Internet technology and governance. She designs and leads digital\nliteracy programs for youth from underserved communities globally. Connect with her via\nemail uffa@digitalgrassroots.org or Twitter @fafa416\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nRestriction of Rights or Right of Restriction?\nAn Inclusive Internet Depends on Proactive,\nProtective Legislation\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Nakeema Stefflbauer, FrauenLoop.org<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nAs a lifelong science-fiction enthusiast, I believe in the digital future as an open vista. But\nfor everyone to feel safe and free to explore it, the harmful, hateful and violent behaviours\nand expression of bigots must be actively held at bay through enforceable regulations\nthat are updated regularly to reflect an ever changing internet. As GDPR forces businesses\nto inform internet consumers of their data collection practices, so too, should\nregulation inform individuals of how\/whose data was used to devise predictive policing,\nfinancial creditworthiness, and facial-recognition algorithms.\nThe real-world ghetto is a concept loaded with negative connotations. So are spaces\non the web where women, racial and gender minorities are successfully attacked and\ndrowned out. The trifecta of cruelty, exclusion, and complacency imposed in the real\nworld has its equivalent in the digital world: only the scope of harm has changed, in the\n(nearly) borderless realms of the internet. For me, a black woman who grew up poor, the\ndigital world that I experience today offers no more freedom, privacy, fairness or anonymity\nthan the real world – too often, it offers less. This is why we must demand protective\ntools (hate filters, abuser de-platforming) for vulnerable groups from the entities that\nprofit handsomely from these platforms. The nature of those tools can and should be\ndiscussed, but the fact that we are still stuck in discussions around acknowledging the\nproblem is deeply concerning.\nThe realities of doxxing, deepfakes, data tracking and dubious abuse regulation policies\non every major social media platform inhibit many marginalized voices from being\nheard. These voices are essential to the evolution of human interaction, and deserve\nprotection from the threats of silencing, violence and privacy violation. GDPR has shown\nthat fairness and policy disclosures can be mandated, but GDPR is only the start.\n

<\/p>\nAbout the Author<\/b>\nDr. Nakeema Stefflbauer is a Harvard University-trained researcher turned senior digitalization\nexecutive and the founder and CEO of FrauenLoop.org. Her nonprofit organization,\nbased in Berlin, Germany, trains women with resident, immigrant and refugee status in\nprogramming skills for web development, data analytics, and deep learning\/AI jobs. Dr.\nStefflbauer is an advocate for digital inclusion, tech equity and algorithmic transparency.\nShe writes and speaks about the impact of digital technologies and unregulated automation\non marginalized groups.\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\nMaking a Feminist Internet\n<\/a><\/h3>\n

by Association for Progressive Communications (APC)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\nAt APC we believe a feminist internet empowers more women and people of diverse\nsexualities and gender expressions to fully enjoy our rights, engage in pleasure and play,\nand dismantle patriarchy.\nAt the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) we believe a feminist internet\nempowers more women and people of diverse sexualities and gender expressions to\nfully enjoy our rights, engage in pleasure and play, and dismantle patriarchy. How can we\nachieve this goal? Through the following critical principles:\n