Coming from the viewpoint that accountability and transparency, citizen engagement and public debate are critical for good development, I posted yesterday on 5 ways that ICTs can support the MDGs. I got to thinking I would be remiss not to also post something on ways that ICTs (information and communication technologies) and poor or questionable use of ICTs and social media can hinder development.
It’s not really the fault of the technology. ICTs are tools, and the real issues lie behind the tools — they lie with people who create, market and use the tools. People cannot be separated from cultures and societies and power and money and politics. And those are the things that tend to hinder development, not really the ICTs themselves. However the combination of human tendencies and the possibilities ICTs and social media offer can can sometimes lead us down a shaky path to development or actually cause harm to the people that we are working with.
When do I start getting nervous about ICTs and social media for social good?
1) When the hype wins out over the real benefits of the technology. Sometimes the very idea of a cool and innovative technology wins out over an actual and realistic analysis of its impact and success. Here I pose the cases of the so-called Iran Twitter Revolution and One Laptop per Child (and I’ll throw in Play Pumps for good measure, though it’s not an ICT project, it’s an acknowledged hype and failure case). There are certainly other excellent examples. So many examples in fact that there are events called Fail Faires being organized to discuss these failures openly and learn how to avoid them in the future.
2) When it’s about the technology, not the information and communications needs. When you hear someone say “We want to do an mHealth project” or “We need to have a Facebook page” or “We have a donor who wants to give us a bunch of mobile phones–do you know of something we can do with them?” you can be pretty sure that you have things backwards and are going to run into trouble down the road, wasting resources and energy on programs that are resting on weak foundations. Again, we can cite the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative, where you have a tool, but the context for using it isn’t there (connectivity, power, teacher training and content). There is debate whether OLPC was a total failure or whether it paved the way for netbooks, cheap computers and other technologies that we use today. I’ll still say that the grand plan of OLPC: a low-cost laptop for every child leading to development advances; had issues from the start because it was technology led.
3) When technology is designed from afar and parachuted in. If you don’t regularly involve people who will use your new technology, in the context where you’re planning for it to be used, you’re probably going to find yourself in a bind. True for ICTs and for a lot of other types of innovations out there. There’s a great conversation on Humanitarian Design vs. Design Imperialism that says it all. ICTs are no different. Designing information and communication systems in one place and imposing them on people in another place can hinder their uptake and/or waste time and money that could be spent in other ways that would better contribute to achieving development goals.
4) When the technology is part of a larger hidden agenda. I came across two very thought-provoking posts this week: one on the US Government’s Internet Freedom agenda and another from youth activists in the Middle East and North Africa region who criticize foundations and other donors for censoring their work when it doesn’t comply with US foreign policy messages. Clearly there are hidden political agendas at work which can derail the use of ICTs for human rights work and build mistrust instead of democracy. Another example of a potential hidden agenda is donation of proprietary hardware and software by large technology companies to NGOs and NGO consortia in order to lock in business (for example mHealth or eHealth) and prevent free and open source tools from being used, and which end up being costly to maintain, upgrade and license in the long-term.
5) When tech innovations put people and lives at risk. I’d encourage you to read this story about Haystack, a software hyped as a way to circumvent government censorship of social media tools that activists use to organize. After the US government fast-tracked it for use in Iran, huge security holes were found that could put activists in great danger. In our desire to see things as cool, cutting edge, and perhaps to be seen as cool and cutting edge ourselves, those of us suggesting and promoting ICTs for reporting human rights abuses or in other sensitive areas of work can cause more harm than we might imagine. It’s dangerous to push new technologies that haven’t been properly piloted and evaluated. It’s very easy to get caught up in coolness and forget the nuts and bolts and the time it takes to develop and test something new.
6) When technologists and humanitarians work in silos. A clear example of this might be the Crisis Camps that sprung up immediately after the Haiti Earthquakes in 2010. The outpouring of good will was phenomenal, and there were some positive results. The tech community got together to see how to help, which is a good thing. However the communication between the tech community and those working on the ground was not always conducive to developing tech solutions that were actually helpful. Here is an interesting overview by Ethan Zuckerman of some of the challenges the Crisis Commons faced. I remember attending a Crisis Camp and feeling confused about why one guy was building an iPhone application for local communities to gather data. Cool application for sure, but from what people I knew on the ground were saying, most people in local communities in Haiti don’t have iPhones. With better coordination among the sectors, people could put their talents and expertise to real use rather than busy work that makes them feel good.
7) When short attention spans give rise to vigilante development interventions. Because most of us in the West no longer have a full attention span (self included here), we want bite sized bits of information. But the reality of development is complicated, complex and deep. Social media has been heralded as a way to engage donors, supporters and youth; as a way to get people to help and to care. However the story being told has not gotten any deeper or more realistic in most cases than the 30 second television commercials or LiveAid concerts that shaped perceptions of the developing world 25 years ago. The myth of the simple story and simple solution propagates perhaps even further because of how quickly the message spreads. This gives rise to public perception that aid organizations are just giant bureaucracies (kind of true) and that a simple person with a simple idea could just go in and fix things without so much hullabaloo (not the case most of the time). The quick fix culture, supported and enhanced by social media, can be detrimental to the public’s patience with development, giving rise to apathy or what I might call vigilante development interventions — whereby people in the West (cough, cough, Sean Penn) parachute into a developing country or disaster scene to take development into their own hands because they can’t understand why it’s not happening as fast as the media tells them it should.
8 ) When DIY disregards proven practice. In line with the above, there are serious concerns in the aid and development community about the ‘amateurization’ of humanitarian and development work. The Internet allows people to link and communicate globally very easily. Anyone can throw up a website or a Facebook page and start a non-profit that way, regardless of their understanding of the local dynamics or good development practices built through years of experience in this line of work. Many see criticism from development workers as a form of elitism rather than a call for caution when messing around in other people’s lives or trying to do work that you may not be prepared for or have enough understanding about. The greater awareness and desire to use ‘social media for social good’ may be a positive thing, but it may also lead to good intentions gone awry and again, a waste of time and resources for people in communities, or even harm. There’s probably no better example of this phenomenon than #1millionshirts, originally promoted by Mashable, and really a terrible idea. See Good Intents for discussion around this phenomenon and tools to help donors educate themselves.
9) When the goal is not development but brand building through social media. Cause campaigns have been all the rage for the past several years. They are seen as a way for for-profit companies and non-profits to join together for the greater good. Social media and new ICTs have helped this along by making cause campaigns cheap and easy to do. However many ‘social media for social good’ efforts are simply bad development and can end up actually doing ‘social harm’. Perhaps a main reason for some of the bad ideas is that most social media cause campaigns are not actually designed to do social good. As Mashable says, through this type of campaign, ‘small businesses can gain exposure without breaking the bank, and large companies can reach millions of consumers in a matter of hours.’ When ‘social good’ goals are secondary to the ‘exposure for my brand’ goals, I really question the benefits and contribution to development.
10) When new media increases voyeurism, sensationalism or risk. In their rush to be the most innovative or hard-hitting in the competition for scarce donor dollars, organizations sometimes expose communities to child protection risks or come up with cutesy or edgy social media ideas that invade and interrupt people’s lives; for example, ideas like putting a live web camera in a community so that donors can log on 24/7 and see what’s happening in a ‘real live community.’ (This reminds me a bit of the Procrastination Pit’s 8 Cutest and Weirdest Live Animal Cams). Or when opportunities for donors to chat with people in communities become gimmicks and interrupt people in communities from their daily lives and work. Even professional journalists sometimes engage in questionable new media practices that can endanger their sources or trivialize their stories. With the Internet, stories stick around a lot longer and travel a lot farther and reach their fingers back to where they started a lot more easily than they used to. Here I will suggest two cases: Nick Kristof’s naming and fully identifying a 9-year-old victim of rape in the DRC and @MacClelland’s ‘live tweeting’ for Mother Jones of a rape survivor’s visit to the doctor in Haiti.
Update: Feb 22, 2011 – adding a 10a!
10a) When new media and new technologies put human rights activists at risk of identification and persecution. New privacy and anonymity issues are coming up due to the increasing ubiquity of video for human rights documenting. This was clearly seen in the February 2011 uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and elsewhere. From Sam Gregory’s excellent piece on privacy and anonymity in the digital age: “In the case of video (or photos), a largely unaddressed question arises. What about the rights to anonymity and privacy for those people who appear, intentionally or not, in visual recordings originating in sites of individual or mass human rights violations? Consider the persecution later faced by bystanders and people who stepped in to film or assist Neda Agha-Soltan as she lay dying during the election protests in Iran in 2009. People in video can be identified by old-fashioned investigative techniques, by crowd-sourcing (as with the Iran example noted above…) or by face detection/recognition software. The latter is now even built into consumer products like the Facebook Photos, thus exposing activists using Facebook to a layer of risk largely beyond their control.”
11) When ICTs and new media turn activism to slacktivism. Quoting from Evgeny Morozov, “slacktivism” is the ideal type of activism for a lazy generation: why bother with sit-ins and the risk of arrest, police brutality, or torture if one can be as loud campaigning in the virtual space? Given the media’s fixation on all things digital — from blogging to social networking to Twitter — every click of your mouse is almost guaranteed to receive immediate media attention, as long as it’s geared towards the noble causes. That media attention doesn’t always translate into campaign effectiveness is only of secondary importance.” Nuff said.
I’ll leave you with this kick-ass Le Tigre Video: Get off the Internet.… knowing full well that I’m probably the first one who needs to take that advice.
‘It feels so 80s… or early 90s… to be political… where are my friends? GET OFF THE INTERNET, I’ll meet you in the streets….’
Related posts on Wait… What?
3 ways to integrate ICTs into development work
5 ways ICTs can support the MDGs
7 (or more) questions to ask before adding ICTs
Amateurs, professionals, innovations and smart aid
MDGs through a child rights lens
ICT in fact is helping people in finding information in a transparent and open. In an area not covered by the ICT is colonized greedy people who want to master the wealth of the area.
Thanks for your comments, and agreed. I wrote a post right before this one talking about the good aspects of ICTs, for example as you mention, more open and transparent information being available to people.
Generally good points, but I can’t make out what you mean by including “the so-called Iran Twitter Revolution and One Laptop per Child” in “ways that ICTs (information and communication technologies) and poor or questionable use of ICTs and social media can hinder development.”
The first case is a case of hype and oversimplification – it may have done harm but if so I missed it (quite possible, I confess).
The link you give re One Laptop per Child is a somewhat provocative opinion piece, and the comments there make very valid opposing points. Sure, OLPC hasn’t lived up to the hopes many had, but it’s doing good in more modest but still significant ways. I can’t see what justifies its inclusion here.
A more general point (and not to take away from the value of this sort of commentary): It’s worth distinguishing between good ideas that were worth trying but didn’t work out (in which case, recognizing and quitting/changing early deserves praise; and those that should have been recognized as misguided before they left the planning stage. A wider understanding of the principles of development could help.
Thanks for your points Chris, I was pointing out that people get distracted by the promise of new technology, and dump a lot of funding into it and/or hype it up in the media as a panacea before they are sure that it’s actually having the desired impact, or that it’s actually the catalyst for the thing that is happening.
Agreed with your last point, but not sure if you mean principles of software/hardware development, or those of grassroots community development/international development… better understanding of both by everyone working in this space would be a good thing.
Hi Linda,
Thanks for this article. Lots of great, important points.
I have a follow-up article to the one you linked to:
http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/09/18/haystack-u-s-government-hypocrisy-and-mena-activism/
I wanted to add, though: There is a huge difference (as opposed to a fine line) between activism and slacktivism. The latter is effortless. Can’t say the same about actual activism though. It’s hard work, and often underrated (the media is intrigued by the Haystacks and not by the sincere work being done by people actually in these countries who are trying to inspire change from within using these tools very successfully.)
I think the pros of new media and ICTs outweighs the cons by far. There are obstacles and risks, but most of us who live under these dangerous circumstances still accept them. Digital activism has changed my life, and I see its impact all around me. It makes a huge difference, and one people should not misunderstand, underestimate, or dismiss. This is especially the case for religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East who are slowly but surely winning the struggle against oppression and discrimination thanks to the usage of new media to bring their plight to light to those previously unaware of their situation.
Esra’a, thanks so much for the link and your comments. I’m very well aware that there is a huge difference in activism and slacktivism, but thanks for emphasizing that in case my post made it seem like they are similar.
There is a lot of slactivism in the US and it makes me sad that it’s leading the next generation to think that they can change things by joining a Facebook group or adding a button to their facebook page or a ‘twibbon’ to a twitter avatar and doing nothing else. I wish they were writing more provocative blog posts and organizing politically to actually address some of the real issues that plague us here in the US and elsewhere, and learning from people like you all.
I agree with everything yoiu say in this post. If I could be so bold as to summarize slightly differently – I think that the inherent dangers with ICTs essentially boil down to two things:
1) They can distract from the real purpose of humanitarian assistance, by focusing attention on the wrong things. One side effect of so-doing is often an erosion of the distinction between good aid” and “bad aid”, frequently making one appear as the other.
2) Relatedly, innovations in ICT tools very often are marketed/made to appear as if they’re innovations in *humanitarian practice.* In my opinion it is extremely important to remain clear on the differences between what we *do* as aid/development professionals, and the *tools we use* to do it. We need to guard against allowing the means to become the end.
You always do a great job of summarizing my main points, so thanks! Agreed.
[…] Sep A very thoughtful post on Wait… What? that summarizes many issues I’ve been thinking about recently as well as […]
Hi Linda,
this is a great post, and I agree with all 11 concerns. I would add a 12th: social media is often a waste of time and energy for people at the grassroots in Africa. And I am saying this as a social media enthusiast and advocate.
I am not just talking about the distractions, though they are very real, but about the fact that people working at nonprofits in Africa, especially at the grassroots, have limited time to spend on the Internet. Social media often makes you think you’re actually doing something when actually you’re not being very productive at all, and when you know you only have an hour for the week in front of a computer and need to make the most of it there is a temptation to just churn through your email inbox and then spend the rest of the time “researching” on the blogs and connecting with friends and associates on Facebook.
This leaves little time or energy for visioning creative and original ways to use social media to pitch a project idea or build a coalition to solve a problem you are facing in your community.
Since 2007 I have been pushing “web 2.0” and blogging on the Kabissa community, with ultimately, I have to admit, very little success. Now I propose we go back to basics. This month Kabissa launches new full email discussion group (listserv) functionality to our site, so that people can participate from their email to post opportunities, ask questions, etc. We are also restarting the Kabissa Gong Gong monthly member newsletter.
I have a feeling that this will be more effective in connecting people than blogging, or trying to push twitter on them.
Really good point Tobias! Seems that when starting with the information and communications goals and the local context instead of the technology (web 2.0), you find you need different things for different people. But also people may need to experiment with some of the possible tools to see which ones are best for their context, skills, available time, level of connection, language, etc. etc. It’s great that you are constantly re-evaluating to see what the community you are working with needs and how they want to communicate. And maybe you play a big role there, as someone who is interested and comfortable with Web 2.0, to be the bridge who can bring the listserv and newsletter discussions to the blog/twitter platforms and then back again to the listserv/newsletter? Very interesting…. thanks for that!
[…] Linda Raftree op haar blog terecht erkent, zijn sociale media en de manier waarop ze gebruikt kunnen worden in eerste instantie tools, vaak […]
[…] 11 concerns about ICTs and ‘social media for social good’ […]
[…] Getting past the hype of social media and arab world revolutions https://lindaraftree.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/11-concerns-about-icts-and-social-media-for-social-good…, http://technosociology.org/?p=366 […]
[…] 11 concerns about ICTs and ‘social media for social good’ by @meowtree [via @evgenymorozov] – CLIP: “Coming from the viewpoint that accountability and transparency, citizen engagement and public debate are critical for good development, I posted yesterday on 5 ways that ICTs can support the MDGs. I got to thinking I would be remiss not to also post something on ways that ICTs (information and communication technologies) and poor or questionable use of ICTs and social media can hinder development. It’s not really the fault of the technology. ICTs are tools, and the real issues lie behind the tools — they lie with people who create, market and use the tools. People cannot be separated from cultures and societies and power and money and politics. And those are the things that tend to hinder development, not really the ICTs themselves. However the combination of human tendencies and the possibilities ICTs and social media offer can can sometimes lead us down a shaky path to development or actually cause harm to the people that we are working with.” […]
True that these 11 concerns are present and perhaps there are even more, but these concerns shouldn’t become an obsession deterring us from dealing with it.
On the other hand, it is the responsibility of those dealing with tech not to expose any individual or group of people to get hurt thinking that his or her intention was good.
imad
[…] can find more details on these tricks in other texts – for example, here, here and […]