Analyzing Internet Policy and Regulation through a Socio-Cultural lens

Image Source: un.org

I have selected an article titled “Internet policy and regulation through a socio-cultural lens: A dialogue between society’s culture and decision-makers.” authored by Panayiota Tsatsou from the University of Leicester. I will be analyzing this article from a socio-cultural perspective.

 

Abstract of the Selected Text

The article poses the research question: how are social culture and decision-making interrelated in the information society and with respect to phenomena such as digital divides? To answer this question, the article reports on focus group research conducted in Greece and finds that the perceived role of decision-making in the information society passes through society's culture, with society's everyday culture, in particular, influencing critical areas of decision-making in the field. The article offers a sociological approach to policy and regulation, highlighting some of the often-ignored linkages between policy and culture in the information society.

The paper reports on focus group discussions and emphasizes the relevance of people's (i.e., Internet users and non-users) everyday culture in the evaluation and effectiveness of laws and regulations in the field through thematic and critical analysis (i.e., Internet policies and regulations). The study finishes with policy suggestions, emphasizing the significance of further large-scale qualitative and quantitative research to investigate the two-way decision-making dialogue with people and their cultures.

 

 

The rationale for the selection of the text

The way in which the internet is produced, used and talked about and interacted and embedded in the dimensions and dynamics of social life, it is, however, difficult to understand how these technologies are being shaped within the processes of contemporary social change on the one hand and how on the other hand, they become institutionalized into social and cultural order to understand how the internet interacts with society, considering the ways in which its characteristics are materializing into social and cultural forms.

Internet governance refers to the regulations that influence how the internet is managed. The internet's future success as an open and trustworthy platform for innovation and empowerment is dependent on a decentralized, collaborative, and multistakeholder approach to Internet governance (Wessels, 2010). In recent years, several governments worldwide have been trying to find ways in which the internet can be governed and regulated. However, there is a need to study different aspects of the 21st century’s socio-technical state before formulating any policy intended to govern the internet. The literature available on the socio-cultural aspects of Internet governance is limited. On that account, this study will help understand this very domain of human interaction with technology for better policy formulation.

The socio-cultural framework of the text

The social embeddedness of the technology argument is well-structured in this article. It demonstrates the importance of society's culture to the nature and significance of technology and technology-related phenomena in the information society, such as digital divides. The background literature behind this text is essentially the social constructivist approaches to technology policy and regulation. Socio-constructivist approaches to technology emphasize the typical user's role and cultural identity in shaping and developing technology (Tsatsou, 2010). Thus, to make sense of the various ways in which culture influences the use, adoption, and integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in specific socio-cultural milieus. On the other hand, such socio-cultural interpretations of technology undermine technocratic notions of the information society; they are constrained by the separation between politics and society.

Regarding media- and ICT-specific regulation, the article considers Silverstone's notion that the media regulatory landscape is inextricably linked to society's culture, and media culture might provide support for a sociological approach to regulation. At the same time, Silverstone acknowledges that regulatory laws in the field are insufficient as safeguards for humanity or culture, pointing to the market-oriented nature of regulation and the undervaluation of the social components of media and ICT regulation (Tsatsou, 2010).

The article discusses the social and technological cultures of the digital society. Social culture is characterized by the rules, beliefs, and ideals that govern people's social conduct and relationships. Technological culture, on the other hand, is utilitarian. Because culture develops unevenly, there is a battle between its technological and spiritual elements in general. The digital society's technical culture is dependent on information technology. The move from material to information technology is a symptom of a more significant phenomenon. The digital era represents the shift to what we call a technology culture.

The major socio-cultural themes discussed in the text are based upon the focus group discussion on the digital divide issue. The author shows that the digital society, which consists of a specific techno-social culture, gives rise to social exclusion, and existing physical world’s exclusionary measures get reflected in the digital society. The gender aspect predominant in the public spaces around us was believed to be invisible in the digital space. However, the author shows us that the digital space is highly gendered.

Critical analysis of the themes discussed in the text

Linking digital and social exclusion: Many societal and personal variables contribute to our understanding of digital exclusion, but the link between digital and social exclusion is still poorly understood. There are several points of view on how the two fields interact. For example, by providing underprivileged groups with access to the advantages of internet use, digital inclusion can assist in reducing social isolation (Sanders, 2020). However, as long as social disparities persist offline (for example, in schooling), they will manifest themselves online, as socially excluded individuals are less likely to have access to the internet and lack digital skills (Martin, Hope, & Zubairi, 2016). Those who are socially excluded will catch up in terms of access to ICTs over time, which will help them overcome their disadvantage; nevertheless, maximum adoption of ICTs among the socially excluded will stay lower than the overall population; therefore, disparities will persist. Digital participation may assist in alleviating social inequality, but digital participation alone will not address social exclusion because discrepancies in access and types of internet use persist. So, the question of access needs to be answered in the Internet governance framework. At the same time, Internet governance as a specific regulation cannot help us to overcome social exclusion due to the digital divide because other offline social phenomena could hamper the very access. So, Internet governance should be a multi-dimensional policy that can address these issues.

Digital Space in the Internet Governance Framework: Digital Public Spaces can be defined as spaces where the citizens exercise their rights. In this era where there is a digital alternative to every physical phenomenon or thing, there is an urgent need to study the details of the space and governed in to ensure that people can exercise their rights equally (Keller & Tarkowski, 2021). The study finds that the existing digital space, mainly social media is not a just and fair platform for all. Sometimes it reflects the existing inequalities in the physical society and creates barriers to entry. Alternatively, the whole ecosystem is not developed equally for all. So the policymakers should create inclusive regulations to make the digital space equal for all in consultation with all the stakeholders.

The gender perspective in Internet governance: Gender and women's rights are primarily rhetorical in today's Internet governance debate. There is a clear inverse proportionality in the fight against the digital divide when it comes to access. Often, particularly in countries with severe gender discrimination, as the total number of men with access increases, the percentage of women without or with restricted access remains constant, exacerbating the gender imbalance. Moreover, there is frequently a direct connection between growing access for women and online abuse against women.

Gender discussions in Internet governance are frequently conducted as a series of stand-alone topics: There are not enough female board members! Online, women are vulnerable to assault! Women's lives as they are depicted on the internet are minimized, stigmatized, and fetishized! These topics are rarely considered in terms of their intersections and interconnectedness. It is frequently challenging to place stand-alone items on the agenda (APC, 2020). More complex topics are frequently avoided as too complex and challenging to comprehend. Even rarer are discussions of the intersection of gender difficulties with other types of social disadvantage, discrimination, and oppression, such as race, nationality, and age. While this paper focuses on specific gender and women's rights concerns as they pertain to Internet governance, the interconnectedness of the issues must be considered.

Theoretical explanation of the themes

According to the Theory of Digital Divide, there is an economic and social divide between a country's people and their access to information and communication technology. Economic disparity rises in the macroeconomy, extending to regions inside a country – between nations, geographic areas, and demographic groups. The digital gap is primarily determined by information accessibility, use, and receptiveness (Levin & Mamlok, 2021). The digital gap is more than just a matter of access. While the Western world enjoys continual access to technology, there are vast areas of Africa and South Asia that do not. However, just introducing additional technology will not fix the problem. People must understand how to use information obtained from sources such as the internet. An illiterate person will be unable to utilize a computer. People must also be responsive to the knowledge. This means that their reactions are important as well.

The determining factors are the subject of criticisms of the digital gap theory. Scholars believe that as disparities in race, gender, age, and wealth have narrowed, there has been a gradual change in paradigm from the digital divide to a knowledge divide. People now have more access to technology. Scholars now confront the challenge of determining how to apply, understand knowledge and information. Scholars also believe that a "second-level digital gap" is growing. This second generation of the digital divide, also known as the production gap, addresses the difference between content creators and consumers. The emphasis is moving to how individuals generate material on the internet and how this influences user behavior.

For example, many blogs are available for readers to read. These, however, are created by a relatively tiny percentage of internet users. Social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter enable users to access the internet without delving into the nitty-gritty of the internet and technology and how they function. Socioeconomic issues are also important. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to utilize technology and the internet.

The type of usage influences the link between ICT and social marginalization (Helsper, 2012). Exclusion from specific forms of ICT usage has a more significant influence on social restriction than exclusion from other types of usage. ICTs' economic and social implications are complicated and conflicting, and a direct influence on social exclusion is difficult to quantify (Gibbs, 2001). However, the belief that digital inclusion would alleviate social inequality persists within policy areas and is founded on the premise that ICTs are inherently "inclusionary technology."

According to Bradshaw et al. (2004), it is critical to distinguish between macro drivers that enhance social exclusion, risk indicators that suggest sensitivity to social exclusion, and triggers that directly influence social exclusion. Situating digital exclusion within this paradigm will aid in evoking the link between social and digital disadvantage. The precise link between digital and social isolation is yet unknown. It is difficult to determine causation since technology and society are tightly intertwined, and it is unknown how the two interact. Few longitudinal studies, for example, have demonstrated a shift in individuals' social inclusion as a result of continuous involvement with ICTs (Anderson, 2005). However, some study shows that digital engagement has a favorable influence on markers of social isolation (Helsper, 2012). However, because inequalities affect access to and types of internet usage, it is uncertain whether internet use in and of itself may assist in overcoming social exclusion.

Thus, everyday life parameters, such as people’s circumstances of life, individual needs, desires and choices in life, influence evaluations of the importance of internet policy and regulation, public awareness of internet policy and regulation. The article very well referred to concerns about online safety, privacy and security, thus raising the importance of social accountability and visibility of policies and regulations in the field.

Conclusion

Access to the Internet is a hegemonic construct. The above discussion indicates that the existing exclusionary measures in society hindered the excellent outcomes of information and communication technology. So, while formulating a framework for Internet governance, the policymakers have to be cautious about the internet's inclusiveness and the exclusionary and gendered constructs within the Internet platforms. The themes we discussed show us that the regulatory design of the internet should be a bottom-up approach taking into account the access, utilization, and inclusion of every stakeholder from a socio-cultural perspective.

References

Anderson, B. (2005). Latest evidence on users and non-users.

APC. (2020). Gender and Internet Governance eXchange. Retrieved from APC: https://www.apc.org/en/projects/gender-and-internet-governance-exchange-gigx

Bradshaw, J., Baldwin, S., & Rowe, A. (2004). The drivers of social exclusion: a review of the literature for The Social Exclusion Unit in the Breaking the Cycle Series. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Gibbs, D. (2001). Harnessing the information society? European Union policy and information and communications technologies. Europian Urban and Regional Studies.

Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication theory.

Keller, P., & Tarkowski, A. (2021). Digital Public Space – A missing policy frame for shaping Europe’s digital future. Retrieved from Open future: https://openfuture.pubpub.org/pub/digital-public-space-policy-frame/release/2

Levin, I., & Mamlok, D. (2021). Culture and Society in the Digital Age. information.

Martin, C., Hope, S., & Zubairi, S. (2016). The role of digital exclusion in social exclusion. Carnegie UK.

Sanders, R. (2020). Digital inclusion, exclusion and participation. Retrieved from Iriss: https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/esss-outlines/digital-inclusion-exclusion-and-participation

Tsatsou, P. (2010). Internet policy and regulation through a socio-cultural lens: A dialogue between society's culture and decision makers. javnost-the public, 23 - 38.

Wessels, B. (2010). Understanding the Internet: Socio-Cultural Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.