There are a variety of ways in which the internet’s lack of diversity has impacted its growth and development (Benkler, 2006). As a result, certain communities have been left out of the internet’s growth. Women and people of color, for instance, have been mostly absent from the creation of the internet. Due to this bias, the evolution of the internet has become less inclusive.
Due in part to an inability to empathize with those who are different from themselves, the internet as it has developed has not been inclusive enough. Features that would be helpful to women and people of color, for instance, have been underdeveloped due to a lack of knowledge of their needs. This ignorance has also prevented these communities from being fully integrated into the evolution of the internet.
Since the majority of its infrastructure was built in the United States and Europe, the internet’s user base is skewed toward those regions. Because of this lack of variety, several issues have arisen. One consequence has been a lag in the implementation of features that are standard in other regions of the world but not in the Western hemisphere, such as support for non-Latin characters and right-to-left text orientation (Castells, 2002). As a result, the internet’s promise as a medium for cross-cultural exchange has been severely hampered in many areas. Second, we haven’t gotten a good grasp on the requirements of users in various regions of the world because our team is so homogenous. The usage of an English-only interface and Western cultural allusions that aren’t understood in other cultures are only two examples of how this trend has led to poorer experiences for users in non-Western locations (O’hara and Hall, 2018). As a final result, countries with smaller immigrant populations have less money to go into building up their infrastructure and providing necessities to their residents. As a result, these areas typically have lower-quality internet access and less access overall.
The omission of minorities and women from discussions about how the internet should look and work is just one example of how a lack of diversity has impacted its evolution. This has resulted in a variety of issues, including a failure to take into account the unique needs of various user demographics when designing new technologies and general blindness to how the internet is used by the world at large (Kelty, 2014). Therefore, the internet is frequently made with a one-size-fits-all approach, which does not consider the requirements of women or minorities.
The digital gap, which has helped to maintain inequalities within and across nations, is another example of how a lack of variety has impacted the growth of the internet. Minorities and women are disproportionately affected by the “digital divide,” or the gap between those who have internet access and those who do not. Most internet infrastructure is located in rich countries, thereby widening the gap between the developed and underdeveloped worlds. Therefore, the lack of diversity in internet growth has created an unlevel playing field, further disadvantageous to already marginalized groups.
How does this lack of diversity harm societies and individuals?
There are multiple ways in which a lack of variety hurts both groups and individuals. One effect is that underrepresented groups are left out of the process of expanding the Internet. When certain populations are left out of the design process, important features that might be useful to them may never be created. Members of these groups may have increased feelings of alienation as a result of this lack of acceptance.
One manner in which a lack of diversity hurts both society and individuals is by making it harder to recognize and address the needs of specific populations. Because of this misunderstanding, features that would be useful to these communities may not be developed. Members of these communities may also begin to feel alienated as a result.
Due to a lack of diverse viewpoints and experiences being represented, technological advancements in the internet sector have lagged (Castells, 2002). This lack of diversity also causes technologies to be developed that are poorly adapted to the demands of women and members of underrepresented groups. Those without internet connection face disadvantages both domestically and internationally, hence the digital gap contributes to the maintenance of existing inequalities.
Individuals are also harmed by the lack of diversity in internet development. Minorities and women, for instance, who are underrepresented in the discussions that shape the internet’s architecture and functionality face barriers to full participation online. Those who aren’t able to afford or gain access to the internet are also disadvantaged in the areas of education, employment, and other spheres of life because of the digital divide. Since this lack of diversity is harmful to both societies and individuals, it must be addressed.
Impact on people of color, women, LGBTQIA+, and persons with disabilities due to the internet’s lack of diversity.
Numerous adverse effects for people of color have resulted from the internet’s lack of diversity. The digital divide it has helped to create is one of the biggest issues. People of color are disproportionately affected by the digital divide, the difference between those who have internet connections and those who don’t. Most internet infrastructure is located in rich countries, thereby widening the gap between the developed and underdeveloped worlds. This means that individuals of color are less likely to be included in discussions about how the Internet should look and work.
There are many ways in which women have been disadvantaged by the internet’s lack of diversity. It has hampered efforts to create innovative technology due to a lack of viewpoint diversity. Consequently, many technologies have emerged that either fail to take into account women’s unique demands or are actively hostile toward them. For instance, many of the earliest iterations of online chatrooms failed to take women’s safety into account and proved fertile ground for harassment and abuse.
There are a variety of ways in which LGBTQIA+ persons have been harmed by the internet’s lack of diversity. The use of the internet to propagate bigotry and hate speech directed toward the LGBTQIA+ community is a major issue (Popiel, 2015). Due in large part to the anonymity the internet affords its users, including those who express their hatred toward LGBTQIA+ people online, the internet has become a particularly dangerous place for members of this community to live their lives. Because of this, many people who identify as LGBTQIA+ are afraid to go online for fear of being harassed or worse.
Disabled individuals have suffered from the internet’s lack of diversity in several ways. One major impact is how it has increased the digital divide (Couldry, 2015). Disabled persons and other underrepresented groups are disproportionately impacted by the digital divide, the difference between those who do and do not have access to the internet. Most internet infrastructure is located in rich countries, thereby widening the gap between the developed and underdeveloped worlds. People with disabilities are already at a disadvantage due to the lack of diversity in internet development, which has created an unfair playing field
.
How can we make the internet a more inclusive space?
Many strategies exist for fostering a more inclusive online environment. Expanding opportunities for women and underrepresented groups in technology development is crucial. To achieve this goal, it is important to include underrepresented groups and women in internet development planning and decision-making. In addition, it is crucial to expand low-income and minority populations’ access to the internet. To achieve this goal, efforts should be made to reduce the digital divide both within and between nations. It’s also crucial to make content that everyone can understand and enjoy. It’s possible to achieve this goal by catering to a wide range of audiences by making content accessible in multiple languages and adapting to their specific requirements. These measures will help us begin to remedy the lack of diversity in internet development and build a web that is truly accessible to all.
References
2013 Rally for Transgender Equality 21175 | Openverse. WordPress. https://wordpress.org/openverse/image/26e90c9e-9131-414f-a97f-34ed3540188d/
Benkler, Y. (2006). Part One. The Networked Information Economy. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, 35-133.
Castells, M. (2002). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Couldry, N. (2015). The myth of ‘us’: digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 608-626.
Kelty, C. M. (2014). The fog of freedom. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, 195-220.
Media & Makers: Juba – Working Group M1 (2) | Openverse. WordPress. https://wordpress.org/openverse/image/58ceaa11-efdd-4ea4-8c66-c2604b01b90c/
O’Hara, K., & Hall, W. (2018). Four internets: The geopolitics of digital governance.
Popiel, P. (2018). The tech lobby: Tracing the contours of new media elite lobbying power. Communication, culture and critique, 11 (4), 566–585.
