- 24/12/2022
- Category: Critical Questions
Author: Hilman Nurjaman
Editor: M Perdana Karim
Expression in digital platforms is an expression mediated by various technological support features that are often labeled as a form of novelty with the principle of freedom [1]. The digital expression seems to construct users to always be connected online which is not limited to physical space and time. One of the tools for expression in the digital space such as social media is filled with various options for interactions that are part of socialization through short messages, images, voice notes, or videos that create “connected” relationships in applications such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube or other sharing applications [2]. This relationship is related to “intimacy” to a sense of belonging that has been through a normalization process in sharing feelings, special moments, or other things experienced by individuals to the public [3]. However, in addition to the digital space that is open for expression, there are personal and communal values such as age, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic class, sexuality, and so on that need to be reflected together on social cohesion towards inclusiveness in the digital expression space.
Q1: How do digital platforms accommodate social diversity in the digital expression space?
The social expression of both individuals and communities has changed from participatory culture to a culture of connectivity [4]. At the same time, digital relationships are intensified as a complement to, and even tend to replace direct contact interactions. In the process, social media as a digital expression tool is seen as a mechanism that bridges self-representation and public appreciation spaces based on the values inherent in users such as self-image, age, ethnicity, religion, gender and sexuality, and so on which are no longer private. For example, young people are often labeled as natives of digital media and are considered a normal condition when they express themselves in social interactions mediated by internet technology, while older peoples are categorized as digital immigrants [5]. In this case, digital platforms such as social media can potentially reproduce gaps in publicly displayed expression within the age gap. Moreover, the gap in expression also allows for an unequal accessibility landscape in the level of literacy or challenges in using the language of communication. Therefore, it is necessary to support broader inclusion and reflect on it to respect the boundaries of the online space.
Q2: Digital platforms enable freedom of expression by allowing individuals to express themselves without boundaries, but do we get equal freedom?
The narrative about the practical quality of digital platforms in sharing every special moment or responding to other users has become a connection that, consciously or not, implicitly enhances socialization practices [6]. Socialization without boundaries and created by unrepresentative groups may not necessarily reflect the values of society collectively. This raises new questions regarding the dichotomy between who has access and who does not have access or who gets benefit and does not. The digital divide can certainly be the phrase that describes it all. Gaps that cover a broader concept include age preference, content relevance, and digital literacy [7]. Moreover, this encourages the digital exclusion of skills in using digital technology that can reduce the gap in the physical space into the online space. Individuals or communities who are marginalized in the public sphere on a daily basis will be more vulnerable to digital biases such as algorithms, exploitation of privacy, and data security [8]. In the context of identity, those who have ethnic, religious, or sexual preferences that are not in the majority tend to get the same treatment when in their daily lives they express themselves in the digital space. In addition, in the context of accessibility, users who are in urban areas, have a high level of education and literacy, and have a high socioeconomic status are also a privilege to the quality of connections associated with the freedom to seek, receive, and convey expressions or information in the digital space.
Q3: Why do we need inclusivity in the digital platforms today?
The use of digital space both in quantity and quality reminds us of the lack of common space in understanding differences and implementing equality in society [9]. Efforts to increase public awareness about digital inclusion are important and urgent through a three-element approach to digital inclusion which includes connectivity, tools, and user skills [10]. Fundamentally inclusiveness can be encouraged through technical assistance based on socio-economics, such as equity, especially in rural communities that require additional interventions regarding operational capacity. After that, clear and disciplined development increases local awareness of digital skills which is a way to get more users who are proficient in using digital platforms [11]. For older people to understand digital technology is not just a telephone, television, or radio, but the definition of digital technology increases with increasing implications in everyday life. Likewise, ethnicity, religion, and so on are accommodated with safe spaces to share expressions on digital platforms without gaps. Thus, digital inclusion recommends personalized needs, access, reach that demonstrate potential to ensure that they are inclusive.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that community involvement in social expression using digital platforms is increasingly diverse along with the diversity of individuals as users of digital media. Physical activities that are not related to internet technology are also fully connected to digital activities directly or online. This requires exploration and reflection on the experiences of individuals and communities in sharing social expressions on digital platforms specifically that provide a form of representation of digital inclusion with limitations on diversity.
[1] Arnaudo, D. (2017) Freedom of Expression, Privacy and Human Rights. Available at: http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep20648.8
[2] Marlowe, J. M., Bartley, A. and Collins, F. (2017) ‘Digital belongings: The intersections of social cohesion, connectivity and digital media’, Ethnicities, 17(1), pp. 85–102. doi: 10.1177/1468796816654174.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Dijck, Van. (2013) The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[5] Barber, N. (2015) Is Digital Life Risky? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-human-beast/201503/is-digital-life-risky
[6] Brito, P. Q. (2012) ‘Teen conceptualization of digital technologies’, New Media and Society, 14(3), pp. 513–532. doi: 10.1177/1461444811420822.
[7] Walsh, Stacie. (2018) Creating an inclusive digital future – urgent action needed. Digital Freedom Fund. https://digitalfreedomfund.org/creating-an-inclusive-digital-future-urgent-action-needed/
[8] Ibid.
[9] Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. (2007) ‘Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide’, New Media and Society, 9(4), pp. 671–696. doi: 10.1177/1461444807080335.
[10] Gallardo, R. (2019) ‘Bringing Communities into the Digital Age’, State and Local Government Review, 51(4), pp. 233–241. doi: 10.1177/0160323X20926696.[11] Betts, L. R., Hill, R. and Gardner, S. E. (2019) ‘“There’ss Not Enough Knowledge Out There”: Examining Older Adults’ Perceptions of Digital Technology Use and Digital Inclusion Classes’, Journal of Applied Gerontology, 38(8), pp. 1147–1166. doi: 10.1177/0733464817737621.
