Who Defines Tech?
by Kyla Massey, Digital Justice Fellow
Technology is constantly evolving. Every day, there are innovations in the field. So when it comes to how we use tech and interact with the tools being invented, we are finding more and more instances where there are new rules, new protocols, and new experiences to adapt to.
However, these new rules that fundamentally shift how we spend our days — almost down to the second — are increasingly being created in spaces where people of color and other vulnerable groups are left out. And this is happening at a speed which is almost impossible to keep up with.
We are in a new era of definition when it comes to what technology is and what it will be in the future. This demands that we ask certain questions:
- Who is defining this future tech?
- Who is dictating how these digital tools are being used?
- How are we as consumers of technology understanding (or not understanding) and defining (or not defining) the power that technology holds over us?
- What does it mean for us to feel a dependance on these technological tools, especially when we often feel like they are more “advanced” than us?
- Who is really benefiting from our use of these tools?
In the Tech and Revolution Conversations that I’ve begun to facilitate this year, I’m often having conversations with people around “Terms and Conditions.” You know, those annoying inconveniences, that no one really ever reads entirely, that basically act as binding contracts for every app or piece of software that is used to schedule your work meetings, order your ride home, call your loved ones internationally, or even to help you express yourself through a blog. We have a habit of clicking “Ok”, when we haven’t been in the conversation of defining what terms and conditions we are locking ourselves into.
It’s mind-blowing. In fact, when I started thinking about the digital tools I used, I started seeing how these definitions set in Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and Twitter’s boardrooms are defining more and more of how we live in society than we give them credit for.
Twenty years ago, if someone had walked into a hardware store to buy a tool like a hammer, they purchased it, took it home, and woke up the next morning to build their wooden bench. Or, if they wanted to, they could build a swing instead. But imagine if, before they could even start using the hammer that they purchased, someone from the hammer company walked up to them with a 13–30 page document detailing how the hammer company was going to define the terms and conditions of that hammer’s use. What if they told you that anything you build with that hammer becomes something they own, or have rights to—something that they can manipulate or claim as their intellectual property? Would you so easily agree to buying that hammer? Probably not. At the very least, you’d probably have some questions for the store. So why do we so easily click “Yes” when it comes to an app?
In my workshops, there’s a light that turns on for people when we have this discussion. And, yes, a hammer is a much different tool than an app, and today is not twenty years ago. However, these principles remain the same. The way that digital tools are being used by all of us daily, especially people of color and those in marginalized or vulnerable communities, are to build worlds in which we strive for a type of justice and power — and this is compromised when we don’t have a voice in how our terms and conditions are defined. What’s your hammer? And where is your voice?
Learn more about digital security by visiting DefendOurMovements.org
