Are Developing Countries left to clean up the mess created by Big Tech Companies of the West?
We’re forever grateful to the obvious blessings bestowed upon us by Western technological advancements and innovations that were launched internationally (no sarcasm intended): but let me tell you about the mess.
Background: I’m an international student from Dhaka, Bangladesh, with a major in Computing and Information Technologies, and an anticipated minor in Criminal Justice, at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York. Growing up, I’ve personally had the privilege of traveling to countries near Bangladesh such as India, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, which motivated me to view technology through the lenses of developing societies and vulnerable users. I recently had the honor of being selected for Harvard Franklin Fellowship’s Tech x Social Impact 2020 Cohort, where we had the chance to collaboratively work on growth opportunities for our own social ventures/startups/projects, especially by learning from the experiences of CEOs and Founders of successful tech companies, through dialogue and discussion. This is my take on why Big Tech Companies should be more cognizant of the (negative) spillover effects of their actions.
The Blessing?
When local telecommunication and manufacturing companies competed with the launch of smartphones in the West, cheaper mobile phones and accompanying data plans were born in the developing parts of the world, and these efforts were often led by India and China. This allowed neighboring nations such as Bangladesh to provide technological solutions to its own people across all socioeconomic backgrounds, and owning a mobile phone no longer represented financial superiority or privilege, rather necessity. This put governments of developing countries under the impression that anything the Western nations launch for their communities: we can customize it for ours, and benefit from their expensive innovations by finding affordable but functioning alternatives.
An unfamiliar commercial paradise was born where degrees were no longer the path to starting and owning businesses, as connectivity through technology allowed everyone the chance to learn how to start and advertise an initiative. We became the generation to leverage the communication industries to our advantage. Telecom companies in Bangladesh that were often subsidiaries or branches of existing multinational companies that were stationed abroad — advertised their product by displaying how simple it is to make a phone call from villages and locations that were otherwise characterized by lack of communication unlike the bustling capital city. They showcased the happiness of little kids who could now hear their hardworking parents’ voices from far away. This was nothing short of a blessing for the families from our impoverished communities that work day and night, far away from home to make ends meet, and are devoid of the chance of staying connected with their loved ones; and we owed it to ~Big Tech Companies of the West~.
The Curse?
Soon enough, the unmoderated digital realm that allowed us to push the limits and explore its potential to shape it into our specific uses, unleashed a world where these technologies could also be misused for malicious practices. Now, this wasn’t unique to developing countries: the introduction of digital connectivity allowed the extension of many forms of crimes over the Internet across the globe. The only difference was that developed nations recognized this as something to be addressed, and immediately did so through legal and digital efforts to counter instances of such misuse. The first case of online harassment in the US required computers, machines, and communication to be defined.
But guess what? Developing nations (that are often characterized by corrupt political systems and slow legal implementation due to processes slowed down by said corruption as well as social barriers and limited resources…), could not keep up. Whenever innovations by Big Tech Companies were launched, our countries tried their best to integrate and customize it for their citizens, but with new products came unfamiliar and undefined problems that developed communities could immediately tackle but ours could not.
TikTok helped our communities express their creativity, but triggered a cyber harassment pandemic in India to the point of parliamentary discussions regarding bans and restrictions, forcing the company to expand to Singapore. Social media became an instrument of surveillance, deliberate censorship, and religious intolerance in many parts of Asia. (Trigger warning) Google handed us endless knowledge, but one of the most popular (and available) searches in Middle Eastern countries or the Indian subcontinent is rape porn uploaded by rapists who videotaped their victims and released it on the Internet. Facebook promoted businesses and startups in our countries, but quickly emerged as the medium of cyber bullying, blackmailing, revenge pornography, and identity theft in Bangladesh (read about it here, in an article by Ramisa Rob on The Daily Star). No, I’m not “calling out” companies: rather exploring the fact that in the parts of the world where they were founded, they had the privilege of safety nets that ours did not. It’s not their fault (or is it?) that they opened a Pandora’s box of criminal and malicious activities in developing parts of the world, which is often a characteristic of economically disadvantaged societies which are pushed to commit such crimes out of necessity and lack of access to education and awareness, rather than ill intent.
Our governments are probably at the edge of their sanity: where they are in a constant struggle to provide basic human necessities such as food, shelter, and basic education, or set up proper traffic systems and urban or rural infrastructure; and now they are having to gear up to tackle digital disasters which are damaging enough to undermine and impact the humanitarian efforts made thus far. As my friend Prionti Dipita Nasir puts it, “[there are] problems that emerge as we situate technologies in developing countries without first being able to provide educational and peripheral prerequisites”. Nevertheless, our brave communities continue to clean up the mess left behind by companies that didn’t know any better at the time.
The Possibilities?
Within the Harvard Franklin Fellowship where we interacted with CEOs and Founders from all walks of the tech and social impact journey, it was evident to me that there was one distinguishable factor between successful startups vs. established companies, while both are equally valuable. The ideas that these successful tech startups brought were often expensive solutions in the name of tech innovations: and their visions were more focused on introducing and implementing their product regardless of their footprint or spillover effect. Not that they discarded the potential damage, rather put that in a much lower position on the priorities list, and recognized it as something that can only be considered with sufficient revenue for R&D. And they’re not wrong. On the other hand we have established tech companies that have already learned from their mistakes and recognized that taking the negative implications of their innovations into consideration when launching their product would not only benefit these societies but also benefit their company through an increased user base, something they learned through past experience; further proving the point made by the aforementioned startups, and that they both fall under a timeline of a tech company’s life cycle where innovation comes first and disaster-control later.
But what if we could create a culture of tech innovations where startups and established companies alike, could include foreign representatives in the conversation before launching the product in these communities across borders? Would their product reach a user base faster in a shorter period of time? Would they be benefited by increased popularity owing to the mass feeling of safety and protection, especially as many Millennials often demonize the whole existence of the Internet?
Some of the US-based companies we interacted with:
- Use Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality and Robots to increase efficiency in surgeries (expensive process right now, but imagine the drastically reduced cost of complex surgeries if the duration of the operation could be shortened);
- Use plant-based ingredients to replace meat without changing the taste at all, and also contains the same nutrition value (again, expensive product right now, but imagine the reduced animal cruelty in factory farming industries);
- Use 3D-printed houses as one of the innovative solutions to homelessness (expensive process as they do travel to other countries to help families who are particularly impacted by natural disasters, but imagine the reduced time and physical effort in areas which require shelter for the homeless)
- Use cryptocurrency as a global solution to cross-border transactions (expensive and promotes criminal activities in societies that cannot trace transactions made digitally rather than through a traditional bank — yes there are still countries that do not / cannot use apps like PayPal or Venmo).
As these companies blow full steam ahead to make sure their innovations bring about positive social impact in their intended areas or fields, topics of conversation that I brought up were along the lines of unemployment, data security, corrupt local governments, disruption of religious and traditional values, climate change, privilege of technology. My heart sank every time I asked such questions, as I felt like I was dampening the immense efforts that these successful companies were putting in, but I recognized that I was going in with a perspective where I was familiar to the negative spillover effects of similar innovations being introduced in my community.
You may not have learned anything new from this article, but the next time you pick up a phone or use your computer: I hope it reminds you that as a generation that has technology embedded in all facets of our lives, you have the power to create a difference and come up with the safety nets to accompany and/or complement the innovations. I would much rather promote creativity to bring about accountability, to preserve the potential of technology, over spending time on things that could’ve been done differently.
References
Ramisa Rob, Online Sexual Harassment: Exposing dark secrets in the digital corners of Bangladesh, 2019
179 Misc.2d 903, 688 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99109The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Alan Munn, Defendant. Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, February 9, 1999
