DialogueON: Digitalisation

On Friday 17th July, ODIF hosted another engaging session in our DialogueON series to discuss digitalisation, the digital divide, and its impact on inequality. As digital technologies continue to transform advocacy, education, employment, and civic participation, the session explored both the opportunities and challenges presented by an increasingly digital world. Particular attention was given to the barriers faced by marginalised communities in accessing digital spaces and the collective action needed to create a more inclusive digital future.

Speaker Insights

We were delighted to welcome Irene Nyangasi, a software engineer with expertise in technology, artificial intelligence, and digital governance. Irene serves at the Representative Office of the DMUN Foundation at the United Nations Office in Nairobi and has extensive experience representing young people at international and regional forums.

Millions of people continue to face barriers to accessing affordable technology, reliable internet, and the digital skills needed to participate fully in society. Irene highlighted how these inequalities reinforce existing social and economic disadvantages by limiting access to education, employment, public services, and opportunities to influence decision-making.

She also explained that the digital divide extends beyond internet connectivity. Rural communities, low-income households, persons with disabilities, and other marginalised groups often experience unequal access to devices and online opportunities. Additional challenges surrounding misinformation and online safety make digital literacy essential. Digital technologies have fundamentally transformed activism.

Looking ahead, Irene emphasised that building an inclusive digital future requires collaboration between activists, technologists, and policymakers. She called for greater investment in accessible technologies and policies that protect digital rights. Closing the digital gap is about ensuring everyone has the skills, confidence, and opportunity to participate and advocate for change.

Dialogue

The discussion that followed explored the many dimensions of digital inequality and the practical steps needed to ensure digitalisation benefits everyone. Several participants reflected on both the opportunities and inequalities created by digitalisation. While digital technologies can expand employment opportunities, financial inclusion, civic participation, and access to government services, many marginalised communities continue to face

significant barriers. 

Participants highlighted the significant practical barriers in expanding digital access. Some stressed that inadequate public investment in technology continues to undermine equal participation in digital spaces. Others echoed these concerns, calling for greater investment in digital infrastructure across Africa while emphasising the importance of digital literacy and capacity building as communities adapt to technological change. Another participant highlighted the need for stronger transparency and opportunity equity, particularly with an increasingly digital workforce.

Final Thoughts

The session concluded with a reminder from Irene that technology should amplify every voice rather than reinforce existing inequalities. While many challenges prevent many people from benefiting from digital opportunities, digital inclusion should ensure that no one is left behind.

The discussion reinforced that the digital divide affects far more than internet access alone. It shapes opportunities for education, employment, civic engagement, and social inclusion. Participants agreed that we can work towards a more inclusive digital future where technology serves everyone equally. The dialogue demonstrated that building inclusive digital societies requires ongoing collaboration to ensure that every voice can participate.

~Naomi Lea

From Science to Implementation: A Reflection on My 3 Days at the 2026 UNFCCC Bonn Conference

By Alexandra Herrlin, Open Dialogues International Foundation

Whilst of smaller scale compared to COP, this conference - and my personal first experience at a UN conference - laid the foundation for the negotiations that will take place at COP31. Hundreds of delegates, negotiators, scientists, youth advocates and civil society organisations convened together for the 64th Sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies to make progress together in various discussion topics. The preliminary discussions in the first three days that I attended ranged from highly technical debates to more passionate advocacy for more ambition. Ultimately from it all, one message surfaced repeatedly throughout the week: climate action has entered a new phase. The challenge is no longer knowing what needs to be done. It is ensuring countries can deliver it quickly, fairly, and at the scale required.

This urgency mentioned was best conveyed during a Presidency event, where the COP31 President of Negotiations Chris Bowen reminded delegates:

"It feels like we have plenty of time. My friends, we do not. We are just 43 months away from 2030. What we do between now and then matters enormously. We must proceed with speed, urgency and ambition. We must make COP31 the COP of implementation and acceleration."

The Scientific Signals Versus the Actual Implementation

A memorable day 1 event that I attended followed the implications of the overshoot for the cryosphere. Listening to Dr. Lillian Schuster and Dr Bill Hare (CEO of Climate Analytics) reinforced that every fraction of a degree - and every year of overshoot - increases long-term loss. However, rather than solely focusing on these alarming projections, it emphasised opportunity. We have a glimpse of hope which was expressed with a cautious optimism - that we have an opportunity through our rapid progress in renewables that is being seen. Now, we must navigate how to quickly deploy this type of energy at a pace that can reduce emissions before we cross all nine planetary boundary (climate) tipping points.

The Rise of Electrification

If one theme consistently appeared across multiple sessions as a central pillar on the COP31 agenda and for international climate policy, it was electrification.

This was notably mentioned by both the COP30 and COP31 Presidencies, framed as a defining opportunity of this decade if installed correctly, with the power to transform how transport, industry, buildings and entire economies consume energy.

Looking Beyond "Green" Labels

Not all discussions focused on the expansion of climate solutions. For example, a press conference hosted by the Global Forest Coalition questioned the sustainability of biomass energy, highlighting concerns over deforestation and biodiversity loss. The session underscored a crucial lesson from SB64: not all low-carbon solutions are equally sustainable, and climate policies must consider their environmental impacts. 

Securing a Successful Just Transition Requires Far More Than Ambition

Another consistent theme throughout these preliminary days was a great emphasis on implementation. Discussions on the UAE Just Transition Work Programme focused on how climate policies can support workers, vulnerable communities and carbon-intensive industries through the transition to a low-carbon economy. Conversations have now clearly shifted to how governments can effectively operationalise it, turning its principles into practical policies and investment.

The Rise of Electrification Looking Beyond "Green" Labels Central Themes Emerging from SB64

Whilst negotiations were more foundational and are most certainly still underway on the road

to COP31, there were several evident priorities across the sessions that I attended for these first - you could say, opening - three days.

1. Electrification is becoming a central strategy for decarbonising transport, industry and energy systems.

2. Climate finance remains fundamental to turning ambition into action.

3. Circular economy initiatives, zero waste and resilient cities are also gaining momentum.

Above all, one message was constant: the science is clear, and implementation, not ambition alone, will define progress in this decisive decade.

My Ultimate Reflection From These First 3 Days

Not only was this experience a privilege to attend these discussions first hand, but it was a real eye-opener for the complexity and layers of our global climate governance and the scale of collaboration required to drive meaningful change. I left Bonn with renewed optimism: whilst the scale of our climate challenge is undeniable, so too is the commitment of those working to address it. This Road to COP31 will not be defined by our so-called promises, but by our collective ability to translate our clear ambition into concrete action.

~Alexandra

How Social Media Algorithms Are Shaping a Generation Through Misinformation and Bias

Article by: Olivia Carling, Open Dialogues International Foundation

Social media is often presented as a neutral tool that simply shows users the content they want to see. In reality, platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and X (Twitter) are powered by algorithms designed to maximize engagement. Their primary goal is to keep users scrolling, clicking, sharing, and watching for as long as possible. While this business model is highly profitable, growing research suggests that it can also amplify misinformation, reinforce harmful stereotypes, and deepen existing social inequalities.

Source: https://www.strongboxit.com/cybersecurity-and-social-media-essential-tips-for-2024/ 

Algorithms are not inherently racist, sexist, or classist. However, they learn from human behavior and historical data. When those data reflect existing prejudices, the algorithms can reproduce and scale those biases to millions of people. Combined with engagement-driven recommendation systems, this creates a digital environment where misinformation and divisive content often outperform factual and balanced information.

One of the most significant problems is the way algorithms reward emotionally charged content. Studies examining social media recommendation systems have found that content provoking anger, outrage, fear, or hostility tends to generate higher engagement rates than neutral information. Because algorithms interpret engagement as a sign of quality or relevance, they often amplify controversial posts regardless of whether they are accurate. Research published in EPJ Data Science found evidence that X's recommendation system amplified low-credibility content more effectively than higher-credibility information. The study also found increased visibility for highly toxic and politically biased posts, demonstrating how recommendation systems can unintentionally contribute to the spread of misinformation.

This dynamic has real-world consequences. During major political events, public health crises, and social movements, false or misleading information can spread faster than verified reporting. Researchers studying misinformation in the United Kingdom found that approximately one in ten social media users regularly engages in sharing exaggerated or false news stories. While this may appear to be a minority, the scale of modern social media means that even a small percentage of users can significantly influence public opinion.

Algorithms also create what researchers call "filter bubbles" or "echo chambers." By analyzing a user's viewing history, likes, comments, and shares, platforms continuously recommend content that aligns with existing beliefs. While this personalization improves user engagement, it can limit exposure to opposing viewpoints and reinforce pre-existing opinions. Over time, users may become increasingly convinced that their perspective represents the majority view because they rarely encounter alternative perspectives. This process contributes to political polarization and weakens democratic dialogue by encouraging people to consume information that confirms rather than challenges their beliefs.

The impact of these systems extends beyond politics. Increasingly, researchers and educators are expressing concern about how recommendation algorithms shape young people's views on gender, race, and class.

One widely discussed example is the rise of misogynistic content targeting teenage boys. Influencers associated with the so-called "manosphere" have gained enormous visibility through algorithmic recommendations on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. Figures such as Andrew Tate became some of the most searched and recommended personalities online despite repeated criticism for promoting sexist ideas and degrading attitudes toward women.

https://open.spotify.com/show/2BztpiDnRT30gy2IDadgqk 

Andrew Tate on his podcast: Tatecast

A recent Common Sense Media study found that 69% of boys aged 11 to 17 reported regular exposure to online content promoting harmful ideas about masculinity. These messages often portray men as dominant, emotionally detached, and entitled while presenting women as inferior or responsible for men's problems. Importantly, many boys reported being shown this content even when they had not actively searched for it. Recommendation systems identified engagement patterns among similar users and pushed the content into their feeds. 

Teachers across the United Kingdom and Ireland have reported growing concerns about the influence of misogynistic influencers on students. Some educators describe hearing boys repeat phrases and ideas popularized by online personalities, often disguised as jokes or irony. While many young users may initially engage with this content for entertainment, repeated exposure can normalize harmful attitudes. Over time, jokes about women being inferior, manipulative, or responsible for social problems can become accepted as common sense rather than recognized as prejudice.

The same mechanisms that amplify misogyny can also reinforce racism. Algorithms frequently prioritize engagement over social responsibility, meaning content that provokes outrage or controversy may receive increased visibility. Throughout social media history, creators have built large audiences by making racist remarks, promoting stereotypes, or using racial controversy as entertainment. Because such content often generates strong reactions from both supporters and critics, it can receive greater engagement and therefore greater algorithmic amplification.

At the same time, research suggests that creators from marginalized communities often face additional barriers. Studies on shadowbanning and algorithmic visibility have found that women, LGBTQ+ creators, plus-size creators, and other underrepresented groups frequently experience reduced visibility, content suppression, or inconsistent moderation. Automated systems sometimes incorrectly flag cultural content, activism, or discussions about discrimination as inappropriate. As a result, the very groups most affected by bias may find it harder to have their voices heard online.

Classism is another less discussed but equally important issue. Social media algorithms frequently reward content associated with wealth, luxury lifestyles, and consumerism because such content attracts attention and aspirational engagement. Influencers displaying expensive vacations, designer clothing, luxury cars, and lavish homes often receive significant algorithmic promotion. Meanwhile, the realities of poverty, economic insecurity, and working-class experiences tend to receive less visibility. This creates a distorted picture of society in which wealth appears normal and universally attainable, contributing to unrealistic expectations and feelings of inadequacy among viewers.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/825736/richest-influencers-world/

Above, Charlie D’Amelio, ‘Mr Beast’, and Emma Chamberlain, some of the richest influencers in the world 

For young users, these effects can be particularly powerful. Adolescents are still forming their identities, beliefs, and understanding of the world. When recommendation systems repeatedly expose them to misogynistic influencers, racist stereotypes, misinformation, or unrealistic lifestyles, those messages can gradually shape how they think about social issues and other people. What begins as entertainment can become a framework for understanding gender roles, race relations, economic success, and political identity.

Importantly, researchers emphasize that algorithms do not create these social problems from nothing. Instead, they often reinforce existing societal tensions, prejudices, and inequalities. The problem is that social media allows these patterns to spread faster, reach larger audiences, and become embedded in everyday digital experiences.

As social media becomes increasingly algorithm-driven, the challenge facing technology companies is clear. Platforms must decide whether their systems will continue prioritizing engagement above all else or whether they will begin designing algorithms that value reliability, diversity of perspectives, user well-being, and social responsibility. The future of digital media will not only determine what people see online, it will help shape how future generations understand the world itself.

Bibliography 

Cecere, G., Jean, C., Le Guel, F. and Manant, M. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic bias? Field Tests on Social Network with Teens. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, [online] 201, p.123204. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123204.

Draper, D. (2023). The Pros and Cons of Social Media Algorithms. [online] Available at: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/BPC_Tech-Algorithm-Tradeoffs_R01.pdf.

Jonker, A. and Rogers, J. (2024). What Is Algorithmic bias? [online] IBM. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/algorithmic-bias.

Metzler, H. and Garcia, D. (2023). Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. Perspectives on Psychological Science, [online] 19(5), pp.735–748. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185057.

Moore, M. (2025). Meet the Richest Influencers in the World – Including a 12-year-old Child. [online] HELLO! Available at: https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/825736/richest-influencers-world/.

Putri, S.D.G., Purnomo, E.P. and Khairunissa, T. (2024). Echo Chambers and Algorithmic Bias: The Homogenization of Online Culture in a Smart Society. SHS Web of Conferences, [online] 202(1), p.05001. doi:https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202420205001.

Singer, A. (2022). The Negative Effects of Social Media Algorithms. [online] THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE. Available at: https://honors.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/8388.