Centre for Internet and Society

Networked Economies and Gender Action Learning

Admin — 2018-10-02T03:10:02Z

Elonnai Hickok, Sunil Abraham and Ambika Tandon participated in a meeting organized by IDRC for grantees under their networked economies programme to discuss gender-based outputs and development outcomes in their work. The event was held in Ottawa on September 20 - 21, 2018, facilitated by Gender at Work.

Sunil Abraham, Swaraj Paul Barooah and Ambika Tandon also attended a workshop on Gender Action Learning on September 24 - 25, 2018, which discussed strategies to work on gender under a grant for Cyber Policy Centres. Other organizations present at the workshop were Research ICT Africa, Lirne Asia, and Centre Latam Digital at CIDE, Mexico. Gender at Work facilitated this workshop as well, and will be working with all the grantees over a period of 18 months.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/networked-economies-and-gender-action-learning

Lecture at International Summer School, Delhi

Admin — 2019-07-22T01:11:00Z

Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi, on July 12, 2019, delivered a lecture at the International Summer School, Delhi.

The ISS is in its 6th year now, and is convened annually as a six week academic program. The ISS is held in affiliation with the Department of Political Science at Jamia Millia Islamia - A Central University (JMI) and with regular support from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) over the years.

The lecture formed a part of the Innovation, Technology and the Future of Work course module at this year's edition. The speakers focused specifically on placing an intersectional lens to drive home the point that there will be not one future of work, but multiple. And how it is that we can begin to interrogate the various competing narratives that are being propagated. Ambika and Aayush also focused on how the present gendered ordering of the labour market stands to be reproduced in the various shapes work will take going forward.

The presentation can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/lecture-at-international-summer-school-delhi

Japleen Pasricha - Gendered Spaces in Digital Rights (Delhi, June 02, 5 pm)

sumandro — 2017-05-31T03:49:26Z

It is our priviledge to annouce that Japleen Pasricha will be the speaker for the June #FirstFridayAtCIS event. Japleen smashes the patriarchy for a living, and is Founder & Editor-in-chief of Feminism in India. The talk will focus on her experience of working on gender and digital rights in India, the ways in which "gender" functions as a critical lens in digital rights discourse and practice in India (or not), and the gendered nature of digital rights spaces in India. If you are joining us, please RSVP at the soonest as we have only limited space in our office.

Japleen Pasricha

Founder & Editor-in-chief, Feminism in India

Japleen smashes the patriarchy for a living. Founder & Editor-in-chief of Feminism in India, she is a feminist activist based in New Delhi, India. She is a writer, educator, campaigner and researcher. She has vast experience in digital media and online publishing. Her interest lies in women’s studies, global feminism, gender, sexuality, VAW, SRHR, feminist praxis and internet as a space. Currently she is working on online violence against women and media representation of gender and gender-based violence. She’d like to use skills to intersect gender and sexuality with digital & social media and develop safe online spaces for women and marginalized communities.

RSVP

Location

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/firstfridayatcis-japleen-pasricha-gendered-spaces-in-digital-rights-delhi-june-02

International Network on Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2018

Admin — 2018-12-04T15:46:02Z

The event was co-organized by Feminist Approaches to Bioethics and Sama - A Resource Centre for Women and Health and was held at St. John's Medical College in Bangalore between December 3 and 5, 2018.

Aayush Rathi and Ambika Tandon participated in the event as speakers. Aayush presented a paper 'Sexual Surveillance and Data Regimes: Development in the Data Economy' co-authored by himself and Ambika.

Download the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/international-network-on-feminist-approaches-to-bioethics-2018

Indian WikiWomen celebrate Women’s History Month

Netha Hussain — 2013-04-29T09:21:45Z

March 2013 was a busy month for women Wikimedians in India, as we conducted various events, such as edit-a-thons and workshops to celebrate the presence of women in Wikimedia projects. The women Wikimedians, members of the Wikimedia India Chapter and the Access to Knowledge Team, brainstormed about the possible events, which we wanted to conduct to encourage women to participate and to increase the quality of articles related to Indian women in Wikipedias in English and the Indian languages.

This is a guest post by Netha Hussain, a Wikipedia contributor from India who regularly contributes to Malayalam Wikipedia, among other projects. The blog post was originally published on the Wikimedia Foundation page.

We decided to conduct the workshops and meetups in various Indian cities, in addition to online edit-a-thons. We created a co-ordination page on English Wikipedia and added suggestions for articles to edit. We invited participants to join the edit-a-thon by spreading the word on mailing lists, social media networks and blogs. The Times of India published a feature about the event, which attracted many newbies to participate in it. We also created separate pages for offline events taking place in parallel, and we added a summary of the events to the main page. The participants of the edit-a-thon signed up on the co-ordination page, where we also added the details and status of Women’s History Month events happening in various Indian language Wikipedias.

The inaugural event took place on International Women’s Day (March 8) at Nirmala Institute of Education, Goa. Out of 100 participants who attended the event, 90 were female. Veteran Wikimedians Rohini and Nitika conducted a basic Wikipedia editing workshop. The event also set off the two-day long online edit-a-thon in which fourteen editors participated. Among those who participated in the program were homemakers, students and professionals. Rohini took charge as the Chairperson of the special interest group (SIG) for Gendergap at the Wikimedia Chapter India on the day of the workshop (March 8). She plans to conduct more workshops for women in the future.

Organizers subsequently held a series of events at two venues in Bengaluru and one in Ernakulam. Experienced Wikimedians Pavithra and Nikita Belavate led the workshops in Bengaluru. The workshop also served as an occasion for editors living in and around Bengaluru to meet. The Ernakulam event was aimed at increasing the participation of women in Malayalam Wikipedia and was led by Wikimedian Ditty Mathew. Around 40 women participated in the three edit-a-thons. A Wikipedia Academy with 9 participants was conducted in Hyderabad. Led by Anupama Srinivas, the last of all events took place on 30 March, 2012, in Chennai.

Nikita, who led the Bangalore event, said she was filled with happiness watching the exuberance in the eyes of women participants who edited and saved their edits live on Wikipedia. “This year’s Women’s History month makes me once again believe in the power of women and honing it by empowering them, Wikiwomenising them,” said Nikita.


Participants of the Bangalore workshop organized by FSMK

Vishnu Vardhan, the Program Director of the Access to Knowledge team, was with the WikiWomen throughout the editathon, connecting people, planning events and urging them to contribute. He encouraged his mother, wife and female cousins to contribute to Wikipedia.

“I wish more of us took the initiative of involving the women in our life to share their knowledge on Wikipedia and truly make the Wikipedias the sum of all human knowledge,” he said. Harriet, one of the key organizers of the women’s day events, believes that the Indian Wikimedia community has gained momentum in favor of bridging the gender gap because of this event. She urged the Indian community to follow this success and to increase the participation of women in the Wikimedia movement. Though she could not attend the events in person, she ensured her participation in the edit-a-thon by arranging the logistics, monitoring the coordination page and suggesting changes.

The events had good participation from men as well. Among the 14 participants who signed up on English Wikipedia, 5 were men. In Malayalam Wikipedia, 18 out of the 26 participants who signed up for the online edit-a-thon were men. Dileep Unnikrishan, a male participant of the edit-a-thon, and a fan of Wikipedia, participated in the Ernakulam event because he was curious to find out how Wikipedia works. With women participants, he edited three articles and found it exciting to “be a part of the movement that has brought about a knowledge revolution in the world. The best thing I noticed about Wiki is that it has a peer-to-peer way of organization, which makes it warm and welcoming to newbies like me,” said Dileep.

The Indian WikiWomen are planning to conduct similar events in the future to increase the participation of women in Wikipedia and its sister projects. We are hopeful we will bridge the gender gap in the Indian Wikimedia community by conducting outreach programs, increasing awareness about free knowledge programs among women and conducting action-oriented events targeting women.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/indian-wiki-women-history-month

Indian Feminist Judgment Project Workshop

Admin — 2018-10-16T13:34:06Z

Swaraj Paul Barooah was a discussant at the Indian Feminist Judgment Project 'righting together' workshop organised in Delhi by Jindal from October 6 - 7, 2018.

Swaraj provided commentary on the re-writing of a patent application from a feminist perspective. Click here to view the agenda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-feminist-judgment-project-workshop

Imagine a Feminist Internet: Research, Practice and Policy in South Asia

Admin — 2019-02-27T01:52:55Z

Internet Democracy Project and Point of View co-organized a two-day Imagine a Feminist Internet event in Sri Lanka on 22011 and 22 February 2019. Ambika Tandon was a speaker and presented a paper 'Framing Reproductive Health as a Data Problem? Unpacking ‘Dataveillance’ in India' which was co-authored by herself and Aayush Rathi.

The panel also had a presentation by Dr. Anja Kovacs, and was moderated by Eva Blum-Dumontet from Privacy International. Ambika also participated in a committee that drafted a declaration for policymakers based on the presentations at the conference, which is yet to be finalised. The agenda can be seen here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/imagine-a-feminist-internet-research-practice-and-policy-in-south-asia

Girls' schools, women's PGs: The shocking results when you Google 'bitches near me'

Admin — 2018-11-28T01:34:50Z

Considering the monopoly and clout that Google enjoys, it must be held accountable for promoting such stereotypes and values, experts say.

The blog post by Geetika Mantri was published in News Minute on November 26, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

If there’s a question you don’t know the answer to, more often than not, you’ll turn to Google. The search engine’s monopoly over the market, and data pool at hand, are almost unparalleled in public perception – which makes it all the more alarming when it tends to feed into dangerous and misogynistic values.

This is what seems to have happened, as pointed out by Twitter user @AHappyChipmunk, when someone opened Google Maps and typed “bitches near me.” The results show up addresses of girls’ schools, women’s and girls’ hostels and PGs, and women’s clothing shops. Not only is this shocking because ‘bitches’ is often used as a derogatory phrase for women, but also these Google search results of schools put minors at risk.

The tweet caused much outrage and alarm among people, who did the search themselves and posted screenshots of the real time results that they got.

Why would Google show these results?

Pranesh Prakash, a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, points out that this was telling of the fact that Google knows that ‘bitches’ can be a slang for women. “For many years now, Google has been trying to understand and search for what you meant, than what you may have typed,” he explains. “However, if you enclose this search phrase in quotes, you will not get the same results, because then it will look for the phrase.”

He also notes that if you were to look for “girls near me”, you would get similar search results on Google Maps, though more specific to women’s accommodations.

In contrast, it you were to Google, “bitch near me”, you would not get Google Map results. “I think that’s because Google understands that ‘bitches’ is more likely to mean women, than singular ‘bitch’,” Pranesh says.

Tech giants need to be held accountable

While Pranesh thinks that the search results are not ‘dangerous’ per se in the sense that a potential abuser was more likely to Google ‘girls schools’ than ‘bitches near me’, he agrees that these search results are telling of the misogynistic language in use online.

However, is it okay for tech giants to wash the responsibility off their hands because this is the language that their algorithm picked up? Nayantara R, who works with the Internet Democracy Project in Bengaluru, says, “This reminds me of the book Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism." The book challenges the idea that platforms like Google are level playing fields for different ideas and ideologies. Author Safiya Umoja Noble argues that due to data discrimination, private interests in promoting certain sites, as well as the monopoly of a few online search engines, results in biased search algorithms which discriminate against women of colour while painting favourable portraits of whiteness.

One such bias came to light in July last year where many people, including Congress MP Shashi Tharoor pointed out how a Google search for ‘south Indian masala’ led to a pictures of skimpily clad women, while ‘north Indian masala’ led to photos of spices and dishes. At the time, Google had maintained that this wasn’t its fault and that Google’s search worked by learning from the keywords people use and the results they click on to predict just what people are searching for.

However, Nayantara asserts that considering the monopoly and clout that Google enjoys, it must be held accountable for promoting such stereotypes and values. “The Google page ranking is one of the most protected patents. No one knows how or why certain pages come before the others. In this case, certain search results coming first does not mean that Google is misogynistic. But the algorithmic decision that is taken by someone at Google to rank certain pages which promote certain values before others does have a social impact. All technology is a result of how it is used. Accountability is required there,” she argues.

A conversation about what search results mean

Nayantara also points out that apart from accountability, there needs to be a conversation about what these search results mean. “Search results do embed political values. However, people need to understand that if they Google something and some pages are ranked before the others, it is not reflective of the truth or right or wrong, but reflection of an opinion,” she says.

“We need popular perception to wrap its head around what a search engine is, and that there are alternatives to Google. We also need more algorithmic diversity in search results,” she adds.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/girls-schools-womens-pgs-the-shocking-results-when-you-google-bitches-near-me

Gender, Health, & Surveillance in India - A Panel Discussion

Aayush Rathi and Ambika Tandon — 2020-12-23T14:03:13Z

Women and LGBTHIAQ-identifying persons face intensive and varied forms of surveillance as they access reproductive health systems. Increasingly, these systems are also undergoing rapid digitisation. The panel was set-up to discuss the discursive, experiential and policy implications of these data-intensive developments on access to public health and welfare systems by women and LGBTHIAQ-identifying persons in India. The panelists presented studies undertaken as part of two projects at CIS, one of which is supported by Privacy International, UK, and the other by Big Data for Development network established by International Development Research Centre, Canada.

Event note and agenda: Read (PDF)

Recording of the discussion: Watch (YouTube)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/gender-health-surveillance-in-india-panel-discussion

Gender and gig work: Perspectives from domestic work in India

ambika — 2021-12-07T02:11:49Z

Platforms have the potential to be instrumental in protecting workers rights, but the current platform design is not optimised to protect workers’ interests especially those of women in the gig economy, argues Ambika Tandon, a senior researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society in India and an author of the report on ‘Platforms, Power and Politics: Perspectives from Domestic and Care Work in India’.

Digital labour platforms, broadly defined as digital interfaces that enable the exchange of goods or services, have grown exponentially in cities across the world. In sectors such as transportation and delivery, Uber and similar platforms have achieved dominant status, while in other sectors platforms are still making inroads to transform consumption patterns. Researchers at India’s Centre for Internet and Society, sought to understand the impact platforms have had on the paid domestic and care work sector in India, given its importance for women workers. The workforce in this sector is largely constituted of women from Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi (or caste-oppressed) and low-income groups, with a long history of socioeconomic and legal devaluation and lack of recognition. In this context, platforms have positioned themselves as intermediaries that will improve wages and conditions of work, pushing the sector towards formalisation.

To assess the impact of digital platforms on processes of recruitment and placement and on organisation and conditions of work, we undertook 60 in-depth interviews between June and November 2019. We chose two metropolitan cities, New Delhi in north India and Bengaluru in south India, as our field sites. These are key nodes in the migration corridors of domestic workers in the country. We spoke to workers who were searching for hourly or regular work through platforms, representatives of platform companies and state and central governments, as well as domestic workers unions. We found that platform design breeds and amplifies exclusion and discrimination along the lines of gender and caste, among other social characteristics.

Uber for domestic work

We found that the function of digital platforms in the sector is contingent on the historical organisation of domestic work, rather than any fundamental re-organisation of the supply chain. Unlike in the global North, platforms in India have thus far been unable to ‘gig-ify’, that is, break up most tasks that constitute domestic work – including child and elderly care and cooking – into short-term granular services that have been standardised. Domestic workers continue to find regular term full-time placements through marketplace platforms, which only connect employers to workers with no other role in determining work conditions. HelpersNearMe and Helper4u are examples of platforms that play this role by listing profiles of workers and making these available to employers. These placements are no different from work in the ‘offline’ sector, with complete informality and very little standardisation around hours, wages, and task constitution. As compared to this, on-demand platforms that offer short-term gigs (similar to the Uber model) have grown exponentially in the ‘deep’ cleaning segment by marketing it as a professional service with higher value than ‘regular’ cleaning services.

The function of digital platforms in the sector is contingent on the historical organisation of domestic work, rather than any fundamental re-organisation of the supply chain.

Cleaning gigs provided by on-demand companies have higher hourly wages than ‘regular’ cleaning services in the traditional sector. But accessing these opportunities requires workers to have regular access to a smartphone throughout the day, to be able to accept or reject tasks and receive payments through a mobile application or web-portal. Women workers from low income families have very low levels of digital access, with most phones being shared between families and controlled by male members. Also, the use of technical equipment such as vacuum cleaners and chemicals has led to deep cleaning being viewed as a masculine task. As a result, almost all cleaning workers we identified in the on-demand sector were men, even though cleaning is a feminised job role in the traditional economy. Some cleaning workers we spoke to did not identify as domestic workers at all, but rather viewed their work as holding a higher status than traditional cleaning. This trend of masculinisation of a job role coinciding with higher wages and social status has also been seen in other sectors globally, such as software programming.

Promises and risks of low-tech platforms

One of the reasons that women workers are more likely to find work through marketplace platforms rather than on-demand agencies is because they only require workers to have a basic or feature phone for one-time registration, and subsequently to answer calls from potential employers or the platform. Most platforms in this category do not intervene in task allocation or terms of work, which are negotiated directly between workers and employers. Algorithms and digital interfaces then only facilitate matching, as opposed to on-demand work where all aspects of the job are determined by the platform. This allows women workers to register using shared family phones, or those of their friends, neighbours, and in the case of one of our respondents, her landlady’s phone number. These platforms then may be able to provide placement opportunities to workers who are unable to find work through word-of-mouth networks. This is especially crucial as a result of the unemployment crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, unlike with the on-demand model, these platforms do not offer increased wages or provide better conditions of work.

Although marketplace platforms provide an additional route into finding opportunities in the sector, they also codify employers’ biases through their design. All marketplace platforms and digital placement agencies we reviewed – upwards of 20 companies – provide demographic filters to employers for filtering workers’ profiles. These include information on workers’ gender, age, religion, state of origin, and in one case, even caste. While practices of employing workers based on demographic characteristics are rampant in the sector historically, platforms build them in by design and market them as a key feature of what they are able to offer employers. These open up direct avenues for employers to discriminate against workers from minority religions and oppressed castes. It also reinforces gendered occupational segregation, as employers seek out women workers for feminised roles such as cleaning and care work, and men for tasks such as gardening and plumbing.

Power structures endemic to the domestic work sector continue to thrive in the platform economy, as do gender and caste-based occupational segregation.

Platforms have been making claims of formalising the informal sector, especially in global South economies, through increasing efficiency in matching workers to employers. Despite having the potential to be instrumental in protecting workers rights, currently platform design is not optimised to protect workers’ interests. Power structures endemic to the domestic work sector continue to thrive in the platform economy, as do gender and caste-based occupational segregation. To be able to nudge the sector towards formalisation, platforms need to directly intervene in power structures and co-design with workers, rather than merely functioning as digital recruiters. This could imply adopting practices such as removing demographic details where not relevant, introducing written contracts and minimum wage floors for placements, and addressing gender gaps in some segments of the digital economy.

This work forms part of a project on ‘Platforms, Power and Politics: Perspectives from Domestic and Care Work in India’, supported by the Association for Progressive Communications. You can read more about the project here, and find the full project report here.

This article gives the views of the author and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

The blog first published on LSE website can be accessed here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/lse-ambika-tandon-october-21-2021-ambika-tandon-gender-and-gig-work

Flashpoint #TrollControl: Maneka versus NCW

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:11:59Z

Amidst the debate over controlling online trolls - the proposal by Union Women and Child Development Minister to curb violence against women on the internet has triggered a fight between the minister and the National Commission for Women (NCW).

While Maneka Gandhi asked the NCW to monitor the internet to control trolls against women - NCW Chief Lalitha Kumaramangalam questioning the feasibility of the Minister's proposal, saying the internet is too big a space to be monitored. Sunil Abraham was interviewed. Times Now Television interviewed Sunil Abraham on this. Watch the video here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-now-july-8-2016-flashpoint-troll-control-maneka-versus-ncw

Feminist Methodology in Technology Research: A Literature Review

ambika — 2018-12-25T15:18:21Z

This literature review has been authored by Ambika Tandon, with contributions from Mukta Joshi. Research assistance was provided by Kumarjeet Ray and Navya Sharma. The publication has been designed by Saumyaa Naidu.

Abstract

Feminist research methodology is a vast body of knowledge, spanning across multiple disciplines including sociology, media studies, and critical legal studies. This literature review aims to understand key aspects of feminist methodology across these disciplines, with a particular focus on research on technology and its interaction with society. Stemming from the argument that the ontological notion of objectivity effaces power relations in the process of knowledge production, feminist research is critical of the subjects, producers, and nature of knowledge. Section I of the literature review explores this argument along with a range of theoretical concepts, such as standpoint theory and historical materialism, as well as principles of feminist research derived from these, such as intersectionality and reflexivity.

Given its critique of the "god's eye view" (Madhok and Evans, 2014) of objectivist research, feminist scholars have largely developed qualitative methods that are more conducive to acknowledgement of power hierarchies. Additionally, some scholars have recognised the political value in quantification of inequalities such as the wage gap, and have developed intersectional quantitative methods that aim at narrowing down measurable inequalities. Both sets of methods are explored in Section II of the literature review, interspersed with examples from research focused on technology.

Introduction

According to authoritative accounts on the subject, while research focused on gender or women predates its arrival, the field of ‘feminist methodology’ explores questions of epistemology and ontology of research and knowledge. Initiated in scholarship arising out of the second wave of North American feminism, it theoretically anchors itself in the post-modernist and post-structuralist traditions. It additionally critiques positivism for being a project furthering patriarchal oppression. North American feminist scholars critique traditional methods within the social sciences from an epistemological perspective, for producing acontextual and ahistorical knowledge, replicating the tendency of positivist science to enumerate and measure subjective social phenomena. This, according to them, leads to the invisiblising of the web of power relations within which the ‘known’ and ‘knower’ in knowledge production are placed. This is then used to devise methods and underlying principles and ethics for conducting more egalitarian research, aimed at achieving goals of social justice.

The second wave feminist movement was itself critiqued by Black and other feminists from the global South for being exclusionary of non-white and heterosexual identities. Given its origins in the global North, scholars from the South have interrogated the meaning of feminism and feminist research in their context. Some African scholars even detail difficulty in disclosing a project as feminist publicly due to popular resistance to the term feminism, which stems from it being rejected by certain social groups as an alien social movement that’s antithetical to their “African cultural values." Their own critique of “White feminism” comes from its essentialization of womanhood and the resultant negation of the (neo)colonial and racialised histories of African women. This has led scholars from the global South to critically interrogate feminism and feminist methods. They acknowledge the multiplicity of feminisms, and initiate creative inquiries into different forms of feminist methodology. Feminist researchers that work in contexts of political violence, instability, repression, scarcity of resources, poor infrastructure, and/or lack of social security, have pointed out that traditional research methods assume conditions that are largely absent in their realities, leading them to experiment with feminist research.

Feminist research across these variety of contexts raises ontological and epistemological concerns about traditional research methods and underlying assumptions about what can be known, who can know, and the nature of knowledge itself. It argues that knowledge production has historically led to the creation of epistemic hierarchies, wherein certain actors are designated as ‘knowers’ and others as the ‘known’. Such hierarchies wreak epistemic violence upon marginalised subjects by denying them the agency to produce knowledge, and delegitimize forms of knowledge that aren’t normative. Acknowledging the role of power in knowledge production has the radical implication that the subjectivities of the researchers and the researched inherently find their way into research and more broadly, knowledge production. This challenges the objectivity and “god’s eye view” of traditional humanistic knowledge and its processes of production. Feminist research eschews scientifically orthodox notions of how “valid knowledge will look”, and creates novel resources for understanding epistemic marginalization of various kinds. It then provides a myriad of tools to disrupt structural hierarchies through and within knowledge production and dissemination.

Feminist research, given its evolution from living movements and theoretical debates, remains a contested domain. It has reformulated a range of qualitative and quantitative research methods, and also surfaced its own, such as experimental and action-based. What these have in common are theoretical dispositions to identify, critique, and ultimately dismantle power relations within and through research projects. It is thus “critical, political, and praxis oriented. Several disciplines with the social sciences, such as feminist technology studies, cyberfeminism, and cultural anthropology, have built feminist approaches to the study of technology and technologically mediated social relations. However, this continues to remain a minor strand of research on technology.

This literature review aims to address that gap through scoping of such methods and their application in technological research. Feminist methodology provides a critical lens that allows us to explore questions and areas in technology-based research that are inaccessible by traditional methods. This paper draws on examples from technology-focused research, covering key interdisciplinary feminist methods across fields such as gender studies, sociology, development, and ICT for development. In doing so, it actively constructs a history of feminist methodology through authoritative sources of knowledge.

Read the full paper here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ambika-tandon-december-23-2018-feminist-methodology-in-technology-research

Feminist Internet Research Network (FIRN) Convening Design

Admin — 2019-03-01T01:08:54Z

Ambika Tandon attended a workshop organized by Association for Progressive Communications for grantees of the Feminist Internet Research Network as a panelist on a session on feminist research methods.. The workshop was held from 27 February to 1 March, in Malaysia. Represented from 8 organizations attended the workshop.

Objectives of the convenining

To inaugurate a network of feminist researcher in the field of digital technology for ongoing collaboration, advice and active solidarity.
To start trust building within the network through shared values and plot how it will work and how it will expand.
To facilitate exchange of learnings and capacity building among the network members and other resource persons, in particular.
To facilitate peer-feedback, collaboration and interdisciplinary discussions on research design, methodologies and research plans of the selected projects and other resource persons.
To get feedback on overall FIRN project research methodology/design.
To explore new and innovative methods, as well as get understand key developments and challenges in more established ways of collecting and analysing data in the four areas of the research initiative.

For more information click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/firn-convening-design

Feminist Design Practices

Aayush Rathi, Akash Sheshadri and Ambika Tandon — 2022-04-16T03:34:51Z

Aayush Rathi and Akash Sheshadri and Ambika Tandon co-authored a research paper on 'Feminist Design Practices' which was published in a special issue of Apria, a peer-reviewed journal hosted at ArtEZ University. The special issue "Feminist by Design" highlights the work of the Feminist Internet Research Network and its contributions to building an equitable internet through design interventions.

Abstract

Feminist and design justice principles can be adopted into research praxis to make knowledge less extractive and more accessible. These principles include making research and outreach more participatory, translating academic knowledge into more accessible forms, and channelling research into action that can challenge patriarchy and other systems of domination.

This paper focusses on the outreach and communication of policy research to outline its potential for producing radical change and translating knowledge across communities. The authors reflect on their experiences of producing research for domestic workers and workers’ collectives in India to highlight challenges and ways forward for accessible research forms.

To access the full article published in Apria, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/artez-platform-aayush-rathi-akash-sheshadri-ambika-tandon-feminist-design-practices

Event Report on Intermediary Liability and Gender Based Violence

akriti — 2018-12-21T07:16:41Z

This report is a summary of the proceedings of the Roundtable Conference organized by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) at the Digital Citizen Summit, an annual summit organized by the Digital Empowerment Foundation. It was conducted at the India International Centre in New Delhi on November 1, 2018 from 11.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.

With inputs and edited by Ambika Tandon. Click here to download the PDF

Introduction

Background

The topic of discussion was intermediary liability and Gender Based Violence (GBV), the debate on GBV globally and in India evolving to include myriad forms of violence in online spaces in the past few years. This ranges from violence native to the digital, such as identity theft, and extensions of traditional forms of violence, such as online harassment, cyberbullying, and cyberstalking^[1]. Given the extent of personal data available online, cyber attacks have led to a variety of financial and personal harms.^[2] Studies have explored the extent of psychological and even physical harm to victims, which has been found to have similar effects to violence in the physical world^[3]. Despite this, technologically-facilitated violence is often ignored or trivialised. When present, redressal mechanisms are often inadequate, further exacerbating the effects of violence on victims.

TheRoundtable explored ways of how intermediaries can help tackle gender based violence and discussed attempts at making the Internet a safer place for women which can ultimately help make it a gender equal environment. It also analyzed the key concerns of privacy and security leading the conversation to how we can demand more from platforms for our protection and how best to regulate them.

The roundtable had four female and one male participants from various civil society organisations working on rights in the digital space.

Roundtable Discussion

Online Abuse

The discussion commenced with the acknowledgement of it being well documented that women and sexual minorities face a disproportionate level of violence in the digital space, as an extension/reproduction of physical space. GBV exists on a continuum from the physical, verbal, and technologically enabled, either partially or fully, with overflowing boundaries and deep interconnections between different kinds of violence. Some forms of traditional violence such as harassment, stalking, bullying, sex trafficking, extend themselves into the digital realm while other forms are uniquely tech enabled like doxxing and morphing of imagery. Due to this considerations of anonymity, privacy, and consent, need to be re-thought in the context of tech enabled GBV. These come into play in a situation where the technological realm has largely been corporatised and functions under the imperative of treating the user and their data as the final product.

It was noted early on that GBV online can be a misnomer because it can be across a number of spaces and, the participants concentrated on laying down the specific contours of tech mediated or tech enabled violence. One of the discussants stated that the term GBV is a not a useful one since it does not encompass everything that is talked about when referring to online abuse. The phenomenon that gets the most traction is trolling on social media or abuse on social media. This is partly because it is the most visible people who are affected by it, and also since often, it is the most difficult to treat under law. In a 2012 study by the Internet Democracy Project focusing on online verbal abuse in social media, every woman they interviewed started by asserting that she is not a victim. The challenge with using the GBV framework is that it positions the woman as a victim. Other incidents on social media such as verbal abuse where there are rape threats or death threats, especially when there is an indication that the perpetrator is aware of the physical location of the victim, need to be treated differently from say online trolling.

Further, certain forms of violence, such as occurrences of ‘revenge porn’ or the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including rape videos are easier to fit within the description of GBV. It is important to make these distinctions because the remedies then should be commensurate with perceived harm. It is not appropriate to club all of these together since the criminal threshold for each act is different. Whereas being called a “slut” or a “bitch” would not be enough for someone to be arrested, if a woman is called that repetitively by a large number of people the commensurate harm could be quite significant. Thus, using GBV as a broad term for all forms of violence ends up invisiblising certain forms of violence and prevents a more nuanced treatment of the discussion.

In response to this, a participant highlighted the normalisation of gendered hate speech, to the extent of lack of recognition as a form of hate speech. This lacunae in our law stems from the fact that we inherited our hate speech laws from a colonial era where it was based on the grounds of incitement of violence, more so physical violence. As a result, we do not take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) standard of incitement to discrimination. If the law was based on an incitement to discriminate point of view then acts of trolling could come under hate speech. Even in the United Kingdom where there is higher sentencing for gender based crime as compared to other markers of identity such as race, gender does not fall under the parameters of hate speech. This can also be attributed to the threshold at which criminalization kicks in for such acts.

A significant aspect of online verbal abuse pointed out by a participant was that it does not affect all women equally. In a study, the Twitter accounts of 12 publicly visible women across the political spectrum were looked at for 2 weeks in early December, 2017. They were filtered against keywords and analyzed for abusive content. One Muslim woman in the study had extremely high levels of abuse, being consistently addressed as “Jihad man, Jihad didi or Jihad biwi”. According to the participant, she is also the least likely to get justice through the criminal system for such vitriol and as such, this disparity in the likelihood of facing online abuse and accessing official redressal mechanisms should be recognized. Another discussant reaffirmed the importance of making a distinction between online abuse against someone as opposed to gender based violence online where the threat itself is gendered.

In a small ethnographic study with the Bangalore police undertaken by one of the participants, the police were asked for their opinion on the following situation: A women voluntarily providers photos of herself in a relationship and once the relationship is over, the man distributes it. Is there a cause for redressal?

Policemen responded that since she gave it voluntarily in the first instance, the burden of the consequences is now on her. So even in a feminist framework of consent and agency where we have laws for actions of voyeurism and publishing photos of private parts, it is not being recognized by institutional response mechanisms.

Intermediary Liability

Private communications based intermediaries can be understood to be of two types: those that enable the carriage/transmission of communications and provide access to the internet, and those that host third party content. The latter have emerged as platforms that are central to the exercising of voice, the exchange of information and knowledge, and even the mobilisation of social movements. The norms and regulations around what constitutes gender based violence in this realm is then shaped not only by state regulations, but content moderation standards of these intermediaries. Further, the kinds of preventive tools and tools providing redressal are controlled by these platforms. More than before, we are looking deeper into the role of these companies that function as intermediaries and control access to third party content without performing editorial functions.

In the Intermediary Liability framework in the United States formulated in the 1990s, the intermediaries that were envisioned were not the intermediaries we have now. With time, the intermediary today is able to access and possess your data while urging a certain kind of behaviour from you. There is then an intermediary design duty which is not currently accounted for by the law. Moreover, the law practices a one size fits all regime whereas what could be more suitable is having approached tailored as per the offence. So for child pornography, a ‘removal when uploaded’ action using artificial intelligence or machine learning is appropriate but a notice and takedown approach is better for other kinds of content takedown.

Globally, another facet is that of safe harbour provisions for platforms. When intermediaries such as Google and Facebook were established, they were thought of as neutral pipes since they were not creating the content but only facilitating access. However, as they have scaled and as their role in ecosystem has increased, they are now one of the intervention points for governments as gatekeepers of free speech. One needs to be careful in asking for an expansion of the role and responsibilities of platforms because then complementary to that we will also have to see that the frameworks regulating them need to be revisited. Additionally, would a similar standard be applicable to larger and smaller intermediaries, or do we need layers of distinction between their responsibilities? Internet platforms such as the GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) yield exceptional power to dictate what discourse takes place and this translates into the the online and offline divide disappearing. Do we then hold these four intermediaries to a separate and higher standard? If not, then all small players will be held to stringent rules disadvantaging their functioning and ultimately, stifling innovation. Thus, regulation is definitely needed but instead of a uniform one, one that’s layered and tailor-made to different situations and platform visibility levels could be more useful.

Some participants shared the opinion that because these intermediaries are based in foreign countries and have primary legal obligations there, the insulation plays out in the citizen’s benefit. It lends itself a layer of freedom of speech and expression that is not present in the substantive law, rule of law framework or the institutional culture in India.

Child pornography is an area where platforms are taking a lot of responsibility. Google has spoken about how they have been using machine learning algorithms to block 40% of such content and Microsoft is also working on a similar process. If we argue for more intervention from platforms, we simultaneously also need to look at their machine learning algorithms. Concerns of how these algorithms are being deployed and further, being incorporated into the framework of controlling child pornography are relevant since there is not much accountability and transparency regarding the same.

Another fraction that has emerged from recent events is the divide between traditional form of media and new media. Taking the example of rape victims and sexual harassment claims, there are strict rules regarding the kinds of details that can be disclosed and the manner in which this is to be done. In the Kathua rape case, for instance, the Delhi High Court sent a notice to Twitter and Facebook for revealing details because there are norms around this even though they have not been applicable to platforms. Hence, there are certain regulations that apply to old media that have now escaped in the frameworks applicable to the new media and at some level that gap needs to be bridged.

Role of Law

One of the participants brought up the question; what is the proper role of the law and does it come first or last? In case of the latter, the burden then falls upon the kind of standard setting that we do as a society. The role of platforms as an entity in mediating the online environment was discussed, given the concerns that have been highlighted about this environment, especially for women. The third thing to be considered is whether we run the risk of enforcing patriarchal behaviour by doubling down on the either of the two aforementioned factors. If legal standards are made too harsh they may end up reinforcing a power structure that is essentially dominated by upper caste men who comprise a majority of staff within law enforcement and the judiciary. Even though the subordinate judiciary do have mahila courts now, the application of the law seems to reify the position of the woman as the victim. This also brings up the question of who can become a victim within such frameworks, where selective bias such as elements of chastity come to play as court functions are undertaken.

An assessment of the way criminal law in India is used to stifle free speech was carried out in 2013 and repeated in 2018, illustrating how censorship law is used to stifle voices of minorities and people critical of the political establishment. Even though it is perhaps time to revisit the earlier conceptualizations of intermediaries as neutral pipes, it is concerning to look at the the court cases regarding safe harbour in India. Many of them are carried out with the ostensible objective of protecting women's rights. In Kamlesh Vaswani V Union of India, the petition claims that porn is a threat to Indian women and culture, ignoring the reality that many women watch porn as well. Pornhub releases figures on viewership every year, and of the entirety of Indian subscribers one third are women. This is not taken into account in such petitions. In Prajwala V Union of India, an NGO sent the Supreme Court a letter raising concerns about videos of sexual violence being distributed on the internet. The letter sought to bring attention to the existence of such videos, as well as their rampant circulation on online platforms. At some point in the proceedings, the Court wanted the intermediaries to use keywords to take down content and keeping aside poor implementation, the rationale behind such a move is problematic in itself. For instance, if you choose sex as one of those words then all sexual education will disappear from the Internet. There are many problems with court encouraged filtering systems like one where a system automatically tells you when a rape video goes up. The question arises of how will you distinguish between a video that was consensually made depicting sexual activities and a rape video. The narrow minded responses to the Sabu Mathew and Prajwala cases originate in the conservative culture regarding sexual activity prevalent in India.

In a research project undertaken by one of the participants in the course of their work, they made a suggestion to include gender, sexuality and disability as grounds for hate speech while working with women’s rights activists and civil society organisations. This suggestion was not well received as they vehemently opposed more regulation. In their opinion, the laws that India has in place are not being upheld and creating new laws will not change if the implementation of legislation is flawed. For instance, even though the Supreme Court stuck down S.66A, Internet Freedom Foundation has earlier provided instances of its continued usage by police officers to file complaints.^{^[4]} Hate speech laws can be used to both ends, even though unlike in the US they do not determine whose speech they want to protect. Consequently, in the US a white supremacist gets as much protection as a Black Lives Matter activist but in India, that is not the case. The latest Law Commission Report on hate speech in India tries to make progress by incorporating the ICCPR view of incitement to discriminate and include dignity in the harms. It specifically speaks about hate speech against women saying that it does not always end up in violence but does result in a harm to dignity and standing in society. Often, protectionist forms of speech such as hate speech often end up hurting the people it aims to protect by reinforcing stereotypes.

Point of View undertook a study where they looked at the use of S.67 in the Information Technology (IT) Act which criminalizes obscene speech when you use a medium covered by the IT, in which they found that the section was used to criminalize political speech. In many censorship cases, the people who those provisions benefit are the ones in power.^{^[5]} For instance in S.67, obscenity provisions do not protect women's rights, they protect morality of society. Even though these are done in the name of protecting women, when a woman herself decides that she wants to publish a revealing picture of herself online, it is disallowed by the law. That kind of control of sexuality is part of a larger patriarchal framework which does not support women's rights or recognise her sexuality. However, under Indian law, there are quite a few robust provisions for image based abuse, and there is some recognition of women in particular being vulnerable to it. S.66A of the IT Act specifically recognizes that it is a criminal activity to share images of someone’s private parts without their consent. This then also encompasses instances of ‘revenge porn’. That provision has been in place in India since 2008, in contrast to the US where half the states still do not have such a provision. Certain kinds of vulnerability have adequate recognition in the law, thus one should be wary of calls of censorship and lowering the standards for criminalizing speech.

Non-legal interventions

This section centres around the discussions of redressal mechanisms that can be used to address some of the forms of violence which do not emanate from the law. All of the participants emphasized the importance of creating safe spaces through non-legal interventions. It was debated whether there is a need to always approach the law or if it is possible to categorize forms of online violence according to the gravity of the violation committed. These can be in the form of community solutions where law is treated as the last resort. For instance, there was support for using community tools such as ‘feminist trollback’ where humor can be used to troll the trolls. Trolls feed on the fear of being trolled, so the harm can be mitigated by using community initiatives wherein the target can respond to the trolls with the help of other people in the community. It was reiterated that non technical and legal interventions are needed not only from the perspective of power relations within these spaces but also access to the spaces in the first place. Accordingly, the government should work on initiatives that get more women online and focus on policies that makes smartphones and data services more accessible. This would also be a good method to increase the safety of women and benefit from the strength in numbers.

In cases of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, law can be the primary forum but in cases of trolling and other social media abuse, the question was raised - should we enhance the role of the intermediary platforms? Being the first point of intervention, their responsibility should be more than it currently is. However this would require them to act in the nature of police or judiciary and necessitate an examination of their algorithms. A large proportion of the designers of such algorithms are white males, which increases the possibility of their biases against women of colour for instance, to feed into the algorithms and reinforce a power structure that lacks accountability.

Participants questioned the lack of privacy in design with the example in mind being of how registrars do not make domain owner details private by default. Users have to pay an additional fee for not exposing their details to public and the notion of having to pay for privacy is unsettling. There is no information being provided during the purchasing of the domain name about the privacy feature as well. It was acknowledged that for audit and law enforcement purposes it is imperative to have the information of the owner of a domain name and their details since in cases of websites selling fake medicines, arms or hosting child pornography. Thus, it boils down to the kind of information necessary for law enforcement. Global domain name rules also impact privacy on the national level. The process of ascertaining the suitability and necessity of different kinds of information excludes ordinary citizens since all the consultations take place between the regulatory authority and the state. This makes it difficult for citizens to participate and contribute to this space without government approval.

Issues were flagged against community standards in that the violence that occurs to women is also because the harms are not equal for all. Further, some users are targeted specifically because of the community they come from or the views they have. Often also because, they represent a ‘type’ of a woman that does not adhere to the ‘ideal’ of a woman held by the perpetrator. Unfortunately community standards do not recognise differential harms towards certain communities in India or globally. Twitter, for example, regularly engages in shadow banning and targets people who do not conform to the moral views prevalent in that society where the platform is engaging in censorship. We know these instances occur only when our community members notice and notify us of the same. There is a certain amount of labor that the community has already put in flagging instances of these violations to the intermediary which also needs recognition. In this situation, Twitter is disproportionately handling how it engages with the two entities in question. Community standards could thus become a double edged sword without adding additional protections for certain disadvantaged communities.

Conclusion

Currently, intermediaries are considered neutral pipes through which content flows and hence have no liability as long as they do not perform editorial functions. This has also been useful in ensuring that the freedom of speech is not harmed. However, given their potential ability to remedy this problem, as well as the fact that intermediaries sometimes benefit financially from such activities, it is important to look at the intermediaries’ responsibility in addressing these instances of violence. Governments across the world have taken different approaches to this question^{^[6]}. Models, such as in the US, where intermediaries have been solely responsible to institute redressal mechanisms have proven to be ineffectual. On the other hand, in Thailand, where intermediaries are held primarily liable for content, the monitoring of content has led to several free speech harms.

People are increasingly looking at other forms of social intervention to combat online abuse since technological and legal ones do not completely address and resolve the myriad issues emanating from this umbrella term. There is also a need to make the law gender sensitive as well as improving the execution of laws at ground level, possibly through sensitisation of law enforcement authorities. Gender based violence as a catchall phrase does not do justice to the full spectrum of experiences that victims face, especially women and sexual minorities. Often these do not attract criminal punishment given the restricted framework of the current law and need to be seen through the prism of hate speech to strengthen these provisions.

Some actions within GBV receive more attention than others and as a consequence, these are the ones platforms and governments are most concerned with regulating. Considerations of free speech and censorship and the role of intermediaries in being the flag bearers of either has translated into growing calls for greater responsibility to be taken by these players. The roundtable raised some key concerns regarding revisiting intermediary liability within the context of the scale of the platforms, their content moderation policies and machine learning algorithms.

^{^[1]} See Khalil Goga, “How to tackle gender-based violence online”, World Economic Forum, 18 February 2015, <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/how-to-tackle-gender-based-violence-online/>. See also Shiromi Pinto, “What is online violence and abuse against women?”, 20 November 2017, Amnest International, <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/what-is-online-violence-and-abuse-against-women/>.

^{^[2]} Nidhi Tandon, et. al., “Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls: A worldwide wake up call”, UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development Working Group on Broadband and Gender, <http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/images/wsis/GenderReport2015FINAL.pdf>

^{^[3]} See Azmina Dhrodia, “Unsocial Media: The Real Toll of Online Abuse against Women”, Amnesty Global Insights Blog, <https://medium.com/amnesty-insights/unsocial-media-the-real-toll-of-online-abuse-against-women-37134ddab3f4>

^{^[4]} See Abhinav Sekhri and Apar Gupta, “Section 66A and other legal zombies”, Internet Freedom Foundation Blog, <https://internetfreedom.in/66a-zombie/?

^{^[5]} See Bishakha Datta “Guavas and Genitals”, Point of View <https://itforchange.net/e-vaw/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Smita_Vanniyar.pdf>

^{^[6]} ‘Examining Technology-Mediated Violence Against Women Through a Feminist Framework: Towards appropriate legal-institutional responses in India’, Gurumurthy et al., January 2018.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-and-gender-based-violence