‘Technostress’: why many older people feel shut out by the digital world (2026-06-17T11:00:00+05:30)

Melanie Stowell, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau From personal health portals to AI assistants that draft emails, the digital age has simplified endless everyday tasks. But for many older New Zealanders, the rapid march of technology has helped build a wall rather than open doors. Navigating online forms, changing apps, disappearing face-to-face services and the constant threat of scams can be daunting. There is a term for this unease: technostress. Once used to describe the anxiety and frustration felt by workers, it has more recently been applied to older populations struggling in our digital-by-default world. While older people’s overall digital engagement has grown over the years, about half of over 50s feel they are being left behind by modern technology. Amid a planned public sector shake-up that would further digitise services, more than 40% of people older than 60 face barriers for accessing online government information. More than ever, digital inclusion has become a necessity for older people to access essential services and maintain social connections. Without it, there are serious implications for their psychological, social, cognitive, physical and financial wellbeing. Our newly published research, based on interviews with 23 people aged over 65, reveals a complex relationship with technology: one that can support independence, but also create new sources of stress and exclusion. A double-edged sword The experiences of those we interviewed varied widely. Some used technology very little – perhaps just for texts or phone calls – while others relied upon it heavily for daily chores and work. One study participant spoke enthusiastically about using an AI assistant to support her creative writing. But regardless of how tech-savvy they were, all felt that keeping up with digital change was a never-ending but necessary challenge. This was especially apparent for those who used tech during their working years but found fewer resources available to upskill in retirement. Another common theme was feeling targeted by scammers due to their age. For people living on a single income or pension, the financial risk of falling victim to a scam could be devastating and put them off going online. Broadly, we found technology to be a double-edged sword for older people. For those who felt digitally included, it helped strengthen relationships through sharing photos and videos with family overseas and provided useful access to health information. For those who felt shut out, technology became a source of distress, frustration and feelings of incompetence. They described struggling with online pension applications or having to relearn familiar software after unexpected updates completely changed the interface. Some felt the accessibility features built into everyday digital devices were inadequate for their physical needs, causing them to abandon tasks because of eye strain or frustration. Others felt digital technologies were not culturally responsive, reflecting a predominantly Western worldview. Common errors, such as the mispronunciation of te reo Māori names, could deepen feelings of exclusion and cultural invalidation. Ageism and equity Nearly all participants felt digital technologies were not designed with older people in mind, believing they were not viewed as a priority market by mainstream technology companies. Yet many still blamed themselves for struggling to keep up. Some also described dismissive or impatient responses when seeking help, reinforcing feelings of frustration and inadequacy. This may suggest a problem of digital ageism: the assumption that older people use technology less because they are unable or unwilling to engage with it. In reality, meaningful digital participation depends on much more than willingness. It requires people to have the motivation, skills, confidence, access, trust and support needed to engage safely and effectively. In this context, the challenge is not about age but equity. Fortunately, many organisations and individuals across Aotearoa New Zealand are working diligently on this issue, from advocacy groups to library-based digital skills programmes. Some local companies have introduced equity products, such as age-friendly digital tablets and lower-cost mobile plans for pensioners. These efforts are essential, but more is needed. More recent interviews with people working in the field suggest a need to dispel the myth that digital exclusion will disappear as older people increasingly become “digital natives”. Instead, digital inclusion should be viewed as a fundamental right rather than a luxury in the hands of for-profit companies. This will require targeted policy, increased collaboration across sectors, and active involvement of older people as equal partners in digital design, testing and decision-making. New Zealanders cannot benefit from even the most well-intended developments, such as telehealth services, if even one aspect of digital inclusion is lacking. Without deliberate action, the shift to digital services risks widening the very inequities it is intended to reduce. The author acknowledges the contributions of Rosie Dobson, Cinnamon Lindsay Latimer, Judith McCool, Robyn Whittaker and Vili Nosa to this research. Melanie Stowell, PhD Candidate, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A month at sea with no technology taught me how to steal my life back from my phone (2026-02-26T11:21:00+05:30)

Robert Hassan, The University of Melbourne A survey this year revealed that Australians, on average, spend 10.2 hours a day with interactive digital technologies. And this figure goes up every year. This is time we don’t get back. And our analogue lives, which include everything not digital, shrink in direct proportion. I recently decided to spend four weeks at sea without access to my phone or the internet, and here’s what I learnt about myself, and the digital rat race I was caught in. Cold turkey Until a year or so ago, I was a 10.2 hours a day person. Over the years, dependence on technology and stress had destroyed any semblance of balance in my life – between work and home, or pleasure and obligation. I wanted to quit, or cut down, at least. Tech “detox” apps such as the time-limiting Screen Time were useless. Even with these, I was still “on”, and just a click away from unblocking Instagram. So I thought: what about going cold turkey? No screen time at all, 24/7. Was that possible, and what would it feel like? My commute to work passed the Footscray docks, where container-ships come and go. Passing one day, I wondered if it was possible to go on one of those ships and travel from Melbourne to … somewhere? Turns out it was. You can book a cabin online and just go. And in what was probably an impulse, I went. For about four weeks I had no devices, as I sailed solo from West Melbourne to Singapore. I wanted to experiment, to see what it felt like to take a digital detox, and whether I could change my habits when I returned home. What I learnt Cold turkey withdrawal is difficult. Even in prison, many inmates have access of some kind of device. The time on that ship taught me there is a whole other side to life, the non-digital side, that gets pushed aside by the ubiquitous screen. Real life contains people, conversations, flesh and textures that are not glass or plastic. It also contains whole worlds that exist inside your head, and these can be summoned when we have the time, and devote a bit of effort to it. These are worlds of memory and imagination. Worlds of reflection and thought. Worlds you see differently to the pallid glare of a screen. I took four books with me and read them in a way I hadn’t before: slower, deeper and with more contemplation. The words were finite (and therefore precious). I’d never spent time like this in my whole life, and was inspired to write about it in detail. Of course, we all have our own commitments and can’t always do something like this. But away from the screen, I learned a lot about our digital world and about myself, and have tried to adapt these lessons to “normal” life. Since I’ve been back, it feels like some sense of balance has been restored. Part of this came from seeing the smartphone as a slightly alien thing (which it is). And instead of being something that always prompts me, I flipped the power dynamic around, to make it something I choose to use - and choose when to use. Meaning sometimes it’s OK to leave it at home, or switch it off. If you can persist with these little changes, you might find even when you have your phone in your pocket, you can go hours without thinking about it. Hours spent doing precious, finite, analogue things. How to get started You could begin by deleting most of your apps. You’ll be surprised by how many you won’t miss. Then, slowly flip the power dynamic between you and your device around. Put it in a drawer once a week - for a morning, then for a day - increasing this over time. If this sounds a bit like commercial digital detox self-care, then so be it. But this is minus the self-care gurus and websites. Forget those. No one (and no app) is really going to help you take back your agency. You need to do it yourself, or organise it with friends. Perhaps try seeing who can go the furthest. After a few weeks, you might reflect on how it feels: what’s the texture of the analogue world you got back? Because, more likely than not, you will get it back. For some, it might be a quieter and more subjective pre-digital world they half remember. For others, it might be something quite new, which maybe feels a bit like freedom. Robert Hassan, Professor, School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Expensive data and poor internet access: South Africa fails to measure up against Brazil (2025-12-10T12:21:00+05:30)

Ashraf Patel, University of South Africa Emerging middle-power countries like South Africa, India and Brazil face growing inequalities. At the same time, everyday lives are becoming more and more digital – from paying bills and reading news to contacting companies and services. Ways need to be found to include everyone in the online world, regardless of how much money they have. Ashraf Patel is an information and communications technology policy specialist who has been researching the G20 for several years. In his chapter from a new open access book, G20 in Brazil and South Africa: Priorities, Agendas and Voices of the Global South, he discusses how South Africa compares with Brazil on the digital economy. What are the key areas of the digital economy? The G20’s Digital Economy working group covers discussions around digital access, equality, artificial intelligence governance, safety, innovation and sustainability. It also looks at how the digital space can be regulated so it does not cause harm to society. In the last two or three years it has gained a lot of traction with nations that are trying to deal with inequalities in the digital economy. For example, the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) is causing consternation in all sectors, especially around jobs and labour, ethics, and the massive amounts of energy it uses. These are huge themes that were discussed in the G20. How is South Africa measuring up on digital access compared with Brazil? South Africa has had 31 years of democracy and has generally had suboptimal outcomes. For instance South Africa has one of the highest data costs in Africa. There’s also a lack of broadband in public spaces. This is despite the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and the Competition Commission promoting competition to keep prices affordable. Brazil is a developing country, but has far exceeded South Africa in meeting digital access. South Africa’s broadband rollouts for ordinary people, clinics, rural areas and schools are weak compared to many medium and lower income countries. This means that connectivity and digital inequality are two major barriers. When people don’t have access or affordability or digital literacy, they can’t use e-government services. A major part of the problem is that South Africa is trapped between jobless growth, de-industrialisation and inequality. Academic Dani Rodrik looked at inequality, unemployment, skills development and the unequal globe and came up with this trilemma. In South Africa, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) digital economy aspects are about automation, big data, AI and the Internet of Things. But very few nations, except those in the north and China, have mastered these four. For this reason, no more than 10 countries dominate production, patents, research and development, and are able to commercialise these. The rest of the planet are mainly consumers. If countries don’t have properly managed digital economy policies, systems and skills development in place, they won’t be able to participate in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This will cause disruptions in society and the labour market. In the area of digital economy development, Brazil does far better than South Africa, India, Kenya and other developing countries. This is mainly because it’s had a very progressive Labour government, the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party) that has governed Brazil for two periods totalling 15 years. From early on they invested in social development. They funded expansion of infrastructure and services and very strong education programmes. Brazil has led into the first generation of telecentres in the favelas (shack settlements). The telecentres are public facilities that offer access to computers, internet and digital training programmes for women, youth and low income communities. Brazil’s National Broadband Plan uses satellites to expand internet to rural areas. They also have world class science and technology institutions and very good regulatory systems. All of these come together under this social agenda and they have solid leadership. So I would argue that there is no comparison – Brazil far exceeds South Africa in all aspects of the digital economy. But fortunately, Brazil has made many knowledge resources available. It’s up to South African institutions, universities and government regulators to take that knowledge and implement it. That is how South Africa can make a dent in digital inequality. What progress was made under South Africa’s G20 presidency to boost the digital economy? The country’s presidency was caught up in global geopolitics and opposition from the Trump administration in the US. The G20’s specific working groups therefore faced great difficulties. For example, the Digital Economy working group could not agree on the final statements because the US delegation opposed any talk of equality, diversity, gender and climate. These are huge themes in the digital economy. But the final declaration from the leadership summit was generally watered down to accommodate US concerns. Nevertheless, the South African G20 presidency came up with some good statements on how AI and digital tools can support the growth of small and medium businesses. Africa is grappling with the rapid growth of fintech – digital tools, apps and platforms that make it easier to provide financial services such as payments, loans, savings, insurance and investments. In Nigeria and Kenya, new digital financial systems have expanded faster than regulations could keep up. The result has been chaotic state interventions. In contrast, the BRICS Digital Industrialisation initiatives set out an appropriate model for global south countries. (They set out ways for the global south countries to support each other by sharing skills and technologies rather just allowing unregulated market expansion.) Was the South African G20 presidency worthwhile? The G20 was an expensive exercise for South Africa. It cost well over a billion rand (US$58.3 million). And I argue that it hardly created impact on themes or dialogues related to social society and civil society. The absence of public engagement and mobilisation on issues like the debt crisis, cost-of-living pressures and AI exclusion and bias were the “sore thumbs” (most obvious weaknesses) of South Africa’s G20 year. In conclusion, South Africa’s G20 presidency was strong on symbolism and media coverage and marketing, but weak on concrete outcomes and agreements. Ashraf Patel, Senior Research Associate: Digital Economy, University of South Africa This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

‘Digital colonialism’: how AI companies are following the playbook of empire (2025-12-04T12:05:00+05:30)

Hanna Barakat & Archival Images of AI + AIxDESIGN, CC BY-SA Jessica Russ-Smith, Australian Catholic University and Michelle D. Lazarus, Monash University In the eyes of big AI companies such as OpenAI, the troves of data on the internet are highly valuable. They scrape photos, videos, books, blog posts, albums, painting, photographs and much more to train their products such as ChatGPT – usually without any compensation to or consent from the creators. In fact, OpenAI and Google are arguing that a part of American copyright law, known as the “fair use doctrine”, legitimises this data theft. Ironically, OpenAI has also accused other AI giants of data scraping “its” intellectual property. First Nations communities around the world are looking at these scenes with knowing familiarity. Long before the advent of AI, peoples, the land, and their knowledges were treated in a similar way – exploited by colonial powers for their own benefit. What’s happening with AI is a kind of “digital colonialism”, in which powerful (mostly Western) tech giants are using algorithms, data and digital technologies to exert power over others, and take data without consent. But resistance is possible – and the long history of First Nations resistance demonstrates how people might go about it. The fiction of terra nullius Terra nullius is a Latin term that translates to “no one’s land” or “land belonging to no one”. It was used by colonisers to “legally” – at least by the laws of the colonisers – lay claim to land. The legal fiction of terra nullius in Australia was overturned in the landmark 1992 Mabo case. This case recognised the land rights of the Meriam peoples, First Nations of the Murray Islands, as well as the ongoing connection to land of First Nations peoples in Australia. In doing so, it overturned terra nullius in a legal sense, leading to the Native Title Act 1993. But we can see traces of the idea of terra nullius in the way AI companies are scraping billions of people’s data from the internet. It is as though they believe the data belongs to no one – similar to how the British wrongly believed the continent of Australia belonged to no one. Digital colonialism dressed up as consent While data is scraped without our knowledge, a more insidious way digital colonialism materialises is in the coercive relinquishing of our data through bundled consent. Have you had to click “accept all” after a required phone update or to access your bank account? Congratulations! You have made a Hobson’s choice: in reality, the only option is to “agree”. What would happen if you didn’t tick “yes”, if you chose to reject this bundled consent? You might not be able to bank or use your phone. It’s possible your healthcare might also suffer. It might appear you have options. But if you don’t tick “yes to all”, you’re “choosing” social exclusion. This approach isn’t new. While terra nullius was a colonial strategy to claim resources and land, Hobson’s choices are implemented as a means of assimilation into dominant cultural norms. Don’t dress “professionally”? You won’t get the job, or you’ll lose the one you have. Resisting digital terra nullius So, is assimilation our only choice? No. In fact, generations of resistance teach us many ways to fight terra nullius and survive. Since colonial invasion, First Nations communities have resisted colonialism, asserting over centuries that it “always was and always will be Aboriginal land”. Resistance is needed at all levels of society – from the individual to local and global communities. First Nations communities’ survival proclamations and protests can provide valuable direction – as the Mabo case showed – for challenging and changing legal doctrines that are used to claim knowledge. Resistance is already happening, with waves of lawsuits alleging AI data scraping violates intellectual property laws. For example, in October, online platform Reddit sued AI start-up Perplexity for scraping copyrighted material to train its model. In September, AI company Anthropic also settled a class action lawsuit launched by authors who argued the company took pirated copies of books to train its chatbot – to the tune of US$1.5 billion. The rise of First Nations data sovereignty movements also offers a path forward. Here, data is owned and governed by local communities, with the agency to decide what, when and how data is used (and the right to refuse its use at any point) retained in these communities. A data sovereign future could include elements of “continuity of consent” where data is stored only on the devices of the individual or community, and companies would need to request access to data every time they want to use it. Community-governed changes to data consent processes and legalisation would allow communities – whether defined by culture, geography, jurisdiction, or shared interest – to collectively negotiate ongoing access to their data. In doing so, our data would no longer be considered a digital terra nullius, and AI companies would be forced to affirm – through action – that data belongs to the people. AI companies might seem all-powerful, like many colonial empires once did. But, as Pemulwuy and other First Nations warriors demonstrated, there are many ways to resist. Jessica Russ-Smith, Associate Professor, Social Work and Deputy Head of School, School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University and Michelle D. Lazarus, Director, Centre of Human Anatomy Education, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Lecture on ‘digital brain drain’ held in Dimapur (2025-11-13T11:41:00+05:30)

A lecture on ‘Digital Brain Drain - Protecting the Mind in a Hyperconnected World’ was held for military personnel at the Rangapahar Military Station, Dimapur. Dimapur, (MExN): A lecture on ‘Digital Brain Drain - Protecting the Mind in a Hyperconnected World’ was held for military personnel at the Rangapahar Military Station, Dimapur. According to a defence spokesperson, the session, attended by serving personnel of the garrison, was delivered by a Public Health Specialist. The lecture highlighted growing challenges such as smartphone dependence, online gaming, and digital fatigue among troops and their families. Through real-life narratives and interactive demonstrations, the specialist explained the scientific basis of social media addiction and compulsive smartphone usage. The talk focused on understanding the psychological impact of excessive screen use, recognizing early signs of digital addiction, and developing practical strategies for digital discipline and mental resilience, the spokesperson stated.It was emphasized that digital wellness is integral to overall health, concentration, and operational effectivenessLecture on ‘digital brain drain’ held in Dimapur | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

A website is not enough: businesses that use digital tools without a strategic plan will struggle in a tough economy (2025-05-15T11:43:00+05:30)

Small businesses across Australia and New Zealand are facing one of their toughest periods in decades. A flat economy and shifting consumer behaviour have put pressure on already thin operating margins. A 2024 survey by business finance company ScotPac found 29% of Australian small businesses say they could face insolvency if they lose a major client. Accounting organisation CPA Australia’s latest small business survey shows only 48% of New Zealand’s small businesses grew in 2023. This is significantly down from 60% in 2022. There have also been a record number of business liquidations in both New Zealand and Australia. Yet some small and medium-sized businesses are thriving. Part of the reason for this is because they have embraced the concept of “digital leadership”. This is the ability to strategically integrate digital technologies – such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, data analytics and automation – into a business’s operations, decision-making and long-term vision. Digital leaders use emerging technologies to improve efficiency, redesign business models, scale operations and reach new customers in ways that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. Our review of the research on digital leadership, recently published in Digital Leadership and Contemporary Entrepreneurship, found that firms treating digital leadership as a core business strategy, rather than just using technology for isolated tasks, are the ones that successfully scale, grow and future-proof their organisations. Without this change in mindset, firms risk stagnation and missed opportunities. That difference is critical in an economic environment where small margins separate thriving businesses from struggling ones. Why some small businesses fall behind It’s easy to assume small businesses lag in digital adoption because of costs or technical complexity. However, most of the studies we reviewed suggest the real issue is hesitancy at the leadership level. Some business owners are risk-averse and take a “wait and see” approach. Others believe their current solutions are sufficient even when new technology could improve efficiency. A 2021 survey commissioned by cloud accounting software company Xero, found fear of change, overconfidence in existing processes and decision paralysis are among the biggest barriers preventing small businesses from embracing digital solutions. Even businesses that already use digital tools – for example, to manage their social media – often fail to go further and integrate technology into core operations such as supply chain management and automation. Embracing digital leadership The lesson is that simply adopting digital tools without a strategic plan doesn’t lead to growth. True digital leadership requires businesses to rethink how they operate, compete and scale. The firms making the most of digital transformation embed technology in their core strategy. They use data-driven decision-making to refine products, forecast demand and identify new opportunities. They streamline operations by automating routine tasks, such as using AI-powered invoicing, chatbots for customer inquiries and predictive analytics for inventory management. This frees up time for strategic initiatives such as product development and market expansion. At the same time, they invest in training employees to effectively use and adapt to new technologies. Perhaps most importantly, they take an experimental approach – testing, learning and adapting in real time. Learning to thrive in the digital economy Businesses that have successfully grown through digital leadership illustrate this approach in action. Set up in 2016, New Zealand-based investing company Sharesies fundamentally changed how everyday people access financial markets. Traditional investment firms required large deposits and complex paperwork, excluding many potential investors. Sharesies took a different approach. The company designed a mobile-first platform where users could start with as little as $5. The company now has more than 750,000 users, NZ$8 billion of platform assets, and requires no minimum investment from users. In Australia, The Very Good Bra, a sustainable bra company, used digital leadership to create a global, sustainable fashion brand without traditional retail infrastructure. Founder Stephanie Devine developed a direct-to-consumer model through e-commerce, bypassing wholesalers and physical stores. She utilised digital tools such as social media platforms for community engagement, online surveys to collaborate with customers to design products, and data analytics software for demand forecasting, ensuring every product had a market before it was manufactured. Both companies succeeded by leveraging digital technologies to disrupt traditional business models. Sharesies democratised investing by making it accessible to individuals with minimal capital, while The Very Good Bra utilised e-commerce and customer collaboration to create sustainable fashion products. Their digital-first approaches enabled them to identify and fill market gaps effectively. To thrive in the tougher economic climate, businesses need to think beyond software tools. The question is no longer whether to go digital, but how fast a business can rethink their work for the digital future. Rod McNaughton, Professor of Entrepreneurship, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau and Guy Bate, Professional Teaching Fellow, Strategy and Innovation, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The downside of digital transformation: why organisations must allow for those who can’t or won’t move online (2025-05-14T12:56:00+05:30)

We hear the phrase “digital transformation” a lot these days. It’s often used to describe the process of replacing functions and services that were once done face-to-face by human beings with online interactions that are faster, more convenient and “empower” the user. But does digital transformation really deliver on those promises? Or does the seemingly relentless digitalisation of life actually reinforce existing social divides and inequities? Take banking, for example. Where customers once made transactions with tellers at local branches, now they’re encouraged to do it all online. As branches close it leaves many, especially older people, struggling with what was once an easy, everyday task. Or consider the now common call centre experience involving an electronic voice, menu options, chatbots and a “user journey” aimed at pushing customers online. As organisations and government agencies in Aotearoa New Zealand and elsewhere grapple with the call to become more “digital”, we have been examining the consequences for those who find the process difficult or marginalising. Since 2021 we’ve been working with the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and talking with public and private sector organisations that use digital channels to deliver services. Our findings suggest there is much still to be done to find the right balance between the digital and non-digital. The ‘problematic’ non-user The dominant view now suggests the pursuit of a digitally enabled society will allow everyone to lead a “frictionless” life. As the government’s own policy document, Towards a Digital Strategy for Aotearoa, states: Digital tools and services can enable us to learn new skills, transact with ease, and to receive health and well-being support at a time that suits us and without the need to travel from our homes. Of course, we’re already experiencing this new world. Many public and private services increasingly are available digitally by default. Non-digital alternatives are becoming restricted or even disappearing. There are two underlying assumptions to the view that everyone can or should interact digitally. First, it implies that those who can’t access digital services (or prefer non-digital options) are problematic or deficient in some way – and that this can be overcome simply through greater provision of technology, training or “nudging” non-users to get on board. Second, it assumes digital inclusion – through increasing the provision of digital services – will automatically increase social inclusion. Neither assumption is necessarily true. ‘Digital enforcement’ The CAB (which has mainly face-to-face branches throughout New Zealand) has documented a significant increase in the number of people who struggle to access government services because the digital channel was the default or only option. The bureau argues that access to public services is a human right and, by implication, the move to digital public services that aren’t universally accessible deprives some people of that right. In earlier research, we refer to this form of deprivation as “digital enforcement” – defined as a process of dispossession that reduces choices for individuals. Through our current research we find the reality of a digitally enabled society is, in fact, far from perfect and frictionless. Our preliminary findings point to the need to better understand the outcomes of digital transformation at a more nuanced, individual level. Reasons vary as to why a significant number of people find accessing and navigating online services difficult. And it’s often an intersection of multiple causes related to finance, education, culture, language, trust or well-being. Even when given access to digital technology and skills, the complexity of many online requirements and the chaotic life situations some people experience limit their ability to engage with digital services in a productive and meaningful way. The human factor The resulting sense of disenfranchisement and loss of control is regrettable, but it isn’t inevitable. Some organisations are now looking for alternatives to a single-minded focus on transferring services online. They’re not completely removing call centre or client support staff, but instead using digital technology to improve human-centred service delivery. Other organisations are considering partnerships with intermediaries who can work with individuals who find engaging with digital services difficult. The Ministry of Health, for example, is supporting a community-based Māori health and social services provider to establish a digital health hub to improve local access to health care. Our research is continuing, but we can already see evidence – from the CAB itself and other large organisations – of the benefits of moving away from an uncritical focus on digital transformation. By doing so, the goal is to move beyond a divide between those who are digitally included and excluded, and instead to encourage social inclusion in the digital age. That way, organisations can still move forward technologically – but not at the expense of the humans they serve. Angsana A. Techatassanasoontorn, Associate Professor of Information Systems, Auckland University of Technology; Antonio Diaz Andrade, Professor of Business Information Systems, Auckland University of Technology; Bill Doolin, Professor of Technology and Organisation, Auckland University of Technology, and Harminder Singh, Associate Professor of Business Information Systems, Auckland University of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

3 in 4 people experience abuse on dating apps. How do we balance prevention with policing? (2025-02-11T11:09:00+05:30)

Kath Albury, Swinburne University of Technology and Daniel Reeders, Australian National University A 2022 survey by the Australian Institute of Criminology found three in four app users surveyed had experienced online abuse or harassment when using dating apps. This included image-based abuse and abusive and threatening messages. A further third experienced in-person or off-app abuse from people they met on apps. These figures set the scene for a national roundtable convened on Wednesday by Communications Minister Michelle Rowland and Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth. Experiences of abuse on apps are strongly gendered and reflect preexisting patterns of marginalisation. Those targeted are typically women and members of LGBTIQA+ communities, while perpetrators are commonly men. People with disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and people from migrant backgrounds report being directly targeted based on their perceived differences. What do these patterns tell us? That abuse on apps isn’t new or specific to digital technologies. It reflects longstanding trends in offline behaviour. Perpetrators simply exploit the possibilities dating apps offer. With this in mind, how might we begin to solve the problem of abuse on dating apps? Trying to find solutions Survivors of app-related abuse and violence say apps have been slow to respond, and have failed to offer meaningful responses. In the past, users have reported abusive behaviours, only to be met with a chatbot. Also, blocking or reporting an abusive user doesn’t automatically reduce in-app violence. It just leaves the abuser free to abuse another person. Wednesday’s roundtable considered how app-makers can work better with law enforcement agencies to respond to serious and persistent offenders. Although no formal outcomes have been announced, it has been suggested that app users should provide 100 points of identification to verify their profiles. But this proposal raises privacy concerns. It would create a database of the real-world identities of people in marginalised groups, including LGBTIQA+ communities. If these data were leaked, it could cause untold harm. Prevention is key Moreover, even if the profile verification process was bolstered, regulators could still only respond to the most serious cases of harm, and after abuse has already occurred. That’s why prevention is vital when it comes to abuse on dating apps. And this is where research into everyday patterns and understanding of app use adds value. Often, abuse and harassment are fuelled by stereotypical beliefs about men having a “right” to sexual attention. They also play on widely held assumptions that women, queer people and other marginalised groups do not deserve equal levels of respect and care in all their sexual encounters and relationships – from lifelong partnerships to casual hookups. In response, app-makers have engaged in PSA-style campaigns seeking to change the culture among their users. For example, Grindr has a long-running “Kindr” campaign that targets sexual racism and fatphobic abuse among the gay, bisexual and trans folk who use the platform. Other apps have sought to build safety for women into the app itself. For instance, on Bumble only women are allowed to initiate a chat in a bid to prevent unwanted contact by men. Tinder also recently made its “Report” button more visible, and provided users safety advice in collaboration with WESNET. Similarly, the Alannah & Madeline Foundation’s eSafety-funded “Crushed But Okay” intervention offers young men advice about responding to online rejection without becoming abusive. This content has been viewed and shared more than one million times on TikTok and Instagram. In our research, app users told us they want education and guidance for antisocial users – not just policing. This could be achieved by apps collaborating with community support services, and advocating for a culture that challenges prevailing gender stereotypes. Policy levers for change Apps are widely used because they promote opportunities for conversation, personal connection and intimacy. But they are a for-profit enterprise, produced by multinational corporations that generate income by serving advertising and monetising users’ data. Taking swift and effective action against app-based abuse is part of their social license to operate. We should consider stiff penalties for app-makers who violate that license. The United Kingdom is just about to pass legislation that contemplates time in prison for social media executives who knowingly expose children to harmful content. Similar penalties that make a dent in app-makers’ bottom line may present more of an incentive to act. In the age of widespread data breaches, app users already have good reason to mistrust demands to supply their personal identifying information. They will not necessarily feel safer if they are required to provide more data. Our research indicates users want transparent, accountable and timely responses from app-makers when they report conduct that makes them feel unsafe or unwelcome. They want more than chatbot-style responses to reports of abusive conduct. At a platform policy level, this could be addressed by hiring more local staff who offer transparent, timely responses to complaints and concerns. And while prevention is key, policing can still be an important part of the picture, particularly when abusive behaviour occurs after users have taken their conversation off the app itself. App-makers need to be responsive to police requests for access to data when this occurs. Many apps, including Tinder, already have clear policies regarding cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Kath Albury, Professor of Media and Communication and Associate Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making + Society, Swinburne University of Technology and Daniel Reeders, PhD Candidate, ANU School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As the ‘digital oligarchy’ grows in power, NZ will struggle to regulate its global reach and influence (2025-02-03T13:32:00+05:30)

Alexandra Andhov, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau The images of President Donald Trump at his inauguration surrounded by the titans of the global tech industry is a warning of what could come: a global digital oligarchy dominated by a tiny tech elite. Companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, X Corp, and OpenAI (all based in the United States) now operate beyond the control of most governments. Countries like New Zealand are increasingly struggling to keep these companies in check. In the past decade, New Zealand has taken several measures to curb the influence of powerful tech companies through voluntary agreements and tax legislation. But the digital age has fundamentally changed national sovereignty – the right of individual countries to decide the rules within their own borders. Big tech companies are gradually taking on functions traditionally reserved for government institutions. For example, these companies have begun to function as the arbiters of speech, controlling the visibility of certain ideas and comments. As recently as this month, Meta obscured searches for left-leaning topics including “Democrats”, later blaming the issue on a “technical glitch”. And as was widely covered in the media, Amnesty International released a report claiming that Facebook’s algorithms “proactively amplified” anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar, substantially contributing to human rights violations against the ethnic group. New Zealand’s attempts to regulate big tech A number of governments are now facing the question of how to temper the influence of these companies within their current legal frameworks. As New Zealand (among others) has discovered in the past decade, influencing the behaviour of these companies is easier said than done. It has repeatedly found itself struggling to effectively manage big tech’s impact on its society and economy. In 2018, for example, New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner said Facebook had failed to comply with its obligations under the New Zealand Privacy Act. The company told the commission the Privacy Act did not apply to it. When the Christchurch terrorist attack was livestreamed on Facebook (owned by Meta), New Zealand authorities found themselves largely powerless to prevent the video’s spread across global platforms. This crisis prompted then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern to launch the Christchurch Call initiative aimed at combating online extremism by fostering collaboration between governments and tech companies. The goal was to develop and enforce measures such as improved content moderation, removal of extremist material, and the creation of safer online environments. While gaining support from more than 120 countries and tech companies, its effect depends on voluntary ongoing cooperation. Recent events suggest this ongoing cooperation is unlikely. In January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to get rid of content moderation in the US and possibly elsewhere. Zuckerberg has also pushed back against European Union regulations, claiming the EU’s data laws censored social media. Taxing big tech In 2019, New Zealand proposed a 3% digital tax on big tech revenue. A similar measure was introduced by France in 2020 and by Canada and Australia last year. While these proposals signify important steps toward holding big tech accountable, their implementation remains uncertain. Although the relevant tax provisions have been adopted in New Zealand, the law includes clauses allowing tax collections to be deferred until as late as 2030. Meanwhile, big tech continues to push back aggressively against regulation in various ways. These have included threatening reduced services (such as the brief closure of TikTok in the US) to leveraging their relationships with the Trump government against other countries. Using competition regulation to rein in big tech In December 2024, the Australian government unveiled draft legislation on big tech to level the playing field. The proposed law seeks to foster fair competition, prevent price gouging, and give smaller tech and news companies a chance to thrive in a landscape increasingly dominated by global giants. The legislation would grant the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the authority to investigate and penalise companies with fines of up to A$50 million for restricting competition. The targeted behaviour includes tactics such as restricting data transfers between platforms (for example, moving contacts or photos from iPhone to Android) and limiting third-party payment options in app stores. The proposed law aims to put an end to these unfair advantages, ensuring a level playing field where businesses of all sizes can compete and consumers have more choices. Democractic governance in the digital age The growing power of tech platforms raises critical questions about democratic governance in the digital age. There is an urgent need to reconcile the global influence of tech companies with local democratic processes and to create mechanisms that safeguard individual and national sovereignty in an increasingly digital world. Governments need to recognise these platforms are not immutable forces of nature, but human-created systems that can be challenged, reformed or dismantled. The same digital connectivity that has empowered these corporations can become the very tool of their transformation. Alexandra Andhov, Chair in Law and Technology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.