If we learned anything from the movie _The Social Network, _it’s that the moment when Mark Zuckerberg included a “relationship status” on profile pages, was when his “The Facebook” really took off.
“Relationship status, interested in, this is what drives lives in college. Are you having sex or aren't you? It’s why people take certain classes and sit where they sit, and do what they do,” said Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg
This lesson reminds us that the success of Facebook, and myriad other inventions, is not driven by its technological prowess, but by its ability to express and amplify emotions that we experience in the real world. It’s not a technological network; it’s a social network.
Technological potential shouldn’t drive the development of new tools; existing human need should drive it.
This is obvious to any Silicon Valley venture capitalist, but non-profits and political advocates need to remember this as well: Technological potential shouldn’t drive the development of new tools; existing human need should drive it.
After the boom of social media sites like Facebook, thousands of projects sprung up across the world with the intent to solve some of the world’s toughest challenges. But instead of applying technology to existing needs, many of them tried to create or predict needs using technology, with limited success.
One such project was developed in partnership with Internews and Google Ideas during the 2013 Presidential elections in Iran. After realizing that citizen journalism produced from the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran had no central hub, the two organizations created “Elections in Iran,” a YouTube channel to provide a home for citizen journalism during the elections to live.
The plan would have worked great, except there was not nearly the same amount of content being spread in 2013 as there was in the 2009 elections.
“There wasn't the same civic unrest or the same level of citizen journalism that took place back in 2009,” said Nicolas Sera-Leyva, a training programs manager at the Internews Network at a recent event at OpenGov Hub.
While “Elections in Iran” was not a failure -- it did become a hub for a range of opinions on Iranian media which can still be accessed today -- the project represents the risks of hoping future events will rationalize technology, instead of creating technology that addresses dynamics that already exist.
This over-faith in technology is a risk even when you try to solve existing needs, if you don’t consider the technological capacities of the people you’re trying to help, as opposed to those who are funding your work.
“I worked on a tool in Nigeria which integrated SMS information into a map, and it looked great,” said Valerie Oliphant, an Operations Coordinator at Social Impact Lab. “But nobody in Nigeria ever looked at the map, and it was pointless. The locals didn't need the map, but the donors wanted it.”
Sometimes it can even make things worse, said Hollie Russon Gilman, a civic innovation fellow at New America. That was the case at many of the projects in the “Fail Fare DC” a celebration of innovation and risk taking that has ended in failure.
“Adding technological components to projects introduces a whole new set of variables,” said Russon Gilman. “There is a risk that technology can obscure underlying social and political conditions. When a project fails we need to ask why and learn important lessons about context and people.”
Still, when technology amplifies existing norms, the effects can be profound. This was the case in Nepal, where the group Code for Nepal taught citizens basic tools like blogging and online security. After a reported rape received less attention than many bloggers felt necessary, they used their platform to bring attention to the cause, which sparked demonstrations across Nepal.
So how can we ensure that development projects that use technology remain in the bounds of the context within each society? Just ask.
“When everyone started to take note of this, the court started to intervene, and then the prime minister had to make a national address,” said Ravi Kumar, a Co-Founder of Code for Nepal and Digital Strategist at the World Bank. “It took a year or more, but a justice was delivered.”
So how can we ensure that development projects that use technology remain in the bounds of the context within each society? Just ask. Buy-in from locals is important in all aspects of a project. Technology is not an exception to this rule. Even if it seems outside of the human conversation, it’s only an effective tool if humans use it.
“Each society requires it own type of technology – what is effective in one context may not be a good fit in another,” said Russon Gilman.
