The internet is one of the most transformative inventions the world has ever seen, impacting politics, sparking social movements and changing how we live, work and socialize. But though revolutionary in many ways, the internet also reflects and reinforces existing power structures and issues in society — and can create new inequalities a fact that limits its potential to be a transformative force for digital equality. This is evident in the digital gender divide that exists between men and women and this gap is widened by online gender-based violence (GBV). This article analyses the visible, hidden and invisible power that enables the perpetuation of online GBV because different aspects of online abuses women experience are a different manifestation of the gender power relations in society.
By definition, visible power refers to the formal rules, institutions and procedures of decision-making and enforcing the rules. Hidden power is the way that certain groups and their issues are excluded from decision-making by the political control of dominant and vested interests. Invisible power refers to the way that certain information is kept secret or invisible to protect the powerful; it shapes meanings, values and social norms, and internalized beliefs. The typology of power dynamics helps clarify points of leverage and influence in understanding the complex and interwoven power relations embedded in the systems and infrastructure.
Visible power
Women’s lack of visible power is apparent in their underrepresentation in the decision-making bodies of technology institutions and companies, which are currently failing to adequately address the issue of online GBV. These policy failures manifest in a range of ways, including the fact that, even when women do try to report on their experiences of being harassed online, effective action is often not taken. For example, an investigation of Facebook’s enforcement of their own Community Standards regarding hate speech showed that only about half of reported content was removed.
Women’s lack of visible power in digital spaces is notable in the domain of ICT policymaking; worldwide very few countries have a woman ICT minister, and a woman heading the telecom regulator. This reality of women’s absence from key policy-forming spaces plus the wider political reality that, even when women are included and have a seat at the table, this inclusion does not automatically translate into political influence because the power imbalances remain. Therefore, simply pressing for women’s representation without coopting the men is insufficient because men are usually the perpetrators of online GBV and the power dynamics highlight governments’ unwillingness to promote policy agendas that strongly challenge existing gender relations both offline and online.
Beyond government institutions and policy spaces, women are still significantly underrepresented in the technology sector. The percentage of women CEOs in the ICT remains very low globally compared to other occupations and these inequalities also result in women’s interests not being adequately represented in the design of tech products and services, they are typically designed for profit rather than to protect individual safety online. Where design processes exclude women’s voices under the assumption that end users won’t use the technologies for harm, women have ended up paying the price through online GBV. Closing this gap requires design approaches that are context-sensitive, based on existing infrastructure and systems, and address the circumstances, experiences, realities and needs of women and girls regarding their access and use of technology.
Hidden power
Hidden power manifests in a range of ways to keep certain issues, interests and voices out of the decision-making process or off the public agenda and this kind of power is wielded by internet intermediaries—the companies that own digital platforms, internet service providers and web hosting platforms. These are gatekeepers with “hidden influence” who exercise their power through their terms of service (TOS) agreements and allow a multiplicity of digital harms to be realized. These companies consistently seek to enjoy limited liability for the information that is shared and published online by positioning themselves as defenders of freedom of speech. Their TOS agreements do not provide sufficient depth regarding what constitutes abusive behavior on their platforms since they blur the lines between acceptable satire and social commentary, and the circulation of offensive content. These gray areas exert a hidden influence in the perpetuation of online gender-based violence.
The other form of hidden power lies in the fact that violence against women online is often perpetuated by men who are hiding by posting anonymously; not revealing their identity or location. This anonymity worsens the impact on the victims of online GBV, causing heightened fear since the perpetrators’ proximity, connection to the victims, and/or capacity to act on the threat all remain unknowns. In such incidences, it can be tempting to join in calls for the removal of online anonymity, yet forcing people to disclose their real identities online is not a solution to threats in digital spaces. Rather it can increase discrimination and worsen harassment. The solution to this form of behavior is promoting responsible and appropriate use of technology among users
The underlying mechanisms behind this hidden power are related to the fact that individuals, rather than companies or states are often framed as being responsible for tackling online GBV. Women users of technology are framed as “sovereign individuals” who are responsible to protect themselves from harm. It is down to women to report these incidents rather than it being the responsibility of social media platforms to effectively implement their own stated policies or governments drafting and passing policies that guarantee women’s safety online. This sad reality given the imbalance in the power dynamics explains why online GBV persists.
Invisible power
Invisible power manifests in social norms, internalized beliefs and misinformation and disinformation. As people embrace digital spaces for greater and greater proportions of their personal, political, professional and social lives, the invisible power wielded in these spaces arguably becomes even more important. At the basic level of digital access in many contexts, social norms make it less acceptable for women/girls to use digital technology than men/boys especially in rural settings. Because they are less likely to have access, women and girls are more likely to need to seek permission from their male relatives to use digital devices. Their male counterparts who are gatekeepers in this case might be more concerned with maintaining gendered social norms. Besides social norms which can shape women’s access to technology, digital spaces can be used to police and reinforce conservative notions around women’s roles which may prevent them from challenging online violence.
In conclusion, when it comes to the different aspects of online gender-based violence and understanding — who has the power to take down offensive/harmful content and to prosecute perpetrators, the internalized power relations and dynamics that silence women and prevent them from using digital spaces, and social media business models intended to maximize the sharing of content, the three aspects of power highlight the underlying mechanisms and drivers of online GBV. While the internet is one of the most empowering technologies the world has ever seen, it is likely to exacerbate gender inequalities if issues that keep women offline like online GBV persist. A multistakeholder approach is needed since issues of gender-based violence go beyond one set of stakeholders, jurisdictions or domains and each society has unique underlying power relationships which hinder struggles against the vice.
By Patricia Namakula
Director of Research and PR
