Creating an ideal inclusive civic technology is not easy. There are some questions that seem to require compromise no matter what the answer is. The use of anonymous or real names is one such question. Anonymity will generally encourage more people to participate, especially in places where the government may be monitoring citizen activity online. The trade-off with anonymity may be civility. The use of real names probably encourages more considered dialog because comments will be associated with someone’s real-life identity. In the choice between these directions I would generally come down on the side of anonymity, because dissenting opinions are more likely to be expressed. Anonymity is probably more inclusive in this sense, although it would be interesting to look at whether some people intentionally refrain from participating in certain civic technologies that uses anonymity because the discourse has become too uncivil.
Given the use of anonymity, are there other ways a civic technology can encourage civil discourse to ensure its inclusivity is not compromised by incivility? How are community norms set and maintained? The use of moderators is one way to encourage certain kinds of participation and discourage others. Livestream.com has a fairly developed chat system, which includes deleting or removing inappropriate content, banning users who repeatedly violate community norms, and even blocking ip addresses. Reddit offers another possible option for handling moderation: to actually post the rules for contributing to subforums. The tone and tenor of new civic technology platforms may be set by some of the earliest users, so thinking about inclusivity is something that needs to happen before a site is even launched. Perhaps “seeding” the discourse that happens on a new site could be an effective way to get things headed in the right direction.
Another factor that any civic technology concerned with inclusivity should consider is platform. While it is important to note that “digital divide” discussions also need to look at how people use the internet once they do have access, I would argue that a global view toward maximizing participation needs to take the mobile platform very seriously. Are we even possibly at a “mobile first” design inflexion? It appears that mobile has now overtaken fixed internet access globally. So if we are thinking about inclusivity, ensuring a solid mobile experience that is as light on data requirements as possible seems essential for those people who may not have easy access to fixed internet connections, or use prepaid data plans, as much of the world does.
A further design question around inequality might try to address the other side of the digital divide: how can a design process include consideration of differing levels of support, familiarity, and comfort with online tools and platforms? This might lead to a platform that has incorporated participatory design, or the designers might consider including less-skilled internet users in their early design and testing processes. For example, it would be interesting to look at how widely adopted the newest swipe gestures are. In the default iOS mail app for example, how many people actually use the pull left / pull right functionality? If those levels are low perhaps inclusive design actively avoids using these lesser-known gestures.
As a final though about constructing an ideal civic technology, one important component I would want to consider is fun. Civic technology sometimes deals with heavy issues. And not everything can or should be gamified. But if using a platform is actually fun, people are more likely to participate. Even a platform like SeeClickFix tries to make documenting problems fun through their systems of points and whimsical ranks like “digital superhero.” The Harry Potter Alliance might be another example, where fandom is used to encourage participation through campaigns like the “What Would Dumbledore Do” campaign. The “Israel Loves Iran” Facebook campaign is another example of using a sense of fun and appreciation to widen civic thinking. This might foster inclusivity in more subtle ways. Instead of feeling righteously angry after using a civic technology platform to fight the world’s injustices, what if users were left with a feeling of enjoyment?
These are just a few ideas to maximize inclusiveness. No one answer is sufficient, but a combination of reducing blocks to participation through consideration of identity and community, and with careful design centered on the facts of global internet access, plus a sense of making civic participation enjoyable, we might reach a broader group of people.