Technological Equality: From the Digital Divide to Systemic Power Imbalance

The Evolution of the Concept of Technological Equality: From the Digital Divide to Systemic Power Imbalance

At the turn of the millennium, the “digital divide” was a relatively simple concept—it depicted a fault line between people with and without internet access. Policymakers and early internet optimists believed that laying fiber optic cables and distributing equipment would naturally close the gap. More than two decades later, we find ourselves embarrassingly realizing that the imagined technological divide has not disappeared but has evolved into a more complex and deeply entrenched web of power. Today, we face far more than simple “access inequality”—a systemic power imbalance embedded in the global political and economic structure. This evolution has not only fundamentally changed our understanding of the relationship between technology and society but has also redefined the nature and boundaries of the struggle for “technology equality.”

The concept of the “digital divide” is inextricably linked to the Clinton-Gore administration’s vision of the “information superhighway” in the United States. It is essentially a quantifiable and material concept, with its core indicator being whether an individual or household can access the internet and own a computer or mobile device. Numerous statistical charts from organizations such as the World Bank and the International Telecommunication Union clearly depict the vast disparities in technology access between the global North and South, urban and rural areas, and high-income and low-income groups.

This concept’s contribution lies in establishing “technology access” as a significant public policy issue for the first time, driving global infrastructure development efforts. However, its fundamental limitation lies in its implicit technological determinism: that technology itself is neutral and necessarily a benevolent force that leads to progress, and that once people “access” it, education, economic opportunities, and social participation will automatically improve. It simplifies inequality to a matter of resource allocation, while ignoring the pre-existing power inequalities within the social context in which technology is embedded.

In the first decade of the 21st century, with the rise of social media, mobile internet, and the platform economy, critical scholars and activists began to fiercely attack the superficiality of the “digital divide” concept. A series of new concepts emerged, marking a profound shift in understanding:

Digital Inequality: This concept shifts the focus from “having” to “being good or bad.” It asks: Are people using fiber optics or 2G networks? Are they creating content or merely passively consuming it? Do they have data sovereignty or are they forced to surrender their privacy ? Inequality lies not only in the point of access, but also in the quality of use, skills, and ultimate benefits.

Algorithmic Power: When internet search engines determine the ranking of search results, when social media’s news feed algorithm shapes the information diets of hundreds of millions of people, and when recruitment software silently filters out specific groups, a new, privately controlled form of power emerges. It doesn’t rely on violence or law, but rather exercises itself through architectural design, default settings, and data models, often invisibly yet with astonishing effects.

Data Colonialism: British scholars Nick Kuldley and others have proposed that contemporary tech giants extract global users’ personal data free of charge or at low cost, transforming it into capital that predicts behavior, influences elections, and generates enormous profits, forming a new type of colonial relationship comparable to historical land and resource colonization. In this process, the Global South not only provides the data raw materials but also suffers the costs of privacy erosion and cultural homogenization.

Thus, the core of the problem has become clear: the root of inequality is not the scarcity of technological resources, but the concentration and control of political and economic power. We are witnessing a systemic shift of power from traditional nation-states to a few multinational platform companies, technology standard-setting bodies, and investment entities controlling enormous amounts of capital in places like Silicon Valley.

The “systemic power imbalance” discussed today is a macro-framework describing how the digital ecosystem reproduces and exacerbates existing social inequalities. It manifests itself on three interconnected levels:

The global digital market exhibits an extremely high degree of concentration. Some search engine giant holds over 90% of the global search market share; Amazon Web Services controls more than one-third of the world’s cloud infrastructure and etc. This monopolistic position grants platform companies unprecedented power: they are not only market participants, but also rule-makers (such as app store revenue sharing policies and content moderation standards), and controllers of critical infrastructure. Startups and potential competitors often face the dilemma of “either being acquired or being copied and crushed,” effectively stifling innovation.

Digital platforms, especially mega-platforms, have evolved into “private public entities” with quasi-state functions. Within their virtual territories, they exercise functions inherent to public power, such as content arbitration, dispute resolution, and behavioral norms, yet lack corresponding democratic accountability and transparency.

Thierry Breton, the EU’s Commissioner for the Internal Market, has pointedly stated, “We cannot allow private companies to determine the boundaries of debate in our society without democratic control.”

On the other hand, nation-states’ “digital sovereignty” is under double pressure: constrained by US hegemony in core technologies (such as chips and operating systems) on one hand, and challenged by the expansion of power within their own countries on the other.

Technology is never value-neutral. Social biases learned from training data are amplified and solidified infinitely by algorithms. MIT researcher Joy Blanvini found that commercial facial recognition systems have a shockingly high error rate when identifying dark -skinned women, a vivid example of historical biases being encoded into the future of technology. Furthermore, the information cocoons created by platform recommendation algorithms and the influencer culture shaped by traffic allocation are profoundly influencing collective social cognition, value judgments, and cultural diversity. This shaping is subtle and global, often packaging the values of a specific culture (typically the US West Coast) as universal “digital modernity.”

Faced with systemic power imbalances, the spectrum of opinions among international professionals is broad and intense:

Structural Reformists: Represented by the European Union, they advocate intervention through strong legislation. The EU’s Digital Markets Act directly targets “gatekeeper” platforms, mandating interoperability of services, prohibiting self-preferential treatment, and allowing users to uninstall pre-installed applications. This essentially attempts to restructure the power structure of the digital market using the sword of antitrust. Supporters believe this is the necessary path to restoring market competition and protecting fundamental rights.

Radical Restructuringists: Such as Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin, who advocates regulating or publicizing certain key digital infrastructures (such as social graphs and user rating systems) as “digital public facilities” in order to break the platform’s private monopoly on core social functions.

Technology Optimists: Some Silicon Valley thought leaders remain believers in technological fundamentalism. They argue that technologies like Web3.0, blockchain, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) can automatically create fairer, trustless systems through code rather than law. However, critics point out that these technologies often introduce new energy consumption, complexity, and fraud risks, and that their “decentralized” narrative may conceal new centers of power.

The shift from “digital divide” to “systemic power imbalance” is far more than a simple change in academic terminology. It signifies a fundamental leap in our understanding of the essence of the problem—from phenomena to structure, from resources to power, and from distribution to relations of production.

“This evolution tells us that laying more fiber optic cables cannot automatically eliminate algorithmic discrimination; distributing more tablets cannot offset the stifling of economic opportunities by platform monopolies. The struggle for technological equality has thus escalated from a welfare issue primarily about resource redistribution to a profound political issue concerning power redistribution, rule-making power, and the right to design the future.” – RulerHub

This demands a corresponding upgrade in our response strategies: from simple subsidies and infrastructure to a comprehensive, systemic governance approach encompassing antitrust, data governance, algorithm auditing, digital literacy education, labor rights protection, and the formulation of global digital rules.

Understanding this evolution is the first step towards confronting the true challenges of the digital age, and a necessary prerequisite for laying a solid ideological foundation for subsequent discussions on all specific paths to equality. Faced with systemic imbalances, localized, technical fixes are destined to be futile; only through equally systemic thinking and action can we find the leverage to change power.

Is Technological Equality Just A Utopian Vision?