Fuji Riang Prastowo
The Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies (ICRS) has once more exhibited its intellectual and ethical leadership by facilitating critical worldwide discussions at the nexus of faith, politics, and technology. During the recent unconference titled “Polarization and its Discontents in the Global South,” conducted in Yogyakarta on April 24-25, 2025, the second plenary session—“Digital Polarization and Inclusion among Indigenous Religious Communities”—transcended traditional academic dialogue. It provided not only essential insights but also fervent calls for fundamental reform in the conceptualization and implementation of digital inclusion.
The session, moderated by Dr. Leonard C. Epafras, featured three notable speakers: Damar Juniarto from PIKAT Demokrasi (Center for Innovation in Artificial Intelligence and Technology for Democracy), Andri Hernandi from the Indonesian Supreme Council of Belief in Almighty God (Majelis Luhur Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Esa Indonesia), and South African social justice activist Keamogetswe Seipato. Their initiatives collectively revealed a stark and sometimes disregarded reality: the digital age, often celebrated as a democratizing influence, has instead reproduced and, in numerous instances, exacerbated pre-existing systems of exclusion—particularly affecting indigenous and vulnerable populations.
Dr. Epafras astutely remarked, “Inclusion without justice is merely another framework of exclusion,” encapsulating the profound intellectual and emotional significance of the discourse. A clear global consensus emerged: digital technologies are not ideologically neutral instruments. When utilized in non-essential contexts, they support prevailing power structures—providing connectivity devoid of autonomy and access lacking agency.
Contextual Backdrop: Digital Dreams and Colonial Nightmares
The techno-utopian narrative has touted digital development as a solution to social and economic inequalities for decades. Progressive and humanitarian programs to “connect the unconnected” in the Global South have linked digital access to empowerment, opportunity, and democratization. However, media theorists Couldry and Mejias (2019) suggest that these narratives often disguise colonial logics as innovation. After losing their territory, indigenous and oppressed groups are losing their data, agency, and cultural voice in the digital era.
The plenary session emphasized this critical lens. All three speakers warned of “false promises of digital inclusion,” disputing the idea that connectivity equals advancement. Based on his work at PIKAT Demokrasi, Damar Juniarto demonstrated how data mining and behavioral manipulation are common in digital platforms, especially those owned by Global North corporations. Digital othering—algorithmically sidelining and culturally exoticizing minority voices—often leads to online derision and hate speech.
Andri Hernandi cited Indonesia’s Penghayat Kepercayaan communities, which avoid digital places to prevent algorithmic distortion. Indigenous leaders, like the Baduy Dalam in West Java, have petitioned telecom authorities to limit signal coverage in their territory to protect their way of life, including rejecting Google’s 2021 mapping effort. This emphasizes the need to redefine digital inclusion: connectivity without control is exposure, not freedom.
Keamogetswe Seipato similarly criticized South Africa. South Africa’s internet landscape is a source of inequality and social dispersion despite its high digital connectivity. She highlighted the rise of internet shutdowns, especially amid political turmoil, and political parties’ use of social media to promote xenophobia and exploit socioeconomic issues. She claimed that these actions show how digital infrastructures benefit the powerful while marginalizing the powerless.
The speakers agreed that access does not imply empowerment and connectivity does not guarantee democracy. In his technofeudalism study, Gane (2024) argues that digital platforms now derive value from user data rather than work. This approach treats users—particularly those from the Global South—as commodities in a new empire of code, with corporations acting as neo-feudal overlords.
Digital Othering and the Fragile Space of Indigenous Faiths
In his compelling discourse, Andri Hernandi illuminated the vulnerable status of Penghayat Kepercayaan—Indonesian tribes whose traditional spiritual practices exist beyond the six officially recognized religions. Historically subjected to structural and cultural marginalization, these communities today encounter a “triple bind” in the digital age, wherein previous exclusions are redefined by contemporary technical frameworks.
The absence of statutory recognition persists in obstructing their access to vital governmental services. Bureaucratic discrimination, especially with the issuance of National Identity Cards (KTP), restricts their complete engagement in civic life and renders them stateless in the perception of the digital state. Secondly, entrenched social stigma frequently portrays them as antiquated or “disconnected” from prevailing national discourses on modernization and religion. Thirdly, and most insidiously, digital technologies exacerbate their marginalization through algorithmic invisibility. Andri observed that numerous Penghayat communities hardly utilize digital media, and when they do, their narratives are swiftly overshadowed by prevailing religious and political discourses.
These tendencies exemplify what Eubanks (2022) refers to as the automation of inequality, when digital technologies not only replicate but exacerbate existing disparities. The assurance of digital democratization transforms into an illusion when virality and prevailing emotion govern visibility. The Baduy Dalam community presents a compelling counter-narrative: under the guidance of Abah Mursid, they sought to limit internet signal availability to save their cultural integrity, and in 2021, declined Google’s proposal to map their sacred land.
“Being offline does not signify regression,” Andri asserted. “It is a declaration of autonomy in opposition to an encroaching environment.” In this context, digital resistance—frequently characterized as refusal—constitutes a valid strategy for survival and sovereignty in an environment that persistently marginalizes.
Africa’s Parallel Battle: Digital Spaces, Exclusion, and Resistance
Seipato emphasized that the issues of digital exclusion are not exclusive to Indonesia, but are profoundly relevant throughout the Global South. Notwithstanding South Africa’s sophisticated technology infrastructure, significant disparities endure—stemming from the legacy of apartheid and exacerbated by neoliberal economic policies. Seipato observed that internet access in South Africa increasingly mirrors the nation’s deep-seated racial and economic inequalities, establishing new arenas for visibility, power, and survival.
“The digital realm has transformed the physical realm,” Seipato observed, illustrating how online interactions influence offline identities and habits. A prominent example is the emergence of afrophobia—xenophobic animosity towards African migrants exhibited by Black South Africans. She highlighted the role of political actors that utilize social media algorithms to manipulate popular sentiment, exacerbating economic dissatisfaction into digital animosity. “If I lack sufficient power in reality, I will intimidate you online,” she stated, elucidating the emotional rationale underlying digital poison.
Seipato emphasized the increase in online gender-based violence, particularly following electoral cycles. Women activists, specifically, have increasingly been targets of harassment and organized assaults—demonstrating what Franklin (2013) terms the “double disenfranchisement” of underrepresented groups: excluded both offline and online.
Her primary assertion was unequivocal and pressing: the mere expansion of infrastructure does not signify advancement. Absent the confrontation of the fundamental systems of inequality—be they economic, gender-based, or racial—digital advancement serves as a magnifier of oppression. “The rural impoverished do not require additional devices,” she asserted. “They require autonomy, respect, and safeguarding.” Seipato’s intervention underscores a persistent truth evident throughout the session: digital inclusion, devoid of justice, merely transforms existing exclusions into new manifestations.
The False Promises of Digital Inclusion: A Critical Rethinking
The plenary debate vigorously contested the widespread notion that digital inclusion alone is necessarily empowering. Technology, rather than serving as a neutral instrument for democratization, frequently perpetuates the inequitable systems it purports to demolish when integrated into uneven frameworks. Damar Juniarto of PIKAT Demokrasi provided a pointed critique of the “feel-good” narrative, cautioning that digital proliferation, without essential controls, has facilitated what he described as “digital othering and digital colonialism”.
He asserted, “Digital inclusion devoid of essential safeguards results in digital othering and digital colonialism.” His evaluation illustrates a wider trend throughout the Global South: underprivileged groups are not simply getting linked; they are being assimilated into exploitative digital ecosystems. These platforms not only provide access but also establish the conditions for interaction, collecting user data while either amplifying indigenous voices as spectacle or rendering them imperceptible through algorithmic filtering.
Damar exemplified this dynamic with the instance of Mbak Rara, a rain shaman who attained fleeting online notoriety during the Asian Games and MotoGP Mandalika. Subsequently, she faced vilification and ridicule on social media, highlighting the tendency of digital culture to exoticize, instrumentalize, and ultimately disregard indigenous identities.
This corresponds with Gane’s (2026) critique of technofeudalism—a framework wherein digital empires amass value through behavioral data rather than labor. He contends that the current digital economy flourishes through extraction, manipulation, and enclosure, representing a modern reinterpretation of colonial logic.
The demand for digital sovereignty is becoming imperative. Indigenous communities, devoid of the authority to influence the frameworks regulating their digital existence, face the peril of being converted from users into mere resources for profit-oriented systems. The inquiry now extends beyond mere access to encompass autonomy, representation, and justice.
Conclusion: Reimagining Inclusion Beyond Access
The plenary session concluded with a compelling appeal to transcend superficial connectivity numbers and to reconceptualize digital inclusion as an issue of power, agency, and justice. Throughout each speaker’s discourse, a common analytical theme surfaced: digital technologies are not impartial tools, but profoundly political frameworks that might reinforce historical hierarchies if not critically scrutinized. The Global South must consequently reject the invitation to be passively “included” in externally constructed systems and instead assert the right to collaboratively shape digital futures rooted in dignity and self-determination.The Global South must resist the passive invitation to be “included” in externally constructed systems and instead assert the right to collaboratively shape digital futures rooted in dignity and self-determination.
The speakers collectively underscored that mere access is inadequate—particularly when the framework of that access is exploitative, coercive, and governed by commercial or governmental entities. Seipato contended that infrastructure devoid of fairness merely perpetuates oppression in novel digital realms. Andri emphasized the validity of digital retreat as an expression of sovereignty, especially for communities such as the Baduy Dalam, who consciously oppose electronic intrusion. Damar delivered a definitive admonition: “The regulations must safeguard the populace—not the platforms, not the corporations, but the populace.” Damar delivered a definitive admonition: “The regulations must safeguard the populace—not the platforms, not the corporations, but the populace.”
Institutions such as the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies are essential in cultivating counter-narratives, serving not just as academic conveners but also as platforms for critical resistance, international solidarity, and ethical imagination. Dr. Leonard C. Epafras asserted, “Our objective is not to expand the circle of exclusion masquerading as inclusion, but to establish entirely new environments where dignity is imperative.”
To reclaim its digital future, the Global South must transition from integration into existing digital frameworks to the establishment of alternatives: systems in which technology serves individuals rather than corporations, and where diversity is not only tokenized but really empowered. Sometimes the most revolutionary act is not logging in, but logging out and starting over.