To those who describe the digital world as open, neutral, and democratizing, I am writing about what happens when access itself becomes the deciding factor. Digital access is often framed as convenience. Faster communication. Easier services. Broader reach. But for millions of people, it is not an upgrade. It is the condition for participation. Without it, you are not merely offline. You are absent. Access decides who can apply, who can appeal, who can be seen, and who can respond in time. It determines whose delays are forgiven and whose are fatal. It separates those who can navigate systems from those who never quite enter them. This is power, even when it does not look like it. Digital systems promise efficiency. They promise scale. They promise fairness through automation. Everyone uses the same interface. Everyone fills out the same form. Everyone clicks the same button. But sameness is not equality. The cost of digital participation is unevenly distributed. Devices require money. Connectivity requires infrastructure. Literacy requires time and education. Familiarity requires exposure. Those costs are invisible to people who have already paid them. When services move online, access is described as expanded. In reality, it is redefined. Physical barriers are replaced with technical ones. Distance becomes bandwidth. Waiting becomes buffering. Language becomes interface design. If you cannot keep up, the system does not slow down for you. It moves forward and leaves you behind without acknowledgment. Digital access also collapses boundaries. Work follows you home. Notifications follow you to bed. Availability becomes expected, not exceptional. Those who respond quickly are rewarded. Those who do not are questioned. Access turns into obligation. If you are always reachable, you are always accountable. If you are not, your absence requires explanation. This is not evenly felt. People with stable internet, private space, modern devices, and flexible schedules absorb this pressure more easily. Others navigate constant friction. Shared devices. Limited data. Public connections. Surveillance. The digital divide is not just about connection. It is about conditions. Digital access as power becomes most visible at moments of crisis. When applications must be submitted online. When appointments exist only on portals. When updates are sent through platforms you cannot reliably access. Miss a notification and you miss a deadline. Miss a deadline and you lose an opportunity. The system records this as noncompliance, not exclusion. Power hides well when it looks procedural. Algorithms intensify this dynamic. Decisions about visibility, eligibility, and prioritization are increasingly automated. Who sees what. Who is flagged. Who is promoted. Who is delayed. These systems claim neutrality. They rely on data. But data reflects existing inequalities. Bias enters quietly, through historical patterns and design choices that feel technical rather than political. If your digital footprint is thin, inconsistent, or unfamiliar, you are harder to classify. Harder to trust. Harder to serve. In many systems, being legible is a prerequisite for being helped. Digital access also reshapes voice. Platforms promise amplification, but they reward certain behaviors. Speed. Frequency. Familiar formats. Confidence. Outrage. Those who speak slowly, cautiously, or differently are less visible. Those who cannot be online consistently are forgotten. Silence is interpreted as disengagement. Participation becomes performative. To matter, you must post, respond, engage, and react in ways the system recognizes. Access without fluency is partial access. There is also the issue of consent. Many digital systems offer access only in exchange for data. You can participate, but you must be observed. Tracked. Categorized. Opting out often means exclusion. There is no meaningful choice between privacy and participation when participation requires surrender. This trade is normalized. Terms are accepted without being read. Permissions are granted without understanding their scope. Consent becomes routine rather than informed. Power does not need coercion when dependence exists. Digital access as power also affects labor. Hiring platforms filter candidates before humans intervene. Performance is tracked through metrics that reward availability and responsiveness. Those who can stay online longer appear more committed. Those who cannot are seen as unreliable. Structural limitations are misread as personal shortcomings. The same tools that enable remote work also intensify surveillance. Productivity becomes quantifiable. Presence becomes measurable. If you are connected, you can be monitored. If you disconnect, you can be penalized. Education follows similar patterns. Learning platforms assume quiet spaces, stable internet, and uninterrupted time. Students without these conditions are marked as disengaged. Missed logins become lack of effort. Technical difficulty becomes disinterest. The system records outcomes, not circumstances. Digital access also determines political participation. Information circulates online first. Organizing happens through platforms. Mobilization depends on visibility. If you are not connected, you are not counted. If you are connected but overwhelmed, you are drowned out. Power flows toward those who can shape digital narratives consistently. Even public services increasingly assume digital access. Government portals replace offices. Chatbots replace people. Forms replace conversations. Efficiency improves for some. Distance grows for others. When systems fail, recourse is often digital too. Appeals must be submitted online. Complaints tracked through portals. Support accessed through tickets. If you cannot navigate these systems, failure becomes final. Digital access also concentrates power geographically. Regions with strong infrastructure attract investment. Those without fall further behind. Opportunity clusters around connectivity. This is not accidental. Infrastructure is political. Decisions about where to build, upgrade, or maintain networks reflect priorities. Lack of access is treated as unfortunate, not unjust. Over time, digital access becomes a marker of legitimacy. Being online signals relevance. Being offline signals marginality. People internalize this hierarchy. They apologize for delays caused by connectivity. They feel embarrassed by outdated devices. They blame themselves for structural gaps. Power works best when it feels personal. There is a persistent myth that technology naturally democratizes. That tools level the playing field. That access inevitably leads to empowerment. This myth ignores how systems are designed, governed, and monetized. Access without agency is not empowerment. Connectivity without control is not freedom. Digital access gives power to those who design platforms, set rules, and control visibility. Users participate within boundaries they did not choose. Even resistance often depends on access. To protest, you must post. To organize, you must message. To document harm, you must record and upload. Those without access struggle to be believed. This creates a paradox. Digital systems amplify voices, but only those that can enter and persist within them. Power consolidates quietly. Platforms become intermediaries for social life, work, education, and governance. Their decisions shape reality more than most laws. Yet accountability remains diffuse. Algorithms are opaque. Terms change without negotiation. Appeals are automated. You cannot argue with a system that does not recognize your voice. Digital access also changes how harm is distributed. Mistakes propagate faster. Errors scale. Misinformation spreads. Bias replicates. Those most affected are often least able to contest outcomes. They lack access, fluency, or leverage. The promise of digital neutrality obscures these dynamics. To be clear, digital access is not inherently oppressive. It enables connection, learning, creativity, and survival. For many, it is a lifeline. But lifelines can also be leverage. When access is essential, control over access is power. This power is rarely exercised dramatically. It is exercised through updates, requirements, and design choices that feel mundane. A feature is removed. A system is upgraded. Support is automated. Access narrows slightly. Those who adapt stay. Those who cannot disappear quietly. If you design digital systems, you carry responsibility. Not just for functionality, but for consequences. Who can enter. Who can stay. Who is filtered out. If you manage institutions that rely on digital access, you shape participation. You decide whether alternatives exist. Whether support is human. Whether failure is recoverable. If you benefit from digital access, it is worth noticing how much of your agency depends on infrastructure you did not build and rules you did not set. Digital power does not announce itself. It hides behind convenience. It asks you to update, accept, and proceed. The question is not whether digital access matters. It is who controls it, who is excluded by it, and who is expected to adapt without support. A just digital world would treat access as a right, not a filter. It would design for difference, not just efficiency. It would recognize that connectivity alone does not equal inclusion. Until then, digital access will continue to function as power. Quiet, procedural, and deeply consequential. Not because technology is evil, but because power always flows toward what people depend on most. Signed, Someone Who Has Watched Opportunities Appear Online and Vanish Offline
Letters

An Open Letter on Digital Access as Power

| , |

An open letter examining how digital access determines voice, opportunity, and survival, and why connectivity has become a quiet form of power.

An Open Letter on Digital Access as Power Read Post »