On culture and technology
In his 2012 article "Rethinking Digital Cultures and Divides:The Case for Reflective Media",Srinivasan challenged prevailing models of digital development by introducing the concept of "reflective media"—media technologies that enable marginalized communities to express,reflect on,and act upon their own aspirations and social conditions. Through a two-year comparative study in rural Andhra Pradesh,India,Srinivasan examined how providing video cameras to members of a nonliterate village (Ardhavaram) fostered community agency,consensus-building,and collective action,compared to a control village (Kesavaram) that relied on traditional oral meetings. [39]
The study revealed that video creation and sharing spread virally beyond the initial focus group to the broader village within three months,with cameras being shared democratically despite no instruction to do so. Video topics evolved from documenting specific grievances to exploring collective visions for education,agriculture,and community development. Ardhavaram participants developed greater confidence in their ability to solve problems internally,while Kesavaram continued to view solutions as coming from external authorities. The video-enabled village showed increased consensus-building and coordination,with participants beginning to see individual and community well-being as interconnected.
The study demonstrated that reflective media can interrupt what Appadurai termed the "capacity to aspire" deficit among marginalized communities. By enabling communities to document,share,and collectively reflect on their experiences,video technology catalyzed the emergence of indigenous voice and collective agency. This work critiqued both top-down "access-driven" initiatives and bottom-up participatory models for failing to cultivate authentic community voice and aspiration.
Egypt and the Arab Spring
During his field research in Egypt following the 2011 uprising,Srinivasan challenged the widely accepted narrative that social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook were the primary drivers of the revolution. Conducting interviews with a broad cross-section of Egyptian protestors,he found a stark contrast between the grievances voiced by elite social media users and those expressed by working-class demonstrators. While the former emphasized abstract ideals such as liberty,the latter focused on concrete economic concerns like wages and job security. He emphasized that the physical presence and participation of people from poorer neighborhoods—not just digital activism—were crucial in sustaining the protest movement. Srinivasan also critiqued the echo chamber effect of social media,where retweets and shared content distorted on-the-ground realities,sometimes amplifying misinformation. [40] [41] [42]
Srinivasan has conducted ethnographic research in Bolivia that focused on how indigenous communities use traditional technologies like radio to maintain cultural identity and organize collective action. He found that radio,due to its low cost and oral nature,serves as a vital communication tool across Bolivia's diverse regions—particularly among Aymara women,labor unions,and Amazonian tribes. Unlike more individualized digital platforms,radio fosters synchronous,communal listening experiences,reinforcing local cohesion and democratic engagement. The fieldwork revealed both the empowering potential and the political complexities of community-run and state-funded radio. [43] [44] [22]
In his article "Re-thinking the Cultural Codes of New Media:The Question Concerning Ontology",Srinivasan called for a fundamental shift in how digital systems are designed,advocating for an inclusive,culturally situated approach to new media. He critiqued the dominance of Western ontologies embedded in algorithms,databases,and digital infrastructures,arguing that these often marginalize or erase the knowledge systems of non-Western communities. Based on diverse philosophical traditions and fieldwork,Srinivasan proposed "fluid" and "process" ontologies as alternatives—models co-created with local communities to reflect their values,practices,and epistemologies. [45]
A Social Contract for Technology
In their 2023 paper "A New Social Contract for Technology",Srinivasan and Dipayan Ghosh argued that the current digital landscape,dominated by unregulated technology giants,necessitates a fundamental renegotiation of the relationship between tech corporations and society. Drawing from social contract theory dating back to Hobbes,Locke,and Rousseau,they proposed extending this framework beyond state-citizen relationships to include the private corporations that now exert "governing" influence over digital life. [46]
The authors identified three core problems with the current consumer internet model. First,technology platforms extract behavioral data to create detailed profiles,often through partnerships that track users across multiple websites without meaningful disclosure. Second,opaque algorithms optimize for engagement by promoting extreme content,creating echo chambers and filter bubbles that polarize society. Third,dominant platforms maintain monopolistic control through acquisitions,copycat features,and network effects.
Their proposed social contract emphasizes that digital rights must go beyond viewing data as property to recognizing it as an extension of human agency and dignity. They advocate for comprehensive policy interventions including consumer privacy rights with opt-out as default,radical transparency in algorithmic systems,antitrust enforcement and utility-style regulation,and economic reforms such as data compensation,universal basic income programs,and support for digital cooperatives.
"Fluid Ontologies" in Technology Design
Srinivasan is known for his work on the cultural implications of technology. In his book Whose Global Village? Rethinking How Technology Shapes Our World (2017),he introduced the concept of "fluid ontologies"—a methodology that adapts technology design to align with local cultural contexts and community priorities. Drawing on ethnographic research from diverse settings,including Native American communities,rural India,and Zapatista territories in Mexico,Srinivasan emphasized the need for collaboration between technology developers and marginalized communities. His work stressed how technologies can be adapted to reflect cultural diversity and foster local agency,challenging the universalist and deterministic assumptions of global technology practices. [34] [47] [48] [49] [50]
On technology and democracy
Advocacy for a People-Centered Internet
Srinivasan has emerged as a prominent critic of Big Tech's influence on modern society. In his 2019 book Beyond the Valley:How Innovators Around the World Are Overcoming Inequality and Creating the Technologies of Tomorrow,he explored how corporate-driven technological advancements have deepened inequalities,eroded workers' rights,and commodified user data. The book presents case studies from around the world demonstrating alternatives to Silicon Valley's model.
Srinivasan documents indigenous communities in Oaxaca,Mexico,building their own cellular infrastructure governed by local assemblies,Detroit communities creating worker-owned digital platforms,and Kenya's M-PESA mobile banking system as an example of innovation from the Global South designed for local needs rather than profit maximization. These examples demonstrate how technology can serve collective social mobility when developed through grassroots processes rather than top-down corporate models. He advocates for decentralization,cooperative ownership structures,and regulatory frameworks that prioritize human well-being over corporate profit. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]
Digital rights and policy
Srinivasan has been a vocal advocate for digital rights and democratic technology governance,developing comprehensive frameworks for protecting citizens in the digital age. His policy work spans several key areas:
Digital Bill of Rights
In a 2020 Guardian article,Srinivasan argued for an American "digital bill of rights" to protect citizens from surveillance capitalism and algorithmic manipulation. He emphasized that privacy is not merely about hiding information but about preserving human agency—"our capacity to hold power over our own lives to dream,grow,be,and aspire." [9]
Technology policy
Srinivasan has worked with Congressman Ro Khanna on technology policy initiatives aimed at democratizing the digital economy and protecting workers' rights in the age of automation. [57]
Automation and Labor
In a 2019 Los Angeles Times op-ed,Srinivasan analyzed the societal impacts of automation and AI on labor markets,proposing policy interventions to ensure technology serves workers rather than displacing them. [58]
Critique of Tech solutionism
Trained as an engineer but identifying as an ethnographer,Srinivasan has become a vocal critic of techno-solutionism—the belief that digital technologies alone can solve societal problems. Drawing from his field experiences in Bolivia and other regions,he argued that the global digital divide is not just about access but also about cultural sovereignty and relevance. He critiqued projects like Facebook's internet.org and other corporate-led connectivity efforts for failing to serve the actual needs of local communities,advocating instead for grassroots-designed technologies that reflect local histories,values,and infrastructures. [22]
