digital

In an era where nearly all activity has shifted to the digital space, terrorism has also evolved. Terrorists no longer need territory to establish training camps, ideological teachers, or secret meetings in the middle of the night. All they need now is an internet connection, a social media account, and closed, hard-to-trace chat rooms. This is the new face of terrorism: invisible, borderless, and infiltrating our daily lives through the small screens in our hands. This phenomenon creates a threat that is far more difficult to address than the conventional forms of terrorism that have historically been the primary focus of states.

This transformation of terrorism is no longer an academic prediction, but it is already happening. ISIS is the most obvious example. When its physical territory collapsed in 2019, analysts expected the group to slowly fade away. In fact, they have emerged even more dangerously through the digital world. By utilizing social media, Telegram, dark forums, and professionally polished propaganda videos, ISIS has succeeded in establishing a “virtual caliphate” with followers spread across the globe. In Indonesia, the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) even noted that the majority of radicalization of terrorists over the past decade has occurred online. This means that violent narratives are now spreading faster than the state can control them.

This phenomenon raises a far more serious problem: terrorism no longer takes the form of large groups easily targeted by security forces but rather individuals or small groups inspired online. This is known as lone wolf terrorism. Many perpetrators have never met their network leaders, never entered a training cell, or even left their homes. They learn to make bombs through anonymous PDFs, discuss discussions in encrypted groups, and gain legitimacy through calls to digital jihad. The most obvious examples come from lone wolf attacks in Europe and America, including those radicalized simply by watching YouTube videos or following propaganda accounts on social media.

Indonesia is no exception. The 2021 suicide bombing at Makassar Cathedral Church is one of the most prominent examples of how digital radicalization works. The perpetrators were known to actively consume extremist content online and interact in groups affiliated with Jamaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD). They never underwent organized physical training. The entire recruitment process, indoctrination, and even action direction were conducted digitally. This is a new form of terrorism that is much more difficult to map, spreads much faster, and is far more dangerous.

Even more worrying, technological advances such as artificial intelligence (AI) are giving terrorists new tools that never existed before. Deepfakes, for example, allow someone to create videos of religious figures calling for jihad that appear “authentic.” AI-based disinformation can also amplify conspiracy theories and encourage easily triggered individuals to commit violence. Cybersecurity experts have even warned that in the next few years, AI-based terrorism could produce forms of attack never imagined in previous eras, including automated attack scripts, measured psychological manipulation, and personalized propaganda—something impossible to do manually.

The problem is, state strategies both in Indonesia and many other countries are still lagging behind. Our counterterrorism policies still focus on physical threats: arrests, network dismantling, weapons confiscation, and headquarters raids. These are certainly important, but not enough. States often fail to understand that today’s radicalization doesn’t occur in small mosques or secret training camps but rather through social media algorithms that unwittingly push extremist content to vulnerable users. Digital regulation has also moved much slower than the technological innovations exploited by extremist groups.

State weakness is also evident in the limited ability of law enforcement to track encrypted communications. Apps like Telegram, Discord, and WhatsApp have end-to-end encryption systems that make messages unreadable to third parties. Meanwhile, terrorist groups are quickly shifting their activities to the most difficult platforms to monitor. Without comparable technological capabilities, states will always be left behind. Ironically, the majority of national security budgets are still focused on conventional strategies, even though the greatest threats now emerge from the digital space.

This situation demands a comprehensive change in approach for the state. Anti-terrorism strategies in the digital age must combine security policies with a deep understanding of the technology ecosystem. First, modern cyber surveillance capabilities are needed, not in the sense of violating public privacy, but rather in the sense of enhancing collaboration between governments, social media platforms, and digital service providers. Technology companies like Meta, Google, and TikTok must become strategic partners in efforts to remove extremist content and prevent algorithms from spreading radical material.

Second, the state must strengthen international cooperation. Digital terrorism knows no borders. Attacks in Indonesia could be initiated from Syria, the Southern Philippines, or Europe. Cooperation with Interpol, ASEAN Counter-Terrorism, and other global institutions is crucial for tracking transnational networks that utilize the internet for propaganda and coordination.

Third, deradicalization must also adapt. The old approach, which relied solely on face-to-face counseling, is no longer sufficient. Digital deradicalization through counter-narratives, moderate influencers, and creative content targeting young people is imperative. Extremist narratives must be countered in the same place where they thrive: social media.

Fourth, digital literacy must be part of the national security strategy. Many individuals are exposed to radicalization not because they are ideologically extreme, but because they cannot distinguish credible information from propaganda. Teaching the public to recognize misinformation, conspiracy theories, and radical content is the most fundamental form of defense in this era.

And lastly, the state must raise awareness that terrorism today no longer originates in physical spaces but in the digital spaces we use every day. This threat may be invisible, but its impact is very real. If the state does not immediately update its security strategy and adapt to changes in the digital world, the radicalization of the younger generation will not only be difficult to prevent, it will also continue to increase unnoticed.

Terrorism in the digital age is a new battlefield that no longer relies on guns and bombs but rather on narratives, algorithms, and propaganda that spread in seconds. We have only two choices: adapt or be left behind. Amid rapid technological change, national security can only be assured if the state moves faster than the ever-changing threats. Otherwise, we will continue to be surprised by attacks that actually started long before the perpetrator hit the “upload” button.

Published on
24/11/2025 – 18:20 GMT+1

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that Washington can reduce duties on EU steel and aluminium but only if the Europeans agree to ease the implementation of digital rules following a meeting in Brussels on Monday.

Lutnick, who is a close ally of President Donald Trump and negotiated on his behalf a trade deal with the EU over the summer introducing 15% tariffs, said that European should reassess the way they implement their flagship policies on digital regulation if they want further tariff relief. Lutnick did not call to remove the rules but did say the way in which they are applied should be “more balanced” for American tech companies.

Brussels is desperately seeking to obtain a reduction of the 50% tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on European aluminium and steel in June under pressure from the industry.

The US does want the EU “to put these rules away, but find the balanced approach that works for us,” he told reporters in Brussels. “Then we will, together with them, handle the steel and aluminium issues.”

“The enforcement is quite aggressive at times”

Lutnick and US trade representative Jamieson Greer were in Brussels meeting with EU27 trade ministers and Commission boss Maroš Šefčovič for a working lunch.

The implementation of the trade deal signed over summer was at the center of the discussion, which was “open and direct,” according to an EU diplomat.

The EU and the US clinched a trade deal in July in which the US tripled tariffs on EU while Europeans agreed to cut tariffs for most US industrial goods at 0%. US tariffs on EU steel and aluminium remain stuck at a much higher rate of 50% despite the deal.

Lutnick and Greer also met EU Tech Commissioner Henna Virkkunen who stressed in a statement the importance of the Digital Market Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), the two landmark digital regulations applied in the EU. The comments suggest the Commission is not ready to water them further for the time being.

To counter the US offensive on its digital legislation, EU Trade Commissioner Šefčovič said that the EU is working hard to explain its legislation to the US and stressed that there no discriminatory practices applied to US companies. The rules, he argued, are the same for everyone operating in the EU single market regardless of their origin.

Still, the US insists that is not the case and American Big Tech is being punished.

“The enforcement is quite aggressive at times,” Greer said about EU tech rules, adding that the US government wants to make sure their companies do not see their global revenues “affected” by foreign rules. In his comments, Greer’s tone was severe.

Brussels recently launched investigations against Amazon and Microsoft under the DMA which prevents big platforms from abusing their dominance in the tech market. It also hit Google with a €2.95 billion over antitrust rules despite the threats from the US.

Nov. 20 (UPI) — Using digital devices creates a data footprint that endangers national security, U.S. military personnel and military operations, the Government Accountability Office said.

The Defense Department has cited publicly available data generated by defense platforms, personal devices and online activities as a growing threat that requires continual caution, the GAO reported on Monday.

“Massive amounts of traceable data about military personnel and operations now exist due to the digital revolution,” according to the report.

“When aggregated, these ‘digital footprints’ can threaten military personnel and their families, operations and, ultimately, national security.”

Such information could enable “malicious actors” to trace the movements of ships and aircraft and otherwise endanger military operations, according to Military Times.

The GAO report says 10 Defense Department components are vulnerable to security lapses that create “volumes of traceable data.”

The vulnerability is especially prevalent for training and security assessment within the U.S. Cyber Command, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, U.S.Special Operations Command and every U.S. military branch, according to the GAO.

Only the U.S. Special Operations Command has consistently trained its personnel to minimize the risks created by digital information, the report says.

Most Defense Department agencies and offices also fail to undertake threat assessments targeting force protection, insider threats, mission assurance and operations security.

The GAO said information provided via press releases, news sources, online activities, social media posts and ship coordinates might be capable of telegraphing the routes of ships and aircraft and jeopardize their respective operations.

Only three of five offices within the Defense Department have issued policies or provided guidance to minimize the risks of digital information, but even those efforts are “narrowly focused” and insufficient, the GAO said.

The GAO report echoes concerns raised by federal lawmakers after a Signal app discussion of a pending military strike on Houthi targets on March 15 accidentally included The Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg.

No one really expects to be defrauded by someone dressed like an army officer.  Ikanyi Stephen certainly didn’t. But last year, at his small point-of-sale (POS) stand in Nyanya Park, Abuja, in North Central Nigeria, a man in military uniform approached him, seemingly with an innocent intention of withdrawing cash. Unknown to Stephen, the uniformed customer had foul play.

“He wanted ₦300,000,” Stephen recalled. “And the day he came, there were two other customers. My [sales assistant] was trying to attend to him,  and since I was with another customer, I couldn’t monitor them. Some customers like to hold the device to see if their transaction is successful, and that’s what I assumed the officer was doing. He slotted his card, entered his PIN, and after returning the machine to her, he urged her to hurry and give him his money so he could leave quickly.”

Stephen initially thought the man was simply in a rush, perhaps due to official duties. But it was only after he had left that the POS agent realised the real reason for his hurried departure. “I checked the transactions, but noticed nothing had come through. He had put the wrong PIN and hadn’t paid one naira, but by the time I noticed, I could not trace where he had gone,” he said. 

The incident cost Stephen more than he could have imagined — a quick trick pulled off by someone who knew how to exploit trust. Though the deceit seemed simple, many POS agents in Nigeria are increasingly falling victim to similar digital scams. 

The POS agent crisis

While scammers have long targeted these agents, the issue became more widespread with the rapid growth of the POS business in early 2023. That was the year the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) implemented a cashless policy, which limited the amount of cash that individuals and corporate bodies could withdraw at a time. As the queues in the banking halls grew and ATMs quickly emptied, millions turned to their neighbourhood POS agents for transactions.

By the end of that year, the Nigerian Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS) reported that POS transactions had reached record heights, with a 27.85 per cent increase from 2022 and approximately ₦10.73 trillion transacted. The transactions have continued to rise since then, and as of 2025, NIBSS reported that  POS transfers reached a record-breaking ₦10.75 trillion in the first quarter of the year.

There are thousands of POS agents per square kilometre in the country, who process approximately ₦4.87 billion per hour. These agents are responsible for essential financial services, especially in rural areas where banks are scarce. The POS business provides steady, flexible employment that doesn’t require workers to possess intricate skills.

As favourable as the line of work is to the country, however, fraud, like what Stephen encountered, taints the endeavour. Although what happened to him appears straightforward, more sophisticated means of defrauding POS agents have raised growing concerns among the community, all of which is spurred on by the growing digital age.

Sunday Ohoji, an investigator at the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), told HumAngle that far more digital POS scams have occurred in recent years than physical thefts. “The increase in digital trends and information technology has led to an increase in the vices attached to them. POS scams are one such vice,” he said.

A common scam related to POS transactions is reversal fraud. In this scheme, a POS agent receives a transfer via a card or phone transaction. However, the money that initially appears to be deposited in their account is later reversed, leading to a bounce-back of the funds hours after the customer has left. Several agents believe there are malicious intentions behind these reversals. For instance, a union of POS agents at Jabi Park in Abuja recently warned over 100 of its members to stop permitting phone transactions, as this method is suspected to be the most common way for scams to occur, according to a member of the union.

Fake alerts

Yunusa Adamu, a member of the union, explained the reason for their suspicion after a personal experience left him wary.

“I was sitting at my POS machine, three or four people just came to me, wearing good clothes that would make you think they are reasonable people, even though they aren’t. One of them said he needed about ₦30,000 and asked me to transfer it to him so he could receive the cash. It didn’t go through, so his friend quickly stepped in and did the transfer,” he recounted.

“Without even pressing my phone too much, I received an alert stating that the money had entered my account, but it was a fake alert. The men quickly said they wanted ₦20,000 of their money to go and buy something, but that they would come back for the rest. When they left, I checked my bank account and realised the money had never actually entered, as the alert had reversed. I sat there till evening, but the men never returned.”

Yunusa said he had no clue how such a scam was possible. He now knows better, especially after another agent, Munkaila Mohammed, spoke bitterly of a similar experience.

“My daughter, Aminatu, gave ₦120,000 to one customer who had made a digital transfer. As he got his money, the man rushed away. Later, when we checked her transactions, we saw that the money had reversed. Till today, nobody knows how scammers are doing it, but we know it’s not a mistake or network error,” Munkaila narrated.

Munkaila was right in his detection of foul play. The rise of digital hacking has led to scammers creating complex systems to defraud unsuspecting POS agents. 

After years of working as an ICPC’s investigations official, Sunday Ohoji has the mechanics of this scheme laid out: “The people who do these scams already have a cloned system that makes it look like they are actually sending money out to the agents,” he explained.

“So what happens is that they give the agent their card to do a transaction, and because the platform the POS operates on  is also internet based, it’s very, very easy for the scammers to reroute whatever transaction they do on that account and card to a dummy account, which automatically generates an alert sent to the POS agent as if a transaction has occurred, but it is not actually tied to the financial system.”

Many customers don’t wait to take such a complicated route. Some swindlers quickly cancel their PIN to avoid paying; others hold the machine and lower the initial cost inputted by the operators. One POS agent, Alice Omenene, recounted how a customer attempted to pay only 1 per cent of what he had promised through this nefarious method.

“One time, one man requested ₦40,000, and I put that price for him in my POS. But little did I know he secretly changed the amount to ₦400 when he got hold of the machine,” she said. “I’ve been defrauded in the past, but this time I caught him. All he kept saying was, ‘I’m a Muslim, I can’t cheat you,’ but I didn’t hear that one. How would I let him go with my money?”

The cost of scams

The cases of POS fraud continue, with a 31.12 per cent increase in 2024, according to the Report of Fraud and Forgeries in Nigerian Banks. However, this problem doesn’t just appear negative on paper. POS agents typically bear the long-term consequences of one-time thefts.

“When I lost ₦300,000, I was so depressed during that period,” said Stephen, “I really planned the money for something special, but when the theft happened, I was stuck. I tried to go through diabolical means to get it back, but I couldn’t dare to do that.”

The negative effects reach beyond just one person. Many of these agents either work for others or buy back the cash they can no longer track, leading to a ripple effect where the consequences of the theft impact other relationships and businesses.

Somalia Nwadiugwu, whose mother was swindled out of ₦30,000 with a fake alert, told HumAngle that the loss impacted their supplier, the one who had given them the cash. “We needed that money to meet up with payments, budgets, and stuff. The man who sold my mum cash needed some of his profit. It’s just because he was nice that he gave us time to pay it back, but he complained that he also had children to feed, and this was seriously limiting him.”

No way out?

Despite the extensive challenges they face, many POS agents are reluctant to pursue other employment opportunities, claiming that no alternative jobs are available to them. With a striking 86 per cent of Nigeria’s working population engaging in self-employment and non-paid jobs, according to the Nigerian Economic Summit Group, it is evident that the lack of formal job opportunities is a significant issue for many individuals in the country.

David Aliyu*, a POS agent at Kabusa, who regularly loses between ₦5,000 and ₦10,000, sees no viable way to leave the business that has caused him so much financial loss. “No man can stay without doing something,” he told HumAngle. “That’s why some people keep on pushing with this business the way it is. In any business, there is loss, even Dangote [referring to the richest Black man] loses daily, more than POS people, I’m sure.”

Alice expressed a similar sentiment, saying, “This is where I’ve found myself, and it’s all that God has given me to do. Every morning, I pray not to fall for any 419 scam and that no scammer will see me. In this POS business, it’s not about being too wise; this scamming thing is an experience. You bring your head down, calm down, and pray.”

Prayer appears to be a common form of self-protection among those who have been scammed, as many POS agents refuse to seek external help, not trusting the Nigerian system to provide them with adequate assistance. 

When Stephen lost ₦300,000, it seemed natural that his next course of action would be to seek official intervention, but when he tallied the cost of processing it, he decided it was wiser to keep the matter to himself.

“If you have a loss and you want to seek help from the court, they’ll ask you to provide an affidavit. And sometimes, in processing the case, you spend more money. With those two things, you’ll still be spending more money than you lost. So the money you spend on getting help, along with the time lost trying to get that help, is almost equivalent to what you lost. So you just let it go,” he said.

Some members don’t even get to court. The cost of travelling to get help often halts them in their search for aid. Charity Eze*, a POS agent in Kabusa, who lost ₦50,000 after a customer changed the price on her POS from ₦55,000 to ₦ 5,000, explains why she had to make the painful decision to let it go. 

“We didn’t go to court, but because we had the customer’s name, my boss went to the bank. They froze his account and then told my boss he needed to come back again, but the banks are far from us, and the cost of transport is now high. When he calculated everything, he knew he would be at a loss. My boss let it go, but if not for the fact that he was a nice man, I would have had my salary taken away for God knows how long.”

Even without the cost of transport, legal justice still incurs a fee. The Virtual Affidavit Registration System (VARS) allows people to print various Affidavits online. It prices the affidavit of Loss of Documents/Items at ₦5,245. 

This is without going through any other court processes or the issue of extortion with the affidavit system that many complain about. Whether in person or online, expenditures rise higher than many of the losses POS personnel face at once. While some, like Stephen, are unfortunate enough to lose ₦300,000 at a time, most of the POS agents reported petty thefts, ranging from ₦2,000 to ₦10,000. 

While these smaller scams may seem inconsequential enough to let go, over time, these thefts add up, and without proper aid, POS agents may lose more than what they expected, crippling their business in the long run. 

The expensive solution

Ohoji, the ICPC investigator, sees a better way out, saying: “You can report to the police, you can report to the ICPC, you can report to the EFCC, all for free.  A few agents have come forward with genuine reports, and more are expected to follow, as the government is there to support them.

“The government doesn’t just want to help them, but the whole nation, because if they do not handle it immediately, it might become cancerous to the system tomorrow. Therefore, they should address the issue now. So, at every point in time, they should report. When they report, something will be done, even if it’s slow, something will be done,” he said.

He advised POS agents to upgrade their machines to detect cards that are not registered in the financial system. 

“It will go a long way to help curb the issue, because the truth is this: if someone comes and gives you a fake POS transaction and says they’re in a hurry to go, you wouldn’t have time to start checking if it’s genuine, but with an automatic detector, there will be no need to check manually.”

This is a simple solution in theory. In practice, however, few POS agents can afford to upgrade their machines due to their limited earnings. Many of them have reported that on a good day, they make up to ₦5,000, but these occasions are rare. More often than not, they typically make no more than ₦2,000 daily.

One of them, Charity, claimed that sometimes she sits down in the sweltering heat all day and earns only ₦500 for her efforts.

With an average profit of  ₦60,000 monthly, where the market cost of a single POS terminal is  ₦21,500, based on prices gotten from Moniepoint Microfinance Bank, a prominent POS terminal provider, as well as the added expense of buying the cash that will eventually be sold, squeezing in the cost of improvements may not be a viable option for many. 

For now, survival in the minds of many POS agents is a matter of caution and faith, and that seems to be enough for them. With around three million POS terminals existing in Nigeria as of 2024, according to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and many more popping up daily, it is clear that most POS agents remain unshaken in the face of mounting insecurity. 

*Names marked with an asterisk have been changed to protect the identities of sources. 

In a remote and silent region, thousands of innocent lives have been lost for the sake of a country’s interests. The silence of Sudan has become a global tragedy, with more than 60,000 people killed and more than 11 million displaced. Yet the world seems silent and mute, as if they are ‘invisible.’

Is empathy for a life that is not recognized by digital algorithms so low?

This question seems to haunt me every time I open social media. I see many people around me who do not even know what is happening in Sudan. Their social media timelines never show any news or posts about it, as if nothing is happening. In fact, thousands of lives are lost there every day. This shows that digital empathy is highly controlled by algorithms on social media, which determine what should be visible and what should be left to sink into silence.

During a class discussion a few days ago, I realized that to attract empathy from the digital community, conflicts and global issues are influenced by hashtags used by prominent figures on social media. When they raise the issue of Gaza, the whole world will talk about it, so that issues that are invisible to them, such as Sudan, will never be seen by algorithms and will have an impact on the digital empathy of the community.

In her study, Zeynep Tufekci (2017) states that social media algorithms create filter bubbles, where users are exposed to information that confirms their views, while alternative views are ignored. This further shows that digital empathy is highly controlled by algorithms on social media. Thus, when information does not align with the algorithms and their behavior on social media, it is ignored. In other words, the digital world creates inequality in the space of empathy, where certain issues, such as Sudan, which are not included in social media algorithms, will remain buried and forgotten because they do not meet the logic of virality.

This phenomenon not only reveals the weakness of digital empathy but also how it shapes the hierarchy of humanity in the digital space. Safiya Umoja Noble (2018), in The Algorithm of Oppression, argues that social media algorithms are not neutral but refer to the interests within them. Social media search engines prioritize certain issues and promote websites that lead to a set of biased algorithms, ignoring issues that should be of global concern. As a result, a hierarchy of global empathy towards certain issues is formed, whereby issues that do not align with economic or political interests, such as Sudan, will never gain traction in the global arena.

The impact of this algorithmic bias is very real. The conflict in Sudan is an extreme example of the existence of a ‘Digital Empathy Hierarchy’ where only issues that receive a lot of response are considered important, while issues that do not receive much response and global attention are easily ignored. Hashtags such as #AllEyesOnRafah managed to capture the world’s attention, while hashtags such as #Sudan and #Sudanese only received brief attention and then disappeared into silence. In fact, the suffering in Sudan is no less tragic than what is being widely discussed, but the public seems to turn a blind eye, creating injustice in the digital space and allowing empathy to be controlled by invisible algorithms.

The agenda-setting theory states that the media can shape public opinion by determining which issues receive the most attention. It has been widely studied and applied to various forms of media, which easily gain global attention and are considered important by the international community. However, when issues in Sudan are not reported, people consider them unimportant, and the media agenda for Sudan is low, resulting in a low public agenda for Sudanese issues.

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (1993) states that moral distance causes people to lack a sense of responsibility to care about the suffering of others who are geographically and symbolically distant from them. This moral distance creates digital inequality because algorithms are increasingly widening, making it easy to dismiss information that does not attract mass attention. This imbalance in empathy and morality reflects the worsening humanitarian reality in Sudan. According to the OCHA report (2025), Sudan is facing the worst crisis in its history, with 30.4 million people, more than half of Sudan’s population, in dire need of humanitarian aid. Of that number, 16 million are children who are Sudan’s future generation. However, despite the large number of victims, Sudan remains invisible and neglected by a world that seems to prefer to remain silent.

Data from DataReportal (2025) shows that Sudan had 3.68 million social media users in January 2025, equivalent to 7.2 percent of the total population. Digital access in Sudan is indeed open and increasing, but the volume of discussion about Sudan is very small and even inaudible. This further proves that there is a paradox in the digital world, where the more connected humans are, the more disconnected they become from real empathy. This humanitarian crisis requires a response and support from the global media, but as long as everything is determined by algorithmic biases that are considered uninteresting to gain global attention and international support, then hundreds of lives lost and the suffering of the Sudanese people will be lost in silence and invisibility.

If issues that are considered important are only viewed in terms of their magnitude and depend on digital hierarchy algorithms, then humanity’s morals are declining. International organizations controlled by countries with political interests are increasingly eager to create narratives that seem to say that an issue is considered unimportant because it does not benefit them. This pattern slows down the response of international organizations in addressing issues due to digital inequality that creates a hierarchy that will continue to exist, leaving those who are suffering further behind and forgotten.

Many Sudanese people are waiting for hope and support from the global community, but they seem indifferent and uncaring towards the suffering experienced by Sudan. Even in classroom learning, issues that are not widely discussed on social media are often not discussed, and this is very much at odds with the sense of humanity that should be fundamental to international relations students.

As an international relations student, I understand that in this world, everything is determined by interests, power, and algorithms that appear in digital media. Conflicts that are ‘uninteresting’ in the digital space become irrelevant to those with political interests. However, we have a responsibility to eliminate this inequality and moral decline. If social media cannot create algorithms to raise these issues, then we must be the ones to take the lead in continuing to voice these issues in public until the world realizes that there are important issues that must be raised.

Because in truth, Sudan is not invisible, but we are the ones who choose not to see it.

Jessilou Morigo-Tanguilan of Plan International Philippines explains how Typhoon Fung-wong has affected millions of people in the Philippines, leaving behind a path of destruction.

Destin Conrad didn’t expect to release a jazz project so early in his career — let alone just a few months after dropping his debut album, “Love on Digital.”

The 25-year-old singer-songwriter, who first made millions of people laugh on Vine when he was a preteen, entered the music industry as a fresh-faced R&B artist, following in the footsteps of the artists he grew up listening to such as Brandy, Musiq Soulchild and Usher. His first official EP “Colorway” (2021) and the slew of bite-size projects that followed were melodic and honest meditations on love, lust, queer identity and simply having a good time.

But during the summer, Conrad found himself gravitating to jazz, the genre he was introduced to in high school when he was enrolled in jazz choir. He was inspired by all of the greats and contemporary work by artists like Vanisha Gould, and decided that it was time for a slight departure in his own sound.

“I feel like it’s always kind of been in me,” Conrad says over Zoom during an off day from his second headlining tour in support of “Love on Digital.” “It’s always been a tool that I never really got to exercise that I knew I really wanted to.”

After a two-week whirlwind in L.A. filled with studio sessions with some of his bucket list collaborators like Gould, trumpeter Keyon Harrold and beloved L.A. saxophonist Terrace Martin, Conrad unveiled “Whimsy,” an 11-track alternative jazz detour. Rich with songwriting tinged with sensual winks, live instrumentation (piano, horn section and drums) and a spoken word interlude by Bay Davis (that is reminiscent of Meshell Ndegeocello), “Whimsy” is a masterclass in following your own intuition and creating freely — a testament to his Cancer sun.

“I think it’s some of my best work actually,” Conrad says, adding that it was the most fun to make, which is evident on tracks like “Whip,” a cheeky double entendre about trading places in the bedroom and “A Lonely Detective,” which explores the life of a man living a double life. “Things that I’ve spent more time on, I don’t feel as connected to, but I really love “Whimsy.”

Conrad, who performs at the Wiltern on Nov. 14, phoned in the day before Grammy nominations were announced to talk about why he was nervous to release “Whimsy,” why he thinks jazz deserves more attention and what he’s still learning about being an artist in the digital age. Little did he know that by the next morning, he’d receive his first solo Grammy nod for progressive R&B album.

Now that your debut album, “Love on Digital,” has been in the world for a few months and you’ve experienced fans singing it back to you at shows, how does it feel to look back on the journey of releasing it?

It’s been amazing. I think it’s made me look forward to putting more music out. I feel like this tour taught me a lot. While making this album, I had touring in the back of my mind, so I’m really excited that it’s being received well. Also, it’s kind of wild that I put out another project a [few] months later but I’m glad I have such cool fans that receive me in a good way.

Speaking of that, you turned around and released “Whimsy” in August. Can you talk about how that all came together and how your single “Wash U Away” inspired it?

I made the majority of it in a two-week span. “Wash U Away” and “Whip” I had, but they weren’t jazz songs. So I had “Wash U Away” in the tuck for years — I think I made it in like 2021 — but we had it replayed by actual musicians because before, it was just a very bare beat. Then the rest of it I made within those two weeks. I also had “The W” with James Fauntleroy and Joyce Wrice already, but same thing — it wasn’t a jazz song. I knew I wanted to make a jazz album. I didn’t know I was going to do it so soon after my debut album, but I was kind of on a wild one and was like “Why not?” But I’m really glad I did it because I feel like my fans really like that album and I really like that album as well. I think it’s some of my best work actually. Things that I spent more time on, I don’t feel as connected to but it’s something that I’m really proud of.

Take me back to those two weeks in L.A. when you starting working on this project. Was it summer time?

It was summertime, yeah. I live in Brooklyn now, so I was like “I’m going to fly to L.A. and stay there for two weeks to knock this project out.” I told my managers, “Get me in with everybody. Here’s my list of people I want to work with. Let’s figure it out.” We flew out Vanisha Gould, who’s one of my favorite jazz musicians. I was so ecstatic that she was down. She’s such a jazz head. She was kind of like “What the f— am I doing? Are they going to kidnap me? I’m just flying out here to work with this random ass R&B singer.” But I’m so glad she came and we low-key became besties. Same with Terrace Martin. I’ve been a fan forever. He’s the G.O.A.T. James [Fauntleroy]. All these people who I was very adamant about working with. And eventually I want to do another jazz [project]. Maybe a “Whimsy 2” and just keep that world alive because I feel like jazz is such a special genre that gets overlooked and it’s something that I really feel passionate about. Especially because I was in jazz choir in high school and it kind of taught me more about soul music and the origins and how there’s so many synchronicities within other genres like gospel, and how R&B and all of them just tie into each other. I think it’s just really cool.

What was going on in your world when you started making “Whimsy?” Were you listening to a lot of jazz at the time?

Yeah, I was listening to a lot of jazz music. I was listening to a lot of Vanisha Gould and I was like, “I need to do this jazz album.” I thought I was just going to start it and be like “I’m not done.” But I was like “No, I’m done. This is it. This is what I have to say.” But yeah, I always listen to jazz. As I said, I was in jazz choir in high school. My jazz instructor Mr. O put me onto hella jazz. He showed me Frank Sinatra and all these jazz standards. I have videos that I’ll eventually show the world of me performing at my jazz Christmas show. I feel like it’s always been within me. It’s always been a tool that I never really got to exercise but I knew I really wanted to. But like I said, I didn’t know I’d make it in two weeks and that it’d be such a quick thing. It was so fun to make. It’s probably one of the most fun projects I’ve made.

You can definitely hear how much fun you were having on tracks like “Boredom” and “Lonely Detective.” I feel like jazz was once viewed as a genre that older people listened to, but that’s been changing within the last few years. It feels like it’s becoming more popular with younger audiences. What do you think about this?

Personally, I don’t think it’s becoming more popular. I would love to be part of some sort of push of making it more of a thing and I feel like a lot of my fans are younger. I’d like to say in my head that I’m helping push the genre forward.

It’s just not super prominent. There’s not a lot of new jazz artists. If you look at the jazz charts, a lot of what’s still charting is like Frank Sinatra [and] Miles Davis. Laufey is one of the newer faces of jazz that I feel like is pushing it aside from like Robert Glasper. But I don’t know. I feel like a lot of the jazz even that I listen to is the older stuff. There’s a very select few of newer jazz artists that I’m like “Yes.” Like Vanisha Gould, a perfect example. I’m obsessed with her. I think she’s one of the most talented musicians that I know, period.

How did you feel about dropping “Whimsy”? Were you nervous about how people would receive it?

Umm I thought about it [but] what I really thought about were the jazz heads. I thought the real, super crazy into jazz people were gonna be like, “This s— ain’t f— jazz” because I do consider it an alternative jazz album. I remember talking to Terrace [Martin] about that because he’s a jazz head and he’s also older than me and he’s been in it for longer. I was telling him [that] I feel like people are going to have s— to say about it because it’s not traditional and I’m not a trained musician. I don’t know how to read music. I just go with my [gut], and he was like, “That’s why it’s so fire. That’s what makes people feel it.” He was like, “I can tell that you’re young and when I listen to this, I hear a 25-year-old,” and I’m like, “Tight.”

You’ve essentially grown up online and in the public eye. How has that evolution shaped the way you see yourself as an artist, and what have you learned about navigating visibility over the years?”

I feel like it’s an advantage. I always talk about that especially with my artist homies. I was an internet baby so I kind of have just a slight advantage because I knew really early how it worked. I feel like I’m still learning how to promote my music because I know how to get on the internet and be an idiot all day. I can do that literally in my sleep, but being an idiot who knows how to promote his music is different. [laughs] So yeah, I’m still learning that. I used to think it harmed me because I was so scared that people wouldn’t take my music seriously. But no, I use it to my advantage for sure.

We’re at a time in music where it’s common for artists to be open and proud about their identity and sexuality without feeling like they need to use coded language. I think of artists like Frank Ocean, Steve Lacy and Durand Bernarr. Can you talk about why talking about your queerness is important to you?

I feel like I’m a pretty honest person in general. I try not to lie and I feel like all I can do really is just keep it a bean. Most of the time, I try to write about my personal experiences and I deal with men, so that’s just my truth [laughs]. I do also write from other perspectives like things that my friends or my homegirls tell me. I don’t always write from my point of view, but when I do, it’s about a man and that’s all I can really do.

This article discusses the important issues underlying the #MeToo movement that has spread across the globe. On the one hand, the #MeToo movement has succeeded in gaining cross-border support for victims of sexual harassment, so that victims do not feel alone and have the courage to speak out. However, the #MeToo movement has not yet fully succeeded in reaching all groups. This article will explore why this massive online campaign has not truly reached those who need it most: victims without internet access, without digital devices, or who are technologically illiterate. As a result, they remain unable to voice their experiences of abuse and receive the support they need.

The #MeToo movement has indeed succeeded in changing the way we view, understand, and even produce new regulations in many countries.  This demonstrates the power of the internet.  However, the reality is that millions of victims living in villages, remote areas, or from poor families still feel alone. This is why this article will discuss the three main obstacles that have prevented #MeToo from being fully successful: limited digital access, inequality in technological capabilities and security, and weak direct activism in the field.

In my opinion, #MeToo is still far from successful. Success in changing laws has not been followed by success in helping those with proven limitations.  These three main reasons will be discussed in more detail in this article. #MeToo was initially successful because it spread quickly on the internet.  Platforms such as Twitter can connect people from all over the world. That’s amazing! However, this initial success mainly occurred in developed countries that have cheap and fast internet. This means that the movement reached more wealthy, educated people living in big cities. This shows that the movement was biased from the start because it only focused on issues faced by internet-savvy people. This was also evident when #MeToo, which had been around since 2006, only went viral and spread worldwide when Hollywood actresses started using #MeToo on social media in 2017.

Access barriers directly undermine the success of #MeToo. The movement fails to reach all those affected by abuse who live in villages, in conflict areas, and those who are technologically illiterate and lack financial resources. It is not only these disparities that set them apart, but also the lack of support and justice that is part of this difference.  Victims without a signal, without a cell phone, or without data do not have the tools to know their rights. This situation is a very common problem for many people.

This failure results in “solidarity poverty.” According to a study by Amalia, A. R., Raodah, P., & Wardani, N. K. (2024), “In low- and middle-income countries, 300 million fewer women than men use mobile internet.” This shows that the issue of access is not only a geographical problem but also an economic and gender issue.  Because they lack the ability to speak out, the #MeToo movement does not truly represent all victims, but only those who have the privilege of being connected.

In addition, there is also a gap in digital literacy and security that will become a second barrier preventing victims from successfully participating in the #MeToo movement. Victims who are technologically illiterate do not know how to use social media safely and anonymously. Furthermore, they lack knowledge about how to store digital evidence so that it is not lost. They do not understand privacy regulations, the dangers of doxing (spreading personal data), or cyber attacks. This ignorance causes them to fear speaking out even more than they fear the perpetrators.

In many countries, this issue is made more difficult by the threat of retaliation through legislation (e.g., defamation laws/cybercrime laws) that can be used against victims and lead to revictimization (ICJ, 2023). When victims speak without legal representation or digital literacy, they risk being perceived as lying. Victims in large cities have better digital safety nets than those in remote areas. This is why “Solidarity with Quotas” emerged. Only those who are digitally literate and financially secure can speak up, while others remain silent out of fear.

Due to these limitations, the #MeToo movement around the world has been dominated by issues occurring in large offices, elite campuses, or among public figures.  In line with the criticism expressed by PUSAD Paramadina, the #MeToo movement in Indonesia is considered to have not yet reached a wider audience, as the discussion is still limited to those who are literate in social media and come from the middle to upper classes (Kartika, 2019). This criticism is not only relevant in Indonesia, but also in many other countries.

However, the problems with the #MeToo movement are not limited to the internet.  The failure of activism to change offline behavior is also a weakness. Solidarity on the internet can indeed raise donations and spread information, but it often fails to translate this momentum into equitable direct assistance.  The digital resources and extraordinary public attention received by this movement have not been wisely allocated to the areas most in need. This shows that digital activism often focuses only on the most popular topics but has no real impact on the most vulnerable victims.

Despite the large number of new laws passed as a result of #MeToo, integrated service centers, shelters, and legal services are still concentrated in capital cities or large cities.  Victims who are not within reach of these services must face significant distances and costs to obtain justice. This situation shows that inequality in access to protection is still deeply rooted.  This is in line with research published by Jurnal Perempuan (2024), which states that Online Gender-Based Violence (KBGO) is not an anomaly, but a continuation of gender-based violence that has been entrenched for centuries in patriarchal systems. Therefore, gender inequality will only persist in the real world if the struggle is only carried out in the online realm and is not balanced with the provision of real services for victims.

Three major issues hindering the success of the #MeToo movement are limited access, limited digital capabilities, and a lack of direct participation in the field. This shows that a digital struggle without real interaction risks losing sight of its main goal: justice for all victims, not just those connected to the virtual world.

The world has been changed by the #MeToo movement. However, the world it has changed is one that is connected to the internet.  Millions of other women continue to struggle in silence, in places where there is no signal and no courage.  Meanwhile, some people still cannot access it. This movement has raised awareness around the world, but there are still people who are left behind, hindered by digital poverty and the gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not.  Digital justice should not be limited to viral hashtags or phone screens. In truth, solidarity is not just about thousands of posts or supportive comments. Rather, it comes from the courage to step into the real world, listen to those who are unheard, and ensure that protection is available for both those who can reach the network and those left behind. Because true justice does not require popularity to be seen, and true solidarity is measured by how far we collaborate with those who are most silent, not by how much we speak.