hierarchy

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.