Intersectionality and Digital Marginalization
Digital exclusion rarely affects people along single dimensions. A low-income senior in rural Canada faces compounded barriers: limited broadband infrastructure, devices that assume visual acuity and manual dexterity, interfaces designed for digital natives, and services that have moved online without maintaining alternatives. An Indigenous youth may have connectivity but encounter platforms that erase Indigenous languages, moderate Indigenous content as "sensitive," and track movements in ways that echo historical surveillance of Indigenous peoples.
Intersectionality—the framework developed by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how systems of oppression overlap and compound—illuminates why digital marginalization cannot be addressed through single-issue solutions.
Understanding Compounded Barriers
Digital access involves multiple, interacting requirements: physical infrastructure (broadband, electricity), hardware (devices that work for one's needs), software and interfaces (designed accessibly), digital literacy (skills to navigate systems), cultural relevance (content and platforms that recognize one's identity), safety (freedom from surveillance, harassment, and exploitation), and economic access (affordability of all the above).
Marginalization along any single dimension creates barriers. Marginalization along multiple dimensions creates barriers that multiply rather than simply add.
Case Study: Disability and Poverty
People with disabilities in Canada face higher rates of poverty due to employment discrimination, inadequate income supports, and disability-related expenses not covered by public programs. Assistive technology that could enable digital access—specialized keyboards, screen readers, alternative input devices—often costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. Even when coverage exists, application processes are complex and waiting lists long.
A person who is both disabled and low-income faces not just accessibility barriers and affordability barriers but the interaction between them: unable to access disability supports because the application system is inaccessible, unable to afford technology that would make systems accessible, unable to work to earn money because inaccessible hiring systems screen them out.
Case Study: Immigration Status and Language
Newcomers to Canada often need digital access most urgently—to find housing, apply for jobs, access settlement services, and stay connected with family. Yet they may face language barriers on English- or French-dominant platforms, unfamiliarity with Canadian digital systems, limited credit history preventing device financing, and precarious housing making stable internet access difficult.
Temporary residents and undocumented people face additional barriers: fear that digital services may share information with immigration authorities, exclusion from services requiring permanent residency or citizenship, and platforms that assume stable addresses and status.
Case Study: Indigenous Communities
Many Indigenous communities face infrastructure deficits stemming from historical underfunding and ongoing jurisdictional disputes. But infrastructure is only part of the picture. Indigenous people also face platforms that suppress Indigenous content, AI systems that perform poorly on Indigenous languages, digital identity systems that don't accommodate Indigenous naming practices, and the extension of colonial surveillance into digital spaces.
Digital solutions developed without Indigenous input may replicate colonial assumptions, treating Indigenous communities as subjects to be served rather than partners in design.
Why Single-Issue Approaches Fall Short
Policies designed to address one barrier may fail people facing multiple barriers—or may even worsen their situation.
A digital literacy program targeting seniors may be inaccessible to seniors with disabilities. An accessibility initiative may not reach people who cannot afford devices in the first place. Affordable internet programs may require documentation that undocumented people cannot provide. Rural broadband expansion may not help people who cannot afford the devices to use it.
When programs are designed for the "typical" member of a marginalized group, people at the intersections fall through the cracks. The low-income senior who is also Indigenous and living with a disability is not served by programs designed for "seniors" or "Indigenous people" or "people with disabilities" or "low-income Canadians" as separate categories.
Designing for Intersectionality
Addressing intersectional digital marginalization requires approaches that:
Start from the margins: Rather than designing for typical users and adding accommodations, start with people facing the most barriers. Systems that work for people with complex, intersecting needs will work for everyone.
Involve affected communities: People experiencing intersectional marginalization understand their barriers better than outside experts. Meaningful involvement goes beyond consultation to shared decision-making power.
Address root causes: Digital marginalization often reflects broader marginalization. Addressing digital barriers without addressing poverty, discrimination, and systemic exclusion provides only partial solutions.
Ensure program accessibility: Programs designed to reduce barriers should not themselves create barriers. Application processes, eligibility requirements, and service delivery must be accessible to people facing multiple forms of marginalization.
Collect disaggregated data: Understanding intersectional impacts requires data that can be analyzed across multiple dimensions. Aggregate statistics may hide disparities affecting people at intersections.
Perspectives and Tensions
Some argue that intersectional approaches complicate policy design and make programs harder to administer. Simpler, single-focus programs may be easier to implement and evaluate, even if they don't reach everyone.
Others counter that programs failing to reach the most marginalized people are not actually succeeding, and that apparent simplicity often means shifting complexity onto those least able to navigate it.
There are also debates about resource allocation. Limited budgets mean tradeoffs. Should resources go to programs reaching the largest numbers, or to programs reaching those facing the greatest barriers? Intersectional approaches may cost more per person served while serving people with the greatest need.
The Question
If digital exclusion compounds along multiple dimensions—income, disability, age, geography, race, immigration status, language—then single-issue digital inclusion programs will systematically miss those facing the greatest barriers. How can digital inclusion policies be redesigned to address intersecting forms of marginalization? What would it mean to center people at the margins in digital policy design? And how should limited resources be allocated between programs reaching large numbers and programs reaching those most excluded?