How is witnessing changing in relation to new technologies?

The digitisation of witnessing marks a pivotal transformation in societal engagement with global phenomena, necessitating a reevaluation of traditional frameworks in authenticity, representation, and ethics within the digital milieu. This essay delves into the ramifications of technological advancements on witnessing practices, advocating for an updated theoretical approach to address the complexities of the contemporary era.

Witnessing in the digital age is characterised by heightened emotional responses to human suffering, critical media scrutiny, sociopolitical accountability, and varying degrees of engagement (Kyriakidou, 2014). Technologies redefine witnessing dynamics through mechanisms like repetitive playback and uncontrolled dissemination, blurring the lines between witnesses and spectators (Mortensen, 2015). Concepts such as “mediated witnessing” (Frosh & Pinchevsky, 2014) and “connective witnessing” (Mortensen, 2015) reflect the dual nature of technology in democratising witnessing and complicating narrative coherence and truth construction.

The essay critically examines the destabilisation of traditional witnessing roles, enabling fluid transitions between eyewitnesses, subjects, and audiences (Mortensen, 2015). It addresses the representational challenges posed by the disproportionate growth of recording capabilities against recognition, creating disparities in visibility and interpretative dominance (McPherson, 2022). Despite narrowing geographical distances, digital witnessing often fails to transcend spectatorship boundaries, limiting direct intervention (Gregory, 2015; Mortensen, 2015). Additionally, the professionalisation of video activism prompts scrutiny over the balance between policy goals and public engagement (Ristovska, 2016).

Structured into sections on "Theorising Witnessing," "Epistemologies of Witnessing," and "Ethics of Witnessing," the analysis explores significant shifts in witnessing paradigms, debates on digital witnessing risks, and ethical considerations for harm prevention and inclusive perspective acknowledgment. The discussion underscores the nuanced impact of digital technologies on knowledge creation and meaning, highlighting the imperative to navigate the evolving challenges of representation, credibility, and ethics in digital contexts.

Theorising Witnessing

The conceptualisation of witnessing in the digital age signifies a significant shift from passive observation to active, participatory engagement, as facilitated by digital media platforms. This transformation blurs the traditional boundaries between witnesses and audiences, enabling a form of witnessing that is both more inclusive and fragmented. While "mediated witnessing" (Frosh & Pinchevsky, 2014) and "connective witnessing" (Mortensen, 2015) have emerged as key concepts, the discussion revolves around the dual nature of digital technologies. On one hand, they democratise witnessing by allowing individuals to share experiences widely, amplifying marginalised voices. On the other hand, the proliferation of digital witnessing raises concerns about narrative saturation, competition for attention, and the impact on truth and reality construction. This argument posits that digital technologies have fundamentally reshaped the theory of witnessing, balancing democratisation and potential narrative complexities. 

This transition constitutes the crux of the essay’s overarching thesis underscoring the imperative to reimagine traditional witnessing frameworks for 21st century challenges. The following analysis closely examines cardinal issues and contentions underlying seminal shifts in witnessing processes, categories and relationships within digitised environments.

(1) Democratized Documentation Complicates Boundaries

A pivotal metamorphosis concerns the radical destabilisation of conventional witnessing roles and delineations. Peters (2001) delineates elementary dichotomies – eyewitnesses actively testify while audiences passively observe; facts summon witnesses while fictions beckon audiences. However, digitisation engenders expansive practices of “connective witnessing” (Mortensen, 2015) – networked, collaborative documentation interlacing observation and dissemination.

This phenomenon profoundly unsettles traditional demarcations separating witnesses, subjects and audiences. Smart devices empower extensive populations to film events unfolding in real-time, transmitting chronicles to digitally interlinked others. Hence, observers toggle fluidly across witness and audience positionalities, their acts of seeing, saying and sharing converging via technology (Mortensen, 2015).

Indeed, the pervasive diffusion of recording apparatuses effectively converts “everyone into a potential witness” (Frosh & Pinchevsky, 2014). This omnipresent panopticon engenders acute attentiveness towards global incidents, engendering greater eventfulness within deeply digitised lifeworlds. People enter an age of “perpetual vigilance” (Frosh & Pinchevsky, 2014), habitually primed to observe and disseminate developments.

While Peters (2001) presents a clean bifurcation, Mortensen (2015) demonstrates how digitisation collapses this, facilitating fluid movement across previously discrete categories. However, in collating exponential documentation, connective witnessing risks unmanageable plurality without coherence. Moreover, while democratising participation, it fails to dismantle enduring hierarchies around visibility, interpretation and vulnerability, as discussed subsequently.

Nonetheless, the reconfiguration of witnessing as a dynamic, distributed communication practice transpires increasingly via technologies, texts and persons – profoundly unsettling conventional classifications. Rigid dichotomies dissolve as eyewitnesses, subjects, audiences and mediated publics manifest profoundly ambiguous interrelationships within emergent ecosystems. However, closer examination reveals fresh quandaries arising from this boundary confusion.

(2) Visibility, Voice and Vicarious Action

A pivotal contention emerges around how witnessing interlaces with uneven landscapes of visibility and attention digitally, impacting discursive voice and participation. Eyewitness chronicles wield extraordinary influence amidst instability, shaping collective memory and pivotal decisions during uncertainty (Mortensen, 2015). However, enhanced recording outpaces commensurate capabilities for exposure and acknowledgement, introducing disquieting representational implications.

McPherson (2022) notes how acknowledgement remains tied to platform hierarchies. Disadvantaged groups already struggle for visibility, while selective amplification risks commodifying traumatic events. Although marginalised activists may document abuse, institutions retain disproportionate dominance in determining which accounts actually gain traction. Visibility serves a paramount function in linking eyewitnesses with responsive publics, enabling persuasive iteration towards action. However, extant architectures distribute this unevenly.

Furthermore, exponential image proliferation lacks structures of meaning-making unlike traditional journalism (Farrell & Allan, 2015). Decontextualised disaster footage risks misconstrual and impaired evidentiary value (Kyriakidou, 2014). Additionally, while collapsing physical distance, live streaming may widen epistemological remoteness (Gregory, 2015).

Thus, despite expanding participation, entrenched asymmetries in visibility and interpretation amplify rather than dismantle. While harnessing connective witnessing to chronicle oppression, marginalised groups struggle to shape collective sense-making, lacking commensurate discursive clout. Technological democratisation fails to disrupt embedded sociocultural and institutional dominance around visibility, voice, vulnerability and meaning-making.

This accentuates the urgent need to reform traditional witnessing tenets, as the essay highlights. Contemporary intricacies demand upgraded frameworks attuned to tangled digitally-mediated relationships, particularly uneven attention distribution. Demystifying platform power, decoding visibility politics and fostering data literacies appear vital starting points towards meaningful recalibration.

However, potential limitations exist in the literature regarding activism on marginalised visibility. Kyriakidou (2014) cautions against over-focusing on institutional dominance without recognising activist tactics for manoeuvring visibility barriers. Combining strong structural perspectives from McPherson (2022) and Farrell & Allan (2015) with Kyriakidou’s (2014) attention to resistance strategies presents a more balanced view. Moreover, comparatively under-researched areas, such as eyewitness self-censorship in digital contexts, merit greater spotlight for a comprehensive picture.

(3) From Spectating to Disrupting – Mobilising Mediated Witnesses

Furthermore, while compressing distances between witnesses and audiences, digitisation propagates publics remaining predominantly voyeuristic – what Mortensen (2015) describes as “responsibility without agency”. Mediated spectators possess extensive awareness of distant suffering but negligible capacity for material response beyond observation and fleeting empathy.

Hence, proliferation fails to dissolve separations between seeing and acting capabilities. Audiences accumulate expansive voyeuristic cognizance of atrocities, yet remain fundamentally disempowered, only able to watch events unfolding on screens. Indeed, despite abolishing physical barriers, technology maintains proverbial “fourth walls” around spectatorship (Gregory, 2015). Restraint on intervention critiques assumptions about witness-audience boundary erosion – the latter’s core subject position persists relatively intact.

This indicates a noteworthy gap within existing frameworks – insufficient perspectives on converting exponential witnessing into activism and solidarity. As Peters (2001) observes, moral accountability appears most acute when one views suffering unfolding live concurrently through screens. However, inadequate templates exist guiding routines of passive spectating towards disrupting injustice.

An urgent priority remains developing infrastructures scaffolding screen observation into generating activist responses, building channels for digitally mediated witnesses’ intervention around issues they increasingly virtually access. This necessitates assessing how emergent interfaces, data analytics, task-routing applications and solidarity networking might equip observers to transcend voyeurism and exercise global citizenship duties.

Interdisciplinary perspectives probing how distant witnessing can encourage deeper civic participation beyond transient empathy towards enduring solidarities remain vital yet lacking. It is expected that further research explores how new technologies, platforms and vernaculars might nurture symbiotic seeing-acting relationships across distances. The emergent culture of global neighbourhoods requires appropriate scaffolds enabling audiences to transform from passive spectators into active disruptors confronting thoroughly visible distant suffering.

Peters (2001) and Mortensen (2015) begin discussions with notions of responsibility without agency, but do not substantially build upon this. Chouliaraki (2015) offers useful analysis on activism’s self-expressive turn, but in a generalised development context rather than witnessing. Integrating these viewpoints and extending focus specifically to digitally mediated witnessing represents an important knowledge gap with significant scope for theoretical innovation.

The exploration of enhancing co-presence through technology, with the aim of bridging empathy gaps and fostering activist engagements rather than merely diminishing physical distances while upholding emotional and political barriers, warrants significant academic attention. Furthermore, the development of hybrid frameworks and alliances that encourage the transformation of passive audiences into active participants represents a crucial area for investigation. These pivotal inquiries have yet to be thoroughly examined within the realm of witnessing scholarship, indicating a substantial opportunity for future research.

(4) Conclusion

In conclusion, this analysis aligns with the critical need to reevaluate traditional witnessing paradigms in light of technological advancements' transformative impact. The advent of digitisation and connective witnessing complicates previously clear-cut categories, relationships, and affordances, leading to intricate representational and civic landscapes. There is a noted lack of coherence in scholarship addressing these nuanced layers of pervasive yet disparate observation, expression, and engagement. It becomes imperative to scrutinise the congruences and discrepancies that emerge at the intersection of digitisation, offering both unprecedented opportunities and challenges for updating witnessing paradigms. Despite the hurdles, the democratisation enabled by digital technologies presents remarkable opportunities for overcoming outdated dichotomies between witnesses, narratives, and audiences, urging a comprehensive, nuanced exploration of technology's dualistic impact on witnessing. This reevaluation, coupled with ethical innovation, holds the promise of unparalleled empowerment, inviting a collective reimagining of the futures of witnessing.

Epistemologies of Witnessing

The advent of digital witnessing precipitates a profound epistemological crisis, challenging traditional hierarchies of knowledge and authority in the documentation and dissemination of events. This argument contends that digital platforms disrupt conventional epistemic foundations by democratising the production and dissemination of knowledge, thus engendering a struggle over witnessing in the digital realm. Engaging with Peters (2001) and considering the critique of "the seductions of quantification" by Merry (2016), it will be argued that the reliance on data witnessing, while enhancing possibilities for accountability, runs the risk of overshadowing the human dimension of suffering and injustice. In this context, the sheer volume of data and personal narratives available through digital platforms raises critical questions about verification, interpretation, and meaningful engagement, necessitating a reevaluation of how knowledge is produced, validated, and shared in the digital age. This digital transformation not only poses challenges related to dis/misinformation but also has far-reaching implications for societies' understanding and engagement with histories, crises, and current events. Thus, while the digital landscape offers unprecedented opportunities for visibility and advocacy, it concurrently demands the cultivation of new literacies and critical skills to navigate the complexities of digital epistemologies.

This analysis, informed by digitisation, explores four key areas: the growth of diverse perspectives, the balance of qualitative and quantitative insights, the credibility challenges within fragmented ecosystems, and the special strategic witnessing. It highlights debates on risks, trade-offs, and the development of literacy, emphasising the mixed effects on knowledge and meaning creation. The focus also includes unaddressed gaps and the need for an ethical review.

(1) Proliferating Perspectives: Plurality, Circulation and the Crisis of Fragmentation

The digital era revolutionises witnessing by enabling individuals to share their experiences widely, enhancing the diversity of narratives but also challenging the coherence and shared understanding, especially in contexts of crises and rights abuses. This proliferation of perspectives, while offering a richer view, introduces a destabilising 'veracity gap' in collective sense-making, as identified by Kyriakidou (2014). This gap, stemming from potentially deceptive testimonies, context-lacking interpretations, or unreliable witnessing, complicates the construction of shared realities within complex socio-political landscapes.

The volume of competing narratives overwhelms cognitive capacities, questioning the stability of singular truth claims and unravelling modernist assumptions of definitive meaning consolidation across perspectives. Further complicating this landscape is the unencumbered circulation of information via opaque algorithms and bot-powered networks, as highlighted by Benjamin (2019), which disrupts traditional credibility assessments and fosters an intensifying "hermeneutics of suspicion" in digital environments (Kyriakidou, 2014).

The challenges extend to the unprecedented speed and scale at which dis/misinformation can go viral, confounding traditional response systems designed to identify and rectify falsehoods. This reality underscores the urgent need for updated theoretical frameworks to address the breakdown of gatekeeping mechanisms and the weaponisation of decontextualised content, as discussed by Gregory (2015). Overcoming the crisis of fragmentation, thus, requires a deliberate investment in bridge-building informational infrastructures that support collective sense-making in a digital age marked by porousness and volatility.

While acknowledging the issues raised by Peters (2001) regarding fragmentation, it is critical to also consider the generative aspects of pluralised witnessing that enrich understanding from diverse perspectives. The emphasis on reconciling coherence should not lead to a reinstatement of centralisation, thus negating the democratisation efforts that aimed to dismantle exclusionary gatekeeping practices (Gray, 2019). Instead, as Thompson (2005) suggests, there is value in fostering mutually enriching dialogues across differences, exploring the potentials for constructive exchange and ethical receptivity amidst divergence.

Ong’s (2015) advocacy for bridge-building infrastructures introduces a pathway towards reimagining digital spaces that facilitate cultural shifts from control to cooperation, emphasising the importance of continuous negotiation in deriving collective meaning. Furthermore, embracing an epistemological shift that aligns truth-seeking with solidarity-building across differences suggests a reconfiguration of coherence as resonating affinities within abundant multiplicities, rather than uniformity around singular truths (Mortensen, 2015).

In summary, new technologies bring both challenges, such as information overload and fragmentation, and opportunities to deepen collective empathy and understanding. Addressing these requires a thoughtful approach to digital witnessing, emphasising the development of new literacies and supportive infrastructures to foster dialogue and bridge gaps amid digital fluctuations. The aim is to foster a digitally empowered public sphere where diversity and unity enhance a globally inclusive and empathetic community, rather than returning to centralised control.

(2) Tensions Between Qualitative and Quantitative Insights

The increasing prevalence of quantified, data-driven methodologies for the digital surveillance of injustices presents a significant dichotomy between the enhanced macro visibility afforded by computational aggregation and the qualitative diminutions inherent in such simplified portrayals of intricate realities. Merry (2016) articulates concerns that the scientific legitimacy attributed to statistical analyses may inadvertently reduce situated empathy by transforming violations of rights into easily digestible figures, thereby detaching them from the complexities of real-world experiences. Concurrently, the insights obtainable through "big data" analytics offer unique opportunities for shedding light on disparities that remain concealed absent such broad-scale computational examination (Benjamin, 2019). This fundamental discourse underscores the dual, yet conflicting, attributes of quantification.

Nevertheless, the pursuit of refined "indicator literacies" (Merry, 2016) necessitates a progression beyond merely harmonising qualitative and quantitative perspectives. A substantive transformation of the ethical dimensions involved mandates the adoption of innovative methodologies that reallocate control over the production of knowledge to the communities directly impacted (Gray, 2019). Merry's (2016) analysis does not sufficiently delve into the capacity of such participatory data collection practices, aimed at fostering cultural awareness, to reconcile the breadth of data with the depth of lived experience, moving past mere technocratic solutions.

Furthermore, while methodologies of data visualisation hold potential for enhancing the tangible and emotional impact of data, realising this potential hinges on a critical examination of an overreliance on technological solutions. For example, the optimistic view of "big data" espoused by Benjamin (2019) should be carefully balanced with a critique of the historical application of quantification logics that have systematically marginalised certain groups. The challenge then becomes how to reformulate data practices to dismantle, rather than update, established data regimes that prioritise elite perspectives.

This epistemological moment calls for a radical shift, favouring significant transformation over incremental refinement. It requires embedding quantification tools within ongoing dialogues concerning rights and representation, positioning them as instruments of social empowerment rather than as detached technical fixes. The future path involves integrating analytics with human-centric concerns, merging narrative and numerical data. Rejecting the primacy of data-driven approaches necessitates grounding indicator frameworks in communal narratives and struggles, fostering participatory engagement that resists the allure of technocratic simplifications.

(3) Fragmented Ecosystems: Bridging Professional and Vernacular Witnessing

McPherson (2015) articulates the distinction between the domain of professional human rights expertise, which adheres to legalistic norms of evidence and verification, and the realm of accidental civilian witnessing by everyday citizens utilising commercial platforms that lack a unified methodological approach. This dichotomy fosters significant "epistemological gaps," challenging the ideal of integrating civilian-generated content into established frameworks of credibility that have traditionally relied on institutional gatekeeping mechanisms (Gregory, 2015; McPherson, 2015).

Despite ongoing calls for the enhancement of "digital literacy" among non-professional witnesses to better synchronise their contributions with established evidentiary norms, such measures may inadvertently perpetuate dominant technocratic paradigms of evidence, potentially marginalising dissenting perspectives (Ananny, 2015). The concept of credibility itself is imbued with contextual assumptions that merit critical examination rather than being accepted as universally applicable (Ananny, 2015).

Furthermore, civilian documentation often emphasises the visibility of rights violations without necessarily providing the linkage evidence required to establish chains of accountability. This observation complicates optimistic beliefs in the capacity of citizen media to address visibility gaps without encountering significant obstacles (Gregory, 2015). The core challenge, therefore, lies in forging meaningful connections between disparate practices of documenting injustice, aiming for a participatory synthesis that delicately navigates the tensions between validation and diversity of perspectives (Frosh & Pinchevski, 2014).

Gregory (2015) suggests a preference for "quality over quantity," noting that professional capacities to analyse are readily overwhelmed by vast amounts of civilian documentation lacking essential contextual information. Overcoming these systemic barriers to integration necessitates improvements in metadata collection, contextual background provision, and the establishment of verification protocols specifically designed for the digital media sharing environment (Gregory, 2015). Gray (2019) advocates for the development of technological systems that employ crowd signal enhancement techniques to bolster the credibility and accuracy of civilian-generated evidence pertaining to human rights violations.

However, efforts to bridge these epistemological divides must remain mindful of the potential to reinforce technocratic control through emerging evidence paradigms that centralise credibility assessments within a narrow cadre of credentialed experts, rather than acknowledging the intrinsic complexity and validity of civilian perspectives. The risk of creating an elite "epistemic monopoly" over the evaluation of rights violations necessitates a vigilant and inventive expansion of the politics of evidence towards a more participatory and democratised process of validation (Ananny, 2015).

In conclusion, addressing the persistent divisions in witnessing practices requires a recognition of the diverse ecologies of information and spheres of meaning-making. This involves crafting nuanced bridges that facilitate communication and understanding across communities, balancing the need for message resonance with the imperative of maintaining signal clarity amidst the profusion of digital information.

(4) The Instrumental Logic of Strategic Witnessing

The professionalisation of video activism has led to the development of "strategic witnessing," aimed at achieving tangible impacts such as legal accountability or policy changes, as noted by Ristovska (2016). However, this focus on instrumental goals may risk overshadowing broader objectives like movement-building or generating public outrage. Scholars like Chouliaraki (2015) have critiqued this approach for its potential to create a disconnect from collective solidarity through postmodern ironic detachment. While witnessing involves balancing individual narratives with collective interpretation, as discussed by Frosh & Pinchevski (2014), Ristovska's (2016) work, despite its narrow focus on the tactical evolution of video activism, underscores the importance of critically examining the motivations and ethical underpinnings that justify aligning with institutional aims at the expense of broader public engagement. This highlights the need for philosophical exploration into the acceptable trade-offs between policy objectives and public engagement amidst the ongoing evolution of witnessing practices.

(5) Conclusion

The digital era complicates epistemological issues, challenging the notion that it eliminates traditional gatekeeping, as some utopian views suggested. The proliferation of digital networks leads to a credibility crisis due to the vast amount of eyewitness media that can be manipulated and circulated rapidly. Although digital democratisation holds emancipatory potential, maintaining credibility demands practised discernment rather than mere reliance on collective intelligence. As Peters (2001) observed, while digital proliferation supports decentralisation, it also fragments coherence. Developing sophisticated literacies becomes essential in balancing diverse voices and content, necessitating a careful navigation between vernacular and professional witnessing. This critical approach is crucial for realising the potential of digitally enhanced visibility without falling prey to oversimplified beliefs in effortless empowerment, underscoring the ongoing need to address challenges of representation, credibility, and meaning in the digital age.

Ethics of Witnessing

Digital technologies have significantly reshaped the observation of distant suffering, introducing complex ethical issues around representation, consent, dignity, and moral duty. Ananny (2015) highlights that while innovations like Google Glass and virtual reality (VR) offer potential for deepening empathy towards marginalised groups, they also risk exploiting trauma. These challenges demand careful evaluation. This section will review recent scholarly debates on the ethics of digital witnessing and its changes, seeking paths that acknowledge diverse perspectives and prevent harm.

(1) Problematising Selective Mediation Regimes

An initial assumption underpinning ethical deliberations is the idea that witnessing possesses an intrinsic moral obligation aimed at fostering "meaningful change" (Ananny, 2015). Peters (2001) argues that witnessing transcends mere passive observation, instead facilitating engagement and remediation in matters of justice. This perspective is connected to Gregory's (2015) stance that intrusions upon privacy in the act of witnessing may be deemed acceptable if executed with deliberate intent. Therefore, the issues at hand encompass considerations of representation, consent, and the realisation of outcomes that contribute to social benefit rather than exacerbate marginalisation.

A particular methodology towards ethical witnessing underscores the importance of selectivity and curation as a strategy to diminish potential hazards such as compassion fatigue. Ananny (2015) champions the concept of "moral witnessing," which involves careful editing of graphic content to maintain audience engagement over prolonged periods and to cultivate a shared acknowledgment of events that merit public focus. In parallel, Kyriakidou (2014) delineates an "affective witnessing" approach that forges connections between observers and remote sufferers through emotionally charged imagery, provided that the visual elements facilitate a process of self-identification with the individuals portrayed.

However, such practices of content filtering raise contentious debates regarding which perspectives are accorded prominence. Chouliaraki (2015) offers a critical analysis of how Western news media's appropriation of amateur footage from conflict areas reinterprets such material to align with the sensibilities of domestic viewers, thereby generating unequal hierarchies of grievability. Through this process, certain individuals subjected to violence are deemed more deserving of empathy, remembrance, and action than others, influenced by racial, national, and gendered distinctions. Furthermore, Ong's (2015) ethnographic work within marginalised Filipino communities reveals divergent moral frameworks that govern the mediation of suffering. These frameworks present interpretations that depart from mainstream assertions regarding the appropriate ways to mediate, the boundaries of propriety, and the kinds of responses that merit collective attention and care.

(2) Questioning Immersive Technologies and Structures of Feeling

The disparate dynamics of selective mediation have incited contemporary academic discourse to propose rectifications to the prevailing paradigms of representation, which predominantly reflect Western-centric perspectives. Richardson (2020) articulates the traditions of "black witnessing" as enacted by minority groups, who employ social media platforms as counter-public arenas to highlight ongoing instances of state violence against communities of colour. Utilising digital mechanisms, these forms of advocacy extend the legacy of extensive civil rights movements that challenge omissions in mainstream media representations. The focus on participatory witnessing unveils opportunities for the ethical joint creation of stories, indicating the potential for collaborative narrative formation.

Transitioning away from mere adjustments in representation, alternative research trajectories engage with the foundational role of technologies in shaping the witnessing experience and its inherent moral possibilities. Nash (2018) issues a warning regarding VR endeavour to achieve affective "presence," pointing out the danger of inappropriate identification where witnesses may not recognise the distinction between self and other, leading to narcissism instead of a sense of responsibility. Similarly, Ananny (2015) draws attention to how augmented reality (AR) technologies inherently embed principles of closeness and intervention within their design. The examination of sociomaterial arrangements that encourage responsive actions unveils promising avenues for exploration. Incorporating insights from users in the development of these technologies can further enhance ethical standards in practice.

These discussions highlight significant lacunae concerning the interplay between various modes of witnessing and the social positions of audiences, temporal fluctuations in moral perspectives, consequences for political awareness and mobilisation, intricacies in the design of immersive technologies, and prospects for reforms in platform governance that facilitate a diversity of perspectives. Tackling these domains via methodologies such as comparative cultural analysis, longitudinal monitoring studies, evaluations of infrastructural frameworks, and the development of technologies through participatory approaches would contribute to the evolution of ethical paradigms appropriate for digital contexts.

(3) Conclusion

Ultimately, practices of digital witnessing necessitate a heightened level of reflexivity concerning the positionality and privilege of the various stakeholders involved in transforming distant suffering into spectacles - including editors, designers, spectators, or even scholars. Maintaining ethical, non-extractive engagements that prioritise dignity demands a receptiveness to counter-hegemonic perspectives, such as those presented by subaltern counterpublics. This approach transcends rigid, universal protocols, advocating for a diversity of witnessing practices grounded in distinct vernaculars and their unique expressions of morality, care, and justice, thereby fostering a more comprehensive ethical framework for digitally interconnected communities. However, the realisation of this vision hinges on those in control of predominant platforms willingly relinquishing their grip, thereby potentially unsettling the centralised systems of visibility, emotion, and value extraction that underpin global inequalities. Thus, the obstacles encompass both the realm of techno-cultural innovation and the necessity for policy intervention.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the emergence of digital technologies has brought about a profound transformation in the realm of bearing witness to distant instances of suffering and disparities. Nonetheless, the sanguine suppositions concerning the facile democratisation and empowerment associated with these technologies must be tempered by a nuanced exploration of the intricate trade-offs inherent in this paradigm shift.

The widespread adoption of interconnected devices has indeed facilitated extensive participation in bearing witness. However, it has concurrently introduced challenges related to the coherence of narratives. The increased visibility remains closely linked to platform hierarchies that perpetuate uneven distribution of attention. Even though physical barriers to intervention have been obliterated, spectatorship continues to predominate. The instrumentalist approach, when not carefully considered, may risk disconnecting the act of bearing witness from the broader context of public solidarity. As a result, the democratising impact is characterised by a tension with emerging complexities concerning fragmentation, credibility, agency, and commercialization.

These pivotal shifts necessitate a sophisticated evaluation and rectification process. The sheer volume of perspectives generated poses significant challenges to the capacities for verification and interpretation, thus highlighting the importance of literacy imperatives. Methodological innovations must prioritise the empowerment of impacted communities in controlling knowledge production. Furthermore, the deployment of immersive technologies requires careful assessment regarding issues of identity and self-absorption. The development of infrastructures supporting collective sense-making, bridging fragmented ecosystems, and transforming routine spectating into activism remains essential but inadequately addressed.

Additionally, the reliance on quantified indicators runs the risk of diminishing situated empathy toward instances of suffering. Hence, enhancements in quantitative approaches should be embedded within ongoing discussions on rights and human dignity. Addressing the divisions between professional and vernacular witnessing practices necessitates the facilitation of communication across various spheres of meaning-making, rather than further centralization.

Moreover, selective mediation regimes perpetuate unequal hierarchies of grievability, which conflict with marginalised moral frameworks. Interrogating prevailing structures of feeling and adopting affirmative strategies to amplify counter-hegemonic perspectives present promising avenues. However, achieving genuine empowerment and dignity likely requires relinquishing control over centralised systems of visibility extraction that underpin prevailing inequalities.

Consequently, the challenges associated with updating witnessing paradigms for digital contexts defy simplistic solutions, instead necessitating interdisciplinary innovation. This entails embracing epistemological shifts from a focus on objective truth to a commitment to solidarity, the establishment of infrastructures that enable collective responses, the adoption of participatory indicator approaches, the facilitation of bridges between witnesses and audiences, the rectification of representation gaps, and the questioning of platform power dynamics to amplify marginalised perspectives. The reevaluation and ethical recalibration of existing frameworks hold substantial emancipatory potential but demand deliberate efforts to navigate the complex array of trade-offs.

The analytical framework proposed here serves as a robust foundation for investigating the profound impacts of digitization on witnessing, encompassing the intricate processes and relationships, literacy imperatives, credibility debates, accountability challenges, empathy contractions, and issues related to representation. This conclusion consolidates these multifaceted effects, emphasising the overarching call for reimagination while cautioning against assumptions of effortless empowerment. It underscores the imperative need for interdisciplinary innovation centred on marginalised perspectives. In doing so, it lays the groundwork for a comprehensive, balanced, and constructive inquiry into the profound shifts brought about by technological advancements and the intricate challenges they pose.

(4779 words)

Reference: 

Ananny, M. (2015) ‘Creating proper distance through networked infrastructure’, Boundaries of Journalism, pp. 83–100. doi:10.4324/9781315727684-6. 

Benjamin, R. (2019) ‘Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code.’

Chouliaraki, L. (2015) ‘Digital witnessing in conflict zones: The politics of remediation’, Information, Communication & Society, 18(11), pp. 1362–1377. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2015.1070890. 

Farrell, N. and Allan, S. (2015) ‘Redrawing boundaries: Witness and the politics of citizen videos’, Global Media and Communication, 11(3), pp. 237–253. doi:10.1177/1742766515606291. 

Frosh, P. and Pinchevski, A. (2014) ‘Media witnessing and the ripeness of Time’, Cultural Studies, 28(4), pp. 594–610. doi:10.1080/09502386.2014.891304. 

Gray, J. (2019) ‘Data witnessing: Attending to injustice with data in Amnesty International’s Decoders Project’, Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), pp. 971–991. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1573915. 

Gregory, S. (2015) ‘Ubiquitous witnesses: Who creates the evidence and the live(d) experience of human rights violations?’, Information, Communication & Society, 18(11), pp. 1378–1392. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2015.1070891. 

Kyriakidou, M. (2014) ‘Media witnessing: Exploring the audience of distant suffering’, Media, Culture & Society, 37(2), pp. 215–231. doi:10.1177/0163443714557981. 

McPherson, E. (2015) ‘Digital human rights reporting by civilian witnesses: Surmounting the verification barrier.’

McPherson, E. (2022) ‘Witnessing: Iteration and Social Change’, AI & SOCIETY, 38(5), pp. 1987–1995. doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01508-w. 

Merry, S.E. (2016) The seductions of quantification [Preprint]. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226261317.001.0001. 

Mortensen, M. (2015) ‘Connective witnessing: Reconfiguring the relationship between the individual and the collective’, Information, Communication & Society, 18(11), pp. 1393–1406. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2015.1061574. 

Nash, K. (2017) ‘Virtual reality witness: Exploring the ethics of mediated presence’, Studies in Documentary Film, 12(2), pp. 119–131. doi:10.1080/17503280.2017.1340796. 

Ong, J.C. (2015) ‘Witnessing distant and proximal suffering within a zone of danger: Lay Moralities of media audiences in the Philippines’, International Communication Gazette, 77(7), pp. 607–621. doi:10.1177/1748048515601555. 

Peters, J.D. (2001) ‘Witnessing’, Media, Culture & Society, 23(6), pp. 707–723. doi:10.1177/016344301023006002. 

Ristovska, S. (2016) ‘Strategic witnessing in an age of video activism’, Media, Culture & Society, 38(7), pp. 1034–1047. doi:10.1177/0163443716635866. 

Richardson, A.V. (2020) Bearing witness while black [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190935528.001.0001. 

Thompson, J.B. (2005) ‘The new visibility’, Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), pp. 31–51. doi:10.1177/0263276405059413.