To address the climate and societal emergencies, unlimited and constant digital access is no more.

Synopsis of this future

It is 2030, in a world still learning to manage with less, where “-1” has become the new norm. Faced with the climate emergency, the scarcity of raw materials, and energy crises (with increasing blackouts), societies have shifted towards low-tech solutions and downgraded digital usage. The era of unlimited digital access is over. The availability of digital services and connections has become intermittent. This means they depend on the availability of “clean” energy to run servers and devices, as well as the negative impacts already inflicted on the environment and natural ecosystems during the year.

In this near future, digital access is also dependent on a social factor: it is possible to connect and use these technologies if (and only if) sufficient protection can be offered to the user and their community; whether that protection concerns personal or collective data, guaranteed rights, or respect for personal integrity.

Fragments of f·r·iction

↘
Similar to the Doomsday Clock in its time, various communities have created a large metaphorical scale to evaluate the risks that digital usage imposes on the world; thereby determining to what extent – if at all – it is safe, reasonable, or even possible to use it. Two main indicators are observed to assess the desirable rate of digital usage:

1. An ecological indicator, indexed on the energy and resources already consumed, available at the moment, and planned for the next cycle.
2. A societal indicator, indexed on social cohesion, considering the impact of digital usage on the community’s stability and individuals (risk of community polarisation, the imperative of respecting individual privacy). The synthesis of these two indicators defines a community’s (local and national) digital usage quotas.

↘
This world has logically implemented digital usage quotas: each individual or household can consume a predetermined amount of digital services. As mentioned earlier, this quota is indexed on the impact digital usage has on the planet and society.

↘
Consequently, the implementation of these quotas has led to an overall reduction in data production, collection, and processing. Personal data has therefore become scarcer and more coveted than in 2020; people connect less and lean towards more frugal digital uses, with significantly fewer data-heavy services. While the GAFAM companies have collapsed on their own, other smaller entities have emerged, competing to seize the opportunity to expose users to digital services. They aim to capture as much data as possible during these limited connection times for online monetisation and, above all, for offline exploitation thereafter.

↘
Digital services are intermittent, with their limitations varying according to the conditions, and their availability sometimes unpredictable. Although the situation is radically different in this future, old habits do not entirely disappear. Users continue to appreciate personalised content. In this world, people have adopted the habit of self-documenting daily, in a physical/analogue manner. These physical data points then feed into our digital experiences by sharing the fragments of information we wish to enhance our current digital experiences. This demonstrates a “taking back control” strategy by users, who choose to “inject” – when they wish – the traces and data that concern them, which they have collected themselves.

↘
This profound transformation of the relationship with digital technology has contributed to reversing inequalities: those whose daily lives were already marked by ingenious resourcefulness, if not survival, have adapted more easily to this new digital reality. Others, previously at the top of the digital pyramid, have found it harder to adjust outside their “techno-cocoons” (as theorised by sci-fi writer Alain Damasio in the early 2020s). Interestingly, a form of global levelling has occurred: the intermittency of digital services and the shift towards frugal usage has been a shock for Western countries, whereas it was a given for the Global South.

↘
Another radical change has taken place regarding territorial inequality, particularly the concentration and urbanisation of digital infrastructures. Intermittency tends to reduce the disparities between urban and rural digital access, with the relocation of digital infrastructures at the local level. The countryside is ultimately better off with less pronounced intermittency, as both indicators on the usage scale are in balance: rural and peri-urban societies are capable of being energy self-sufficient, and these small communities present better (self)regulation of social behaviours.