Latin America, on the international stage, is predominantly a consumer of technologies produced in the Global North. This reality permeates the ways and possibilities in which technology adoption unfolds in our communities. Globally, over the last 20 years, several factors have converged: an increased dependence of organizations on the intelligent use of information and technologies; the consumption of vast amounts of information and the incorporation of digital technologies into multiple dimensions of daily life; and the emergence of an economic sector linked to the information derived from the use of technologies. The global Covid-19 pandemic marked a turning point in the processes of appropriating interactive technologies, compulsively and forcibly incorporating millions of people into teleworking, virtual education, electronic economic exchanges, and other processes. However, it also exposed the enormous inequalities in connectivity, access, and the acquisition of skills for the effective use of these technologies, demonstrating that access to digital technologies is a human right and the internet a common good. This underscores the need to update the debate surrounding cost, open access to data of public interest, open source, transparency in data use, and citizen-led internet access as key elements of the regulations essential for its greater democratization. It also highlights the need for public policies within the context of the digital society to guarantee access, reduce inequalities, and develop technologies geared toward collective benefit, all within a framework of environmental responsibility. Furthermore, it underscores the need for an educational approach that considers the implications of integrating digital technologies into various practices and fosters the development of skills for their critical use.

Oligopolistic concentration (Google's Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Uber, Airbnb, and others) has consequences for cultural practices, communication methods, work processes, and other aspects of daily life, and involves significant social and economic disparities. The World Summits on the Information Society (2003, 2005) fostered the development of public policies and alliances between the private sector, governments, and civil society. In this context, the digital divide/inclusion dichotomy has become a driving force for global action, primarily by the State, to create infrastructure and provide equipment to various socioeconomically disadvantaged sectors in countries that do not produce digital technology, such as those in Latin America. In our region, the implementation of policies and actions led to the development of a field of reflection and planning; it impacted the organizational and interconnected structures of different areas and levels of government; it established partnership mechanisms with companies; and it imposed evaluation requirements. The political dimension transcended national boundaries; international agencies paved the way for entry into the so-called "Information Society."

Gradually, a field of social and cultural studies emerged, seeking to understand the changes and forms of participation of different sectors, identify conditioning factors, propose intervention strategies to reduce inequalities, and promote the exercise of rights. Within this framework, the research and theoretical-methodological work developed allowed for a shift from positions centered on the idea of ​​access to technologies toward a complex conceptualization supported by the non-univocal notion of appropriation, while simultaneously challenging Eurocentric, ethnocentric, and heteropatriarchal perspectives. In this context, different groups, coalitions, and social movements, particularly those of women and feminists, implemented experiences of hybrid appropriation of available digital technologies at different scales (local, regional, transnational), according to their objectives and interests, through skills and competencies developed specifically for this purpose.

On the other hand, market imperatives regarding the expansion of the acquisition and use of digital technologies encountered significant resistance from counter-hegemonic groups, who denounce the consequences of these massive incorporations and generate alternatives for technological production, such as the construction of community network infrastructures or free software and the obtaining and circulation of information not always available to the public but which could imply a risk to democratic systems or to the privacy of users as a result of the use of mass surveillance devices.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the debate on internet colonization is gaining relevance. The socio-technical framework established by the alliance between technologies, hegemonic masculinity, and whiteness is made explicit in the growth of studies that problematize the role of technoscience in the production of heteromasculinities, racism, and marginalization. Technologies like the internet are marked by their military, male, white, and Northern origins. The various digital divides in the production, circulation, and use of ICTs, gender-based violence in and through digital media, cybercrimes, invasions of privacy, and the surveillance, monitoring, and control of bodies are central themes when analyzing appropriation through the lenses of gender, class, race, and territory—that is, through what has come to be called, not without debate, intersectionality. For this reason, both academia and activist groups have begun to discuss concepts such as technological autonomy and sovereignty, alternative infrastructures, and free networks throughout the region. While the internet is becoming a space intensely monitored by governments and private monopolies that control most online traffic, and where misogynistic and racist violence flourishes, some groups in Latin America are experimenting with new forms of technological appropriation. They are setting up their own servers, writing their own applications, creating free networks, and installing autonomous antennas and servers in a clear attempt to circumvent the internet giants. Mexico, for example, is a leading country in the development of free and autonomous cellular networks in Indigenous territories and in the development of a rebellious and feminist "hackerism." In Guatemala and Honduras, political violence has led to a proliferation of original and underground forms of technological appropriation to defend the human rights of Indigenous women and activists. Calls for algorithmic justice resonate throughout the region. In fact, many of these phenomena are discussed within the Network of Researchers in Technology Appropriation (RIAT).

In this vein, the question of designing a global architecture for the production, circulation, and use of infrastructure and information has become a geopolitical problem for the Global South. The development and provision of network infrastructure generates not only economic benefits but also political ones. At the heart of this crisis, studies on the appropriation of technologies acquire theoretical relevance and political significance. Central themes regarding the appropriation of digital technology include the virtualization of education, teleworking, digital violence, the use of personal data, activism, new forms of art and entertainment, political participation, information and misinformation, the environmental impact of the intensive production and use of digital technologies, open knowledge, and the protection of local knowledge. This leads to and compels us to consider alternative technopolitical approaches.

The field of social studies is challenged by the complexity of socio-technological environments, which demand a renewal of theoretical perspectives and methodological tools to account for complex, dynamic, and opaque processes and objects. Since 2012, the Network of Researchers on the Appropriation of Digital Technologies (RIAT), made up of members from different countries and articulated in 2019 as the Working Group on the Appropriation of Digital Technologies and Intersectionalities, has been carrying out a collective effort of reflection on the conceptualization of technology appropriation and the promotion of experiences oriented towards it. RIAT, and later the CLACSO Working Group, were established to share the research and intervention work of their members within the framework of collaborative work, through various meetings: in 2012 at the National University of General Sarmiento (UNGS), Buenos Aires, with participants from Argentina and Spain; 2014 and 2015, National University of Córdoba, with participants from Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil; 2016, at the National University of Patagonia and UNGS, with participants from Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, and France, marking the formal establishment of RIAT. 2017 at the Gino Germani Research Institute, University of Buenos Aires, with participants from Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Uruguay. 2018, at ObservaTic of the University of the Republic, Montevideo, with participants from Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. 2019, RIAT and the Working Group (GT), at the University of Los Lagos (Osorno, Chile). 2020, the Working Group organized "Who Appropriates What?" in Argentina and developed the Colloquium Series on Digital Appropriation in Times of Pandemic in Uruguay. In 2021, the GT organized "Digital Citizenship, Inequalities and Transformation in Latin America and the Caribbean" in Argentina, with participants from Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Colombia, Spain, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. And in 2022, in Brazil, the Thematic Colloquium "Technopolitical Utopias for Well-being" was held virtually from the Federal University of Bahia.

The network maintains a website, where published books can also be found (https://apropiaciondetecnologias.com/), which compile articles authored by members of the network and the CLACSO Working Group. We conduct research on the manner, nature, and context in which individuals and social groups interact with digital technologies, as well as the conditions of their appropriation. We address topics such as the analysis and evaluation of gaps, technological skills and competencies, the importance of unequal cultural, social, and economic contexts on appropriation, analysis of appropriation processes by collectives and social movements, the impact of technologies on societies and cities, public policies for digital inclusion, and the role of the market and emerging innovations in this field.

These multi- and interdisciplinary approaches are based on different approaches: technology use theory, software studies, political economy of communication, media literacy, educational technology, technopolitics, geopolitics and biopolitics, cyberfeminism, technofeminism, among others.

We understand that the appropriation of technologies expresses, in various ways, a potential for autonomy for collective or individual subjects in relation to the expectations of markets or governments. We recognize that digital platforms constitute interaction interfaces whose "grammars" contain implicit models of use and users, but we also recognize the resistance and resilience inherent in the projects and processes of subversive and rebellious technologies. Understanding the links between the market, public policies, and appropriation practices are aspects that demand our attention, as they are articulated and fraught with tension.

Conceptually, we assume that the production of technologies is the result of a human process embedded in, and a product of, the power relations and dynamics—cultural, social, economic, political, and ideological—of our societies. Activity in, on, with, and against technology is a central element of this understanding of appropriation. From this perspective, appropriation expresses complex processes, and its conceptualization refers to individual and/or collective empowerment, but also to the modes of operation of capitalism itself in its neoliberal stage.

In social movements and organizations, the relationship with digital technologies is based on experimentation and creativity in their transfer and appropriation, the disruptive use of proprietary technologies, and the creation of their own technological innovation projects. At the same time, the possibility of redesigning, culturally adapting, or critically transferring and innovating digital technologies is linked to organizational and dissemination patterns, repertoires of protest, the composition of the movement or organization (gender, class, race, etc.), and the contexts in which it operates.

In times of growing feminist and anti-racist mobilization, it is important to observe the controversies surrounding demands for transformations based on the appropriation of non-neutral artifacts, whose codes are inscribed according to a new epistemological paradigm and a logic of accumulation consolidated through data manipulation. We analyze these phenomena from an intersectional perspective, examining the intersections of gender, race, territory, and social class, which challenge the liberal concept of citizenship and strain the development of a new logic that some authors call surveillance capitalism (Shuboff) and others, datafication (Van Dijck). We understand that social arrangements will be radically altered by a global algorithmic mediation project that must be widely debated by citizens. The automatic and mass processing of data, the interpretive capacity of the world and social relations, real-time monitoring, predictive analytics, and the modulation of human behavior are central themes in studies of this new type of appropriation. Regarding the material and subjective conditions under which technology appropriation occurs, we note: a) the technical developments of devices for the production, storage, circulation, and reproduction of information; b) regulations and public policies; c) business strategies for product placement, expanding the adoption of devices and services, and participating in markets; d) the impacts of capitalist accumulation via digital technologies; and e) subjective meanings and experiences, as well as intellectual, affective/emotional, and motivational aspects. Our research aims to produce knowledge relevant to the design of public policies and the actions of social movements concerned with increasing the autonomy of individuals and groups in relation to the use, circulation, and development of technologies.

The proposed Working Group will enhance the work already underway and contribute to CLACSO's efforts as a leading organization in the production of critical knowledge. We aim to create conditions and spaces for research, experimentation, imagination, and the development of alternative technologies based on addressing different needs. These technologies will be built through transparent and open processes, guided by community-based data management principles. This technology will be built by communities and populations who have been consumers until now, asserting their right to design, define, and propose the technology they require. We are referring specifically to women, Indigenous populations, migrant populations, border communities, coastal communities, and rural communities. We begin with the principle that in this historical moment, living in a digital society, it is a fundamental human right for every social group to design and build the technology it needs.