I was introduced to terms like Internet governance four years ago. Since then, one new word after another has surfaced in the tech-policy space. When I came across the phrase public interest technology, I found myself pausing: How exactly does this connect to what we often see around us? And in a world where almost everything is built around making a profit, can this idea really find a place?
Public interest technology refers to the study and application of technology expertise to advance the public interest , to generate benefits for society and promote the public good. It doesn’t mean simply building the “next app” for the mass market, but asking: Who is this technology for? What impact does it have beyond revenue? How are communities being engaged so that the technology doesn’t inadvertently exclude or harm?
When I say “inclusion and equity” in this context, I do not mean only gender or rural-versus-urban divides (though both matter). I’m talking about a broader idea: technology designed and governed so that anyone, regardless of income, language, disability, digital-skill level, location, or other circumstance; has the capacity and opportunity to engage, benefit from, and not be left behind. For example: accessibility for persons with disabilities, multilingual interfaces, low-bandwidth versions of apps, and inclusive design that anticipates users with low digital literacy. These dimensions matter because the barriers to participation in tech are many and intersecting.
From one perspective, the appeal is compelling. Imagine designing a digital service with accessibility built in, community-driven features, fairness in algorithms, and transparency in how data is used. When implemented effectively, technology can expand access to essential services (such as education and healthcare), empower historically marginalized groups, and help reduce inequality. Technology becomes not just a tool for commerce, but a tool for inclusion and justice.
Yet from another view, the feasibility question looms large. Many tech firms, investors, and start-ups operate under business models that expect scale, monetisation, rapid growth, and market competition. Designing for inclusion or public interest often involves additional costs, a slower rollout, more engagement with user communities, localization, and more careful governance. The incentives may not align: underserved populations may be more complex to serve, with less immediate profit potential; inclusive design may not be rewarded in the same way as a feature that boosts user numbers or ad revenue. There are also measurement problem like how do you capture “fairness”, “access”, “dignity” as business metrics? Without strong alignment of incentives, inclusive features risk being sidelined.
So where do these two paths meet? Where does the promise of public interest technology sit in a profit-driven world? One possibility is when value is redefined: if inclusive design becomes a source of new markets (for example, by reaching underserved users), if social license, trust, and reduced risk become integral to the business strategy. Another is when business models become hybrid, combining private sector, public funding, and philanthropic support. Additionally, when regulations, procurement policies, or public-sector contracts demand or reward inclusive features, they thereby shift incentives. Or when the ecosystem builds the infrastructure, norms, and tools, inclusive design becomes less costly, easier, and standardized.
When I think of my context (India and the Global South), the stakes become quite concrete. The digital divide is real. Multilingual diversity, rural-urban gaps, access issues, these are not abstract. Suppose technology is designed with inclusion in mind. In that case, huge populations can be brought into digital services, and new users can be accessed. However, the pressures of cost, scalability, and profit motive remain simultaneously. The question becomes: How can inclusive design be effectively integrated into a business strategy, rather than remaining a side project? What role must policy, public procurement, regulation, and community engagement play so that inclusion is viable, not optional? How do technologists, designers, business leaders, and policymakers align so that public interest and profit aren’t at odds but intertwined?
In what ways can we expect technology companies to embed public interest values when the ecosystem rewards speed, scale, and monetisation? Conversely, what does a truly public-interest-oriented technology initiative look like when it must survive and sustain itself in a market economy? Perhaps the intersection lies not in choosing one side over the other, but in asking how the structures around technology, business models, funding mechanisms, regulation, community participation, need to shift so that public interest becomes part of the equation rather than an afterthought.
I’m not claiming I have the answer. But I believe this is one of the questions we must keep alive: Can technology designed for profit also truly serve inclusion and equity — and if so, under what conditions?
