Exploring the Nexus between Technologies and Human Rights 32 the future, such as the case of indiscriminate data collection vulnerable to future data breaches, which makes it difficult to generate support for the cause. Digital rights activists tend to “shortcode” their communication with underlying assumptions (such as the value of privacy or the importance of data protection) which may not relate to stakeholders outside of the movement. The result adds to the silo effect and digital rights advocates end up preaching to the choir, reaching those who are already converted – as the general public continues to overshare on social media and give out their personal information without much concern. Even within the digital rights movement, there is a lack of technical expertise, as most of the advocates come from civil society and not from a technical background. There are a few organisations that work with or are run by tech professionals, but more often than not digital rights issues are taken up as programmes and focal areas by organisations which have an interest in certain areas but may not have the technical capacity to deal with the digital aspect of digital rights. As such, advocacy work stagnates at a level of obtaining the low hanging fruits such as conducting digital security training workshops (through outsourcing to a small pool of available trainers) or networking events on topical issues. When digital rights violations include technical attacks, civil society does not have the capabilities of defense or offense. Language barriers also affect digital rights work. At one level, English is the main language used for cross-border work. Those who do not speak the language will find themselves at a disadvantage, whether during civil society forums at the regional or international level, dealing with platforms such as Facebook when reporting problems, or when accessing digital security helplines set up by international NGOs. Participation in Internet or digital governance is even harder when language-related barriers include technical jargon that even good English speakers would have difficulties understanding. At another level, even within countries themselves there is a diversity of languages being used, fragmenting communication. On access to funding, there are mixed responses. On one hand, it is acknowledged that digital rights as a field has been attracting donor funds in the past five years and will probably continue to do so, as more and more people get connected to the Internet and human rights violations in digital spaces continue to mount. On the other hand, CSOs appear to have difficulties accessing these funds. An example given by respondents in Thailand is that sometimes the funding is offered in an amount that surpasses the managerial capacity of smaller organisations to manage, therefore placing the funds beyond their reach. Another point mentioned in the Malaysian group is that funding for digital rights is usually project-driven and core funding is few and far between, making it difficult for organisations to run their day-to-day operations and pay living wages to their staff. In the Philippines, it was mentioned that the lack of resources makes it difficult to acquire new technologies, to test, experiment, and learn on.