Technology has the power to transform lives, but with 2.6 billion people worldwide still offline as of 2024, that potential remains out of reach for many.
Brazilian entrepreneur and Arlequim Technologies founder Haroldo Jacobovicz has spent decades building companies that tackle the gap between digital potential and digital reality.
He shares his perspective on what genuine digital inclusion requires and why expanding access demands far more than simply providing devices and connectivity.
In this interview:
- Why digital literacy programs fall short without ongoing support
- The difference between technology that includes and technology that excludes
- How computer virtualization can extend the life of older devices
- Other barriers that keep people from participating in the digital economy
- What effective partnerships between businesses, governments, and communities look like
- Lessons from Brazil’s sudden shift to remote work during the pandemic
Digital literacy programs are often discussed as a solution, but you’ve suggested that inclusion requires more than teaching skills. What does meaningful digital empowerment actually look like?
Teaching someone to use a computer is only the beginning. Real empowerment happens when that person can apply those skills to improve their life, whether that means accessing healthcare information, finding work, or connecting with opportunities that were out of their reach. The goal should be transformation, not transaction. When someone gains digital skills and then uses them to start a small business or help their children with schoolwork, that’s when literacy becomes empowerment. It requires ongoing engagement, not a single training session that ends when the workshop does. When the benefits of technology are part of the daily life of the population, as tools used continuously without the support of third parties, the real inclusion starts to become reality.
You’ve described technology as a potential bridge for communities, but also noted it doesn’t automatically create equality. What makes the difference between technology that includes and technology that excludes?
Intent. Technology designed with diverse perspectives in mind tends to serve more people effectively. When developers build solutions thinking only about users who already have reliable connectivity and modern devices, they inadvertently lock out millions. Inclusive technology considers affordability, cultural context, and varying levels of technical comfort. It adapts to people rather than demanding people adapt to it.
Arlequim focuses on improving computing performance without requiring people to buy new devices. How did you arrive at that approach rather than other models for expanding access?
I kept seeing the same problem: people with older computers that worked fine physically but couldn’t handle modern applications. Replacing those machines creates waste and costs money many families don’t have. Computer virtualization offers a different path. The technology processes intensive tasks remotely and streams results back at the screen of the local device, allowing, for example, an eight-year-old laptop to perform like something far more capable. The device becomes a window to a high computational capacity rather than a limitation. This approach allows people to access anything they need despite the device they own.
Besides hardware and connectivity, what other barriers do you see preventing people from participating fully in the digital economy?
The insecurity in their own abilities is one of the biggest barriers. Many people feel intimidated by technology, convinced they’ll break something or look foolish because of their lack of knowledge. That psychological barrier can be as limiting as any physical one. Language is another factor, both literal language and the jargon-heavy way technology tends to communicate. And then there’s the exposure to hackers or to inappropriate online activities. People who’ve been exploited by predatory practices approach digital services cautiously. Overcoming these barriers requires patience. It is important to use empathy in designing solutions, considering different ways people interact with technology, not how engineers imagine they should.
You’ve noted that access requires ongoing support rather than being a one-time event. What does that continuum of support look like for someone gaining access to technology for the first time?
It starts with the basics: getting connected and understanding fundamental operations. For instance, where the user can verify if the device is connected and how to turn on a mouse, keyboard, and headphones. But then comes the messy middle, when someone encounters their first confusing error message or accidentally deletes something important. That’s when people give up without support. The continuum includes technical assistance when things go wrong, learning resources that grow with the user, and community connections where people can ask questions without embarrassment. Eventually, the new user becomes confident and starts to help others. That progression from recipient to contributor marks true integration.
Brazil has made significant progress in internet connectivity, but rural access still lags considerably behind urban areas. What will it take to close that remaining gap?
Infrastructure investment remains essential, but the economics are challenging. Serving rural areas costs more per user, so traditional business models struggle to justify the expense. Closing this gap requires creative partnerships. Government subsidies can offset costs. Community cooperatives can share infrastructure. Satellite and wireless technologies are improving fast and may prove more practical than laying fiber to remote locations. The solution will likely combine multiple approaches tailored to specific geographic and economic conditions rather than one universal answer.
How do you think about balancing commercial sustainability with the goal of reaching people who have limited purchasing power?
This tension shaped how I’ve approached every business I’ve built. The insight I keep returning to is that underserved markets often represent genuine opportunities. Small companies with limited budget are willing to pay for solutions that really improve their productivity. The key is designing cost structures with better cost-benefit. Serving government is another way to benefit the unattended population. For example, through contracts with City Halls or Educational Departments, the technological tools improve day by day for students and citizens who use public services.
You’ve spoken about the importance of collaboration between businesses, governments, and communities in addressing digital inclusion. What does effective partnership look like in practice?
It starts with genuine respect for what each partner brings. Businesses contribute resources and operational expertise. Governments provide regulatory frameworks and can subsidize access where markets alone won’t reach. Communities offer local knowledge about what people actually need. Effective partnerships combine these strengths without one party dominating. The worst collaborations treat community members as passive recipients rather than active participants. The best ones integrate grassroots input from the beginning and measure success by outcomes that matter to the people being served.
Education is often cited as one of the most promising areas where technology can reduce inequality. What role do you see affordable computing playing in that space?
A student in a remote area with proper computing resources can access the same educational materials as someone in an urban center. That possibility represents a fundamental shift. But the hardware alone accomplishes little without content designed to engage different learning styles and internet connections good enough to deliver it. Affordable computing removes one barrier, an important one, but it works best as part of a broader ecosystem including trained teachers, relevant curriculum, and family support. The technology enables transformation, but doesn’t guarantee it.
Remote work expanded significantly during the pandemic, but you observed that many weren’t prepared for the infrastructure demands. What did that moment reveal about the state of digital inclusion in Brazil?
It exposed how thin the foundation really was. Companies that had functioned adequately with basic connectivity suddenly needed robust, secure connections that could handle video conferencing and collaborative tools. Many platforms weren’t built for users with low-speed Internet connection. The gap between who could work remotely and who couldn’t often followed existing economic divisions. But that moment also demonstrated demand. People adapted remarkably fast when they had to. The crisis created awareness that adequate digital infrastructure is essential, not optional. Recognizing that generated a lasting legacy that accelerated the digital transformation and boosted unprecedent technology innovation.
