Riya Kamat: 'Exclusion Doesn't Happen to Systems. It Gets Built Into Them'

Riya Kamat is a junior at Singapore American School and the founder of Shadows of Progress, a podcast exploring who benefits and who gets left behind as technology evolves. At just 17, her work spans platform economics, women’s labour, technology ethics, and systems design, combining field and academic research with sharp observations on how inequality and exclusion gets built into everyday systems.

Q. You’re still in high school, but your work feels unusually serious and research driven. Where did this begin?

A. Honestly, it started with a spreadsheet. I was interning at a creator platform, Animeta where I was analysing the creators who were landing brand deals. I assumed quality would drive opportunity. Instead, I realised visibility was driving opportunity. The same kinds of creators kept getting amplified urban, English-speaking, already visible. Smaller regional creators were being filtered out by the system itself. That’s when I understood something important: the system wasn’t broken. It was working exactly as designed.

Q. You didn’t just observe these systems you proposed changes. What came out of that work?

A. At Animeta, I found that brand-matching heavily prioritised follower count, which meant highly engaged regional creators kept losing opportunities to larger creators. I proposed reserving a ten percent of each campaign spend for rising regional creators and creating collaborations between established and emerging voices. This recommendation was accepted by senior management and was piloted in a few campaigns. This was the first step towards an inclusive system.

At Slurp, the issue was different. Homemakers were earning income through the platform, but some women still didn’t have full control over that income at home. The technology had moved faster than the social structures around it. So we recommended workshops focused on financial confidence, peer support, and family conversations, not just skill-building.

Q. You often describe inequality as a “design problem.” What do you mean by that?

A. Every system is designed around assumptions: what resources users have, what “normal” behaviour looks like, whose needs are prioritised. Those assumptions shape outcomes. If a platform assumes stable internet, fluent English, or formal financial history, it automatically becomes easier for some people and harder for others. That’s not accidental it’s design.

Q. Is there a pattern you’ve noticed across industries?

A. Absolutely. The pattern is remarkably similar across industries. Take agriculture as an example. AI-powered precision farming and digital marketplaces promise higher productivity but the farmers who benefit most are usually those who already have capital, connectivity, and digital literacy. Smallholder farmers get the promise of the technology without the conditions that make it work. Innovation is rarely distributed equally. That's why I think we need to evaluate it not just by how advanced it is, but by how inclusive it is.

Q. Does any of this connect to your own life?

A. Completely. I'm a competitive powerlifter, and even now people ask my mother whether lifting is appropriate for a girl before they ask whether I'm strong. But what stays with me isn't the comments it's the spaces. Walk into most gyms and the layout tells you who the room was built for before anyone opens their mouth. Cardio machines open and central, free weights in corners that feel claimed. Design communicates belonging before policy ever does. That's true of gyms, of platforms, of agricultural technology. The question of who the system was imagined for is almost always answered before you arrive.

Q. Why is reframing social inequality as a design issue important?

A. Because it makes solutions actionable. If inequality is treated as vague “human nature,” then change feels impossible. But if it comes from specific design decisions, then those decisions can be challenged and changed. It gives us something concrete to work on.

Q. So what are you advocating for?

A. Two things. First, inclusive design from the start not as an afterthought once problems appear. The important questions need to be asked early: who is missing from this system, and what assumptions are we making? Second, clearer advocacy. Not outrage for the sake of outrage, but making systems understandable enough that people can actually see how certain outcomes are being produced.

Q. Where do you see this work going in the future?

A. I want to be where systems are being shaped early, whether that’s through technology, policy, or research. Because once assumptions get locked into a system, changing them becomes much harder. The earlier you are in the process, the more power you have to influence who gets included.

Shadows of Progress is available on all major podcast platforms. You can catch the podcast: Here