Jennick Scheerlinck

Scheerlinck sees neighbourhood connection as infrastructure that requires sustained design attention, not episodic activity. His core concern is that digital platforms often fail at their stated purpose because they conflate reach with belonging [3]. He distinguishes sharply between broadcasting to people and creating conditions for them to recognize and trust each other locally. A neighbourhood platform succeeds when residents can follow events, request help, and see their input reflected back, not when it maximizes audience size [5].

Trust in local communication depends on channel design and consistency, not just message quality [6]. When municipalities broadcast through attention-driven feeds designed for speed and emotion, "shared facts become harder to protect" even if the message itself is correct [6]. Neighbourhood-level digital spaces should operate differently: protected from bots and automation, grounded in real residents and local governments, and built for human relationship-building rather than viral reach [7].

Participation should be reconceived as ongoing civic infrastructure rather than a project phase. Residents build confidence through repeated, recognizable interactions where they can identify what is being asked, respond realistically, and observe what happens with their input [4]. He emphasizes that "stronger neighbourhoods are not built through one-off moments of engagement" but through sustained local dialogue [4]. Engagement infrastructure must work for people with varying digital confidence, assistive technology needs, and time constraints, accessibility is foundational to social cohesion, not an add-on feature [9].

Emergency communication reveals these principles in practice. The BE-Alert storm case showed how identical messages treated as spam created delays, while local delivery through neighbourhood networks achieved faster notification and actual engagement with residents [1]. Multiple channels matter, but only if grounded in local context and recognisable to the people receiving them [1].

The underlying argument is that digital democracy fails when platforms prioritize reach over recognition. Neighbours need to "recognize each other as people who live nearby" [7], understand local context, and see themselves as part of a continuous community conversation [2]. When those everyday weak ties fade, communities lose their early-warning systems for need and their capacity to welcome newcomers or support vulnerable residents [2].