Are we not divided?
So what's my problem with the digital divide?
It ignores real problems facing the electoral and communications systems in our country. Someone doesn't have access to the Internet? Yes, *that's* why they're an uneducated voter, not because the candidates fail to spark any real interest in our electoral process. They don't know the very latest information about the workings of our government? Yes, it's because they don't have access to blogs 24/7 and not because they have more important things to do during the hours they're not sleeping, eating, caring for their children and working two minimum-wage jobs to put food on the table for kids they never see.
The "digital divide" as a concept came into vogue in the mid-1990s, right when the earliest mainstream adopters of the Internet were hearing the words "You've got mail" for the first time. But, and I wish I could remember where I first heard this because I'd surely link to it, it's really just a new phrase to describe the very old chasm between those who have information and those who don't. From the printing press to the QWERTY keyboard, technology has been used by the privileged classes to consume information that the rest of society cannot, either because they cannot afford books or because they cannot pay the cost of a high-speed Internet connection.
Again, I'm NOT saying the divide doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not exclusive to the digital age, and it's not something that's going to change no matter how many high-speed connections we put up in rural areas. Again, I'm NOT saying we shouldn't put them up; I'm just saying we shouldn't expect them to solve our problems.
It ignores real problems facing the electoral and communications systems in our country. Someone doesn't have access to the Internet? Yes, *that's* why they're an uneducated voter, not because the candidates fail to spark any real interest in our electoral process. They don't know the very latest information about the workings of our government? Yes, it's because they don't have access to blogs 24/7 and not because they have more important things to do during the hours they're not sleeping, eating, caring for their children and working two minimum-wage jobs to put food on the table for kids they never see.
The "digital divide" as a concept came into vogue in the mid-1990s, right when the earliest mainstream adopters of the Internet were hearing the words "You've got mail" for the first time. But, and I wish I could remember where I first heard this because I'd surely link to it, it's really just a new phrase to describe the very old chasm between those who have information and those who don't. From the printing press to the QWERTY keyboard, technology has been used by the privileged classes to consume information that the rest of society cannot, either because they cannot afford books or because they cannot pay the cost of a high-speed Internet connection.
Again, I'm NOT saying the divide doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not exclusive to the digital age, and it's not something that's going to change no matter how many high-speed connections we put up in rural areas. Again, I'm NOT saying we shouldn't put them up; I'm just saying we shouldn't expect them to solve our problems.
And that's probably my biggest problem with the "digital divide" -- it fools us into thinking that if Microsoft donates 1,000 computers to an inner-city school, or if your cable company donates some fiber-optic lines and labor to get the elementary school in the middle of nowhere hooked up to the Internet, that all of our nation's problems will slowly begin to heal. Is that all it takes? Is helping some kid in New York or Selina, Kansas, check his e-mail faster all we really have to do to live in a better country?
posted by politiae at 6:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home