Wikipedia - Digital Divide

The digital divide is essentially the schism between people with regular, stable internet access, and those without. The rift is dynamic, depending on any number of factors, from technological concerns (poor computers, slow connections), to socio-economic concerns, to global economic conerns. The article discusses studies of internet access, and how much reliable access is available to groups, some of which shows digital divide even within households (such as the father and mother having internet access at work, but the children having none at home). Simple access to technology is not the only staple in eliminating the divide, but both literacy and digital literacy also have profound effects on the schism where most internet content is written in English and anyone unfamiliar with computer use may not be able to access the web. The article suggests that the hidden rules of society keep lower class "have-nots" from becoming "haves" with internet access because even when presented with the possibility of access, the lower-class users don't know how take advantage of the access. I found this definition of "hidden rules" which is mildly useful, since the article made no attempt to expound this socio-economic concept: http://www.ext.wvu.edu/cyfar/rut/hiddenrules.htm

The article ends with several sections regarding democratic potential, which I found myself considering with some ambivalence. Ironically, the suggestion that eliminating digital divide is bringing true Athenian democracy to everyone is almost counterintuitive to the overall argument. After a long discussion of making internet access available to everyone in their native context (be it language, social class, etc.), the summation of this digital divide problem as a barrier to true democracy seems somewhat limited. It assumes that everyone wants to and thrives under democracy, which I think is a false and pretentious claim very pertinent to our times. Forcing democracy on the world has proven to be problematic and complex in the least. The article isn't suggesting the web is forcibly promoting democracy, but I found the sections of social benefit and democracy to be uniquely white, middle-class, American considerations, devoid of any consideration for what universal, stable internet access could do for Iranians, Aboriginees, or citizens of the African states. So Americans can participate in direct democracy via e-democracy. What good does that do lower-class Yugoslavians? The perspective seemed limited, and I couldn't help but assume that the contributors to this article were all on the "haves" side of the divide. I am interested in the voice of the "have-nots." What do they think of the implications and the possibilities?

Disgruntles aside, I do think the divide is true and compelling, and like many things in our society (and others) a significant problem. Equality is difficult to achieve. True equality within a society has never really been pulled off and may never see its day on this little blue globe. I think Walton was right. It seems logical that Bill Gates should fund the education of future tech users. Why not? If I ever became fortunate enough to make a good living writing, it would behoove me to support the teaching of reading, to ensure I would always have readers looking to obtain my work. Bill Gates should fund math, science, and technology courses, and place equipment for learning in schools and community centers.

Finally, I think it's interesting that the digital divide is sort of the melting pot for most of our inequalities. It really highlights a significant number of schisms, from racism, to poverty, to education problems. From age, to geography, to culture, the digital divide encompasses nearly all rifts in equality in a manner which is more inclusive than most other such examples. It's sort of the universal measuring tool for inequality, which is profound considering how much stock we all put in the glowing bright future of the world thanks to our shiny little laptops.