1. The Slater article seems to pose a very important question about access to technology for disadvantaged people in the context of political action. What he did not address is the other side of this question: if politics and social action becomes increasingly online based, are we only going to be left with affluent, technologically capable people handing a good deal of organizing?
   
2. We’ve seen examples of pretty shallow online political discourse (like the Clipper votes in Gurak) and also some meaningful online organization like in Jervay. I am curious which direction online activities have gone since this book was written, and more importantly, if any social/political/technological forces have encouraged online discourse to take that form. I am sure there is still a continuum, but maybe I’m looking for more current examples besides MoveOn and the Dean campaign.
   
3. When reading about all of these poor groups who barely have access to computers, I am left wondering where all of the “outdated” computers are going. With the constantly increasing demands of both software and website bandwidth it is almost as though those machines are being forced into obsolescence. Are phenomena like the increasing hardware demands of Windows a part of the drive of the capitalist machine? It does not make much sense to me that anyone should be without a computer anymore with all of the recycling of computers. I have heard about simputers, but despite the fact that we have cheap-but-old technology the idea has not taken off. I guess I’m curious about the effect of market pressures on the digital divide (sorry for the somewhat non-justice rant).
   

-john t