The Future of Religion

I agree with the last comment on religion, it's potential on the internet is vastly underrated by these experts we've been reading about. The internet, if nothing else, is a great place for zealots to advertise their beliefs. Commercial time is expensive, but blog space is very cheap and easy. Jesus or Buddha or Mohammad or whatever icon people are into these days, are very commercially viable for the pious people of the world. And as someone mentioned earlier this week, the internet is great because we can get all these views and choose to ignore them as we please. If we get a pop-up to join the Church of Latterday Saints, we can just close that window. Of course I don't really want this kind of spam on the internet, I'm just saying this is one possible place religion can go if it wants to be part of the future of the Internet. Is it because religion is so conservative in its ways that they don't think it will change in the next decade?

Impact on religion

While I agree with the comment that religion is a personal field, I disagree with the impact of the Internet. I think that the impact on religion may be understated. The practice of religion has both a personal and community component. For example, groups of Christian believers gather on Sundays in churches for collective worship services, groups of Islam/Muslim believers in mosques for prayer, and groups of Jewish believers gather on Saturdays(?).
For Christians there is an increasing number of televangelists broadcasting from mega-churches and Christian television networks (eg TBN) (sorry I don't know if this exists in other religions). These televangelists also have websites and broadcast their worship services on-line. The availability of an on-line service may have an impact on religion by providing alternative worship services and allowing Internet users to join in social networks that are not local.
If use of the internet will increase social networks and religion has a social component, can one expect the internet to have a larger impact on religion?

Better Education

I found it interesting to read Part 8 of the report regarding formal education. Majority of the experts agreed that most students would be spending more time working on computers for virtual classes, etc. One of the experts mentioned that only wealthier schools would be able to afford the accommidations for such access. Then another expert discussed that it would be, and is, a valuable addition to universities. As an undergrad currently, I have known people that have taken courses online, and the material needs to be learned in a completely different way. The student needs to first of all make sure that their attention is completely toward the online lecture when viewing it, then there isn't the same interaction between the student and professor/ta or interactions between students. My question goes back to whether or not this is actually a good learning technique? I think that if there are going to be classes offered like this the students should have open exposure to that sort of teaching earlier in life. Is the solution to have certain online curriculum needed earlier in schooling to open this technique? Could the extra curriculum be available to everyone, and how?

Predictions

My Granpa, who was a wise man, when was asked to foresee something was used to say something that sounds like this: "If you could make me foresee the future, then I could make you a king."

Predictions are ok, I like them. It's something we can talk about for hours. It's fun to predict and then check out who was right. We even play with prediction: We bet on horses, soccer games, whatever else... But we should not, in my opinion, take predictions too seriously, even if they came from "experts".
As my granpa was trying to teach me, nobody see the future, neither do experts.
If someone could do it, the million experts in soccer who spend billions of words on which team will win the game next Sunday wouldn't be in TV preaching, but on an island in the sun.
I bet.

Said that, it was interesting to see how experts comment previsions about several social aspects of the Internet. But, to me, it was like watching a pre soccer game show. Everybody says his/her own and that's it.
Please do not consider me the one who wants always to criticize. I don't think I am.
I think a debate on the future of the Internet, especially in certain areas, could be helpful. But not in the way it was done in this report. Maybe it was just they way this report was created that sounds bad to me... with its handful of predictions, this report sounded to me like trying to play darts being blinded. Who knows what you can hit? I really don't know, so I'm really interested in your opinion on the utility of a debate on the future of the Internet.

Pew results on the 'Future' of Personal Politics

Of particular interest in the Pew report was 'Part 12, Politics', that indicated the respondents were divided on whether the people would use the internet to filter out opposing points of view. It would be interesting, but nearly impossible, to get data on how people use news sources on the internet. I think most thoughtful people compare multiple sources: contacts, newspapers, radio, internet, tv. How might the internet change this? It is vastly easier for people to access Ha'aretz, Xinhua, or 700Club news sources online than in print, and tv media rarely carry them. But the key, I think, to deliberate filtering behavior is distanciation: the dissolving of some social connections in a way that you can neither completely identify with nor mindlessly despise the other. It feels SAFER for people to access an opposing viewpoint through anonymous surfing than with physical talking and its possible threats. I think access of political information online allows some distance- distance to be braver and click into the opposing camp. Has anyone done this? Do you think that those who wouldn't consider opposing viewpoints in person or in other media ALSO would not consider them online? Or does the anonymity allow experimentation?

Great, something else to worry about!

The prediction in the PEW report that the most respondents agreed with was something I'd never even thought about before -- the possibility of a "devastating attack" on the infrastructure of the Internet itself.

I would not have imagined that such a thing would be possible, since the physical side of the Internet is servers, computers, network connections, and power supplies all over the world. Could a few targeted attacks to major servers cripple the whole system? Or could a clever virus spread across the Internet quickly enough to shut everything down? If these things are possible then I'm sure someone will try, but I would have guessed that the Internet is decentralized enough to be safe. I'll admit I don't know a lot about these things, though.

How do you think people would respond to a massive Internet blackout? When I was an undergrad we occasionally suffered a campus-wide loss of Internet service, due to physical problems with the cables connecting us to the outide world (we were located in a small town in the mountains). This was frustrating and annoying, but mostly because it deprived us of a valued source of entertainment. However, we knew that the problem was local and they'd get everything working again within a couple of days.

In the wider world I don't think there are yet many crucial services that depend on the Internet, so life could continue mostly as usual if there were an Internet blackout. Some people wouldn't have anything to do at work, but no one would die from it. My chief concern would be that people would panic if they knew something had gone wrong but couldn't rely on their usual source of instant, searchable news to find out what had happened. But if TV and radio were unaffected, the Internet blackout would surely be the big story on all channels.

Better Policy Choices?

What caught me in the PEW Center report was the idea that if we accurately predict the future of the Internet's impact on American life, we will have the chance to craft better social policy.

I suppose that's true, though I don't see the likelihood, given the current political climate of tax cuts, social security privatization and Medicade cuts, that the investment some experts call for in the hardware, training and access that many Americans would need to be included in all that's to come will ever happen.

At a time when growing poverty rates and stagnation in job growth mean that millions of Americans go without the basic necessities of daily life, how successful will our advocacy be when we call for broadband for those who first need bread? For those who could use medical care far more than tech support?

I fear not very.

Wi-Fi

In the reading this week, I was most interested in the survey question “By 2014, 90% of all Americans will go online from home via high-speed networks that are dramatically faster than today’s high-speed networks”. While there was disagreement among the experts as to how or even if this is possible, this seems to be a pretty accurate prediction. While this isn’t directly mentioned, wireless is an increasingly pervasive option for accessing the internet. Here at the university, there are several access sites one can bring their laptop to and easily access the internet. There are several pilot cities around the nation, including Philadelphia, that plan on offering free (eventually fee based) wireless internet access in the near future. What I’m curious about is, with the falling prices of actual computer hardware, will this be a way to bridge the digital divide? This article from Library Journal mentions the plan Philadelphia, among other cities, has proposed: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA479170 Will government eventually regulate the cost and/or availability of the internet, much like what happened with radio and television when they first became available?

Of possible interest: Masai undergrad in America

I thought some of you might be interested in this series of articles that ran in the Washington Post in December of '03. They are about a former classmate of mine at Randolph-Macon Woman's College, Kakenya Ntaiya. She graduated in 2004, and is the first woman from her region to earn a degree. Talk about digital divides -- Kakenya had never seen, much less used, a computer until she came to the US for college.

Washington Post link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35095-2003Dec27.html

If that doesn't work, you can find the same articles on the R-MWC website:

http://www.rmwc.edu/newsevents/kakenya/default.asp

1st Discussion Reaction

Okay, well, Dr. Greg (I can't say Dr. Downey, for that was the name of my childhood dentist) showed me how to post a message. Better late than never, I reckon.

Felt like I had a few more things to contribute to discussion today, but I didn't get the chance. So here goes:

For one, I guess I disagree that we're all in agreement that we necessarily have consented to live in a purely capitalist nation. I think that the social welfare state is a preferable alternative, and I personally advocate for an extension of the New Deal/Great Society model of the middle part of the last century. One of us made the comment that we shouldn't rely on government to tackle the pressing issues of the day, though I do not believe that the 'free' market offers better solutions to the problems of inequity and inequality. The expansion of privatization since Reagan certainly hasn't improved the divides between the social classes. In fact, quite the opposite has occured. The difference between the have-lots and the have-littles are almost as incomprehensible as the divides between developed and less-developed nations. What has the 'free market' done for those among us with the least?

Second, I think it's unfair to argue that, given unfettered access to digital information, those who gain new access might waste the chance to 'better themselves', so therefore, we may justify less access for certain groups. The same arguments were made a generation ago to counter the idea that African-Americans should have a chance at an equal education. Who would have foreseen even ten years ago the strides India would make in programming and technical support? Certainly not many of those who populated the U.S. classrooms and felt reasonably secure in their choice of a high tech career in computer science. Who can say what might arise from wiring the 'Colonias' of South Texas or the neighborhoods of the south side of Chicago? I know I can't predict that. I believe that we must work to maximze access for all, rather than assume that the 'more deserving' among should enjoy whatever privileges come their way.

Difference principle

Under the difference principle it is permitable to continue or even exaggerate inequality if through this it is possible to raise the position of the least advantaged. This inequality is allowable to the point where the ‘absolute position of the least advantaged can no longer be raised.’ How does this apply to digital divides and differences? Are there many scenarios where augmenting the inequality in resources and capabilities is to the eventual benefit of those least advantaged? Does this argument apply to this sort of resource?

The Horizontal Perspective

In the Lievrouw and Farb article, the authors say that, from the horizontal perspective, "The goal of policy is to ensure that individuals are able to accomplish their particular ends and purposes, and participate effectively in society, given the information resources available to them." However, they also cite Doctor (1991), who said that "Access will be of little benefit to large portions of the population, unless it is accompanied by equipment and training that allow effective use of access. What we need then is a 'right to access' in the broader sense of a 'right to benefit from access.'"

It seems to me that the availability of information resources and the ability to achieve benefits from access are not necessarily the same thing. So how can we make sure that policymakers understand this difference? How can we turn availability of information resources into achievable benefits of access? Does human capital play a role in that process? By that I mean, can there be a logical progression from availability of resources to involvement of an individual with cultivated abilities to the achievement of the benefits of access? When you throw in human capital, you throw in a lot more variables. For example, how does a person cultivate their abilities in order to come to this progression with the readiness needed to recognize that resources are available? This seems to become a cyclical problem, where the individual has to have some sort of access to information in order to know where and how to access other information that would allow them to cultivate their abilities... and on and on. My real question is, where is the starting point? How is someone without equitable access to information able to begin accessing the information they need?

Apples and Oranges...

In "Distibutive Justice", the discussion of giving everyone "the same bundle of material goods an services rather than the same level (so everyone would have 4 oranges, 6 apples, etc.)" (pg.2). That portion of the article continues to discuss how certain people would benefit from trade and be better off because of certain products. Not that I agree with this theory of distribution, or the problem with this theory, but should there be a distinguished hault that's trying to be given to people restricting what they are able to obtain? Could a system ever be created that would start everyone at the same level and then changes would be left to that individual? Why would that work, or not? (What would happen to inheritants from parents and family?)

Economic capital, Social capital and Culture capital

As I was reading about the theories and the debate over Information and Equity, in particular the part regarding the Horizontal Perspective, I recalled the work of a French sociologist that put in relation economical, social and culture capital. His name is Pierre Bourdieu. I think that his theories are strictly related to the Horizontal Perspective on Digital Divide.
I found a very brief and simple summary of his theories on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu). And here I paste some of it just to give a taste... hoping it could be interesting.

"[...] Instead of analyzing societies in terms of classes, Bourdieu uses the concept of field: a social arena in which people maneuver and struggle over desirable resources. A field is a system of social positions, structured internally in terms of power relationships. Different fields can be quite autonomous and more complex societies have more fields. There are three fundamental types of capital: 1. Economic capital: command over economic resources. 2. Social capital: relationships, networks of influence and support, people can tap into by virtue of their social position. 3. Cultural capital: parents provide children with cultural capital, the attitudes and knowledge that makes the educational system a comfortable familiar place in which they can succeed easily. Bourdieu’s theory is one of class reproduction, of how one generation of class ensures that it reproduces itself and passes on its privileges to the next generation. The main source of modern success is education. What is necessary for educational success is a whole set of cultural behavior. [...]"

I think that, as long as those capitals would be distributed unevenly, there will be a sort of social divide. Digital or whatever. And, as Bourdieu states that the main source of modern success is education, I think that the only way to proceed toward a partial reduction of the digital divide is to educate users or information seekers. The problem now seems to be different: Do all the people have an equal access to education? Is it due to economic differences between people?
In Italy would say that this matter is like a cat that is trying to catch its own tail... kind of never ending and circular.

Monkey Hamlet

I'm sure you've all heard the parable that if you give a room full of monkeys a bunch of typewriters, in time, one of them will bang out the works of Shakespeare.

It's been used to describe various aspects of the Internet, usually to mock it, especially with the idea that most of what is online are the monkey's non-Hamlet rejects. But it leads one to wonder: which non-"Hamlet" draft did the monkeys themselves like best?

In "Information and Equity" Lievrouw and Farb conclude that to achieve some degree of equity, information professionals should "develop the ability to interact with diverse individuals and groups so that they can facilitate, broker or navigate those groups' various interests and practices -- again, to achieve whatever people may value doing or being, in whatever contexts and to whatever degree people consider important. Information practice should include not only indentifying and accessing existing resources, and teaching people to be 'users' of those established resources; it will also require the ability to recognize and bring into play a heterogeneous range of social, cultural and documentary information resources -- interpersonal and family networks, informal links among experts, and sources of local and universal knowledge."

The question I have is: If access and education were unversally available (and yes, that's a big if with lots of issues in and of itself, but is encouraged earlier in L&F's 'implications' section ) why wouldn't this just happen on its own? If so, shouldn't the question be "how can information professionals get out of the way?" A libertarian distribution model to be sure (if you can distribute information) -- but is there any other practical way to diversify content and interest online?

By the way, try the Monkey-Hamlet thing out for yourself

UN Human Rights - Right to Information?

I'm interested in other people's opinions as to how the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be interpreted when it comes to the question of the right to information.

Article 26 promises free (and mandatory!) elementary education for all. Higher education opportunities must exist, but can be made merit-based. Article 27 protects intellectual property and guarantees the right of all people to participate in cultural activities, enjoy the arts, and reap the benefits of scientific advancement.

If a government were to bar people from schools, as the Taliban did for girls and women, it would be violating the rights outlined in this Declaration. So would a government that shut down all the theaters or blocked distribution of effective new medicines. However, it seems that the Declaration does not guarantee people any right to other forms of information, including information about what is happening outside their own country or what the government of their own country is up to!

Article 13 permits people to both leave and return to their homeland, so they should be free to see for themselves what life in other places is like. Yet this is not something people would be likely to do if they'd been lied to about the dangers of traveling abroad or harsh conditions in other nations. Article 21.3 says "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government", which might offer some protection against massive government deceptions or the withholding of important information, but it is not clear to me that this would apply to all cases.

If the "will of the people" gives officials power through fair elections, can the officials then do as they like or are they required to keep the public informed as to their activities?

Week 2-Strict Egalitarianism

The "Distributive Justice" article lists the two main problems of Strict Egalitarianism as how to measure distribution and a time frame for distribution. It does not mention how materials are chosen for distribution. Even if society exists on an equal level, ultimately, I think, power of distribution must be given to a selected segment of society. Those in power have the ability to control the goods before a level of measurement or time frame has been established. Does simply having the power of distribution leave a gap in equality, even if goods and services are equal, or is equality still enforced by the materials individuals possess?

Week 2-Inegalitarian Distribution

In the SEP section on "Distributive Justice", one concept was provocative (p.6). "Some people may have a preference that some...should have less material benefits. Under Utilitarian theories, in their classical form, this preference or interest counts like any other..." and, if not outweighed by a counter-interest, would prevail. This the most difficult thing about justice and democracy: sometimes 'their' side wins. This is the old saw about, I may not agree with you but I defend your right to hold that opinion. When considering equity of information, creators/distributors of information have choices and preferences about distribution. They may charge me for using their information, or they may publish it freely. They may deliberately filter it and I would never know. Woodrow Wilson said in 1915 that, "All the transforming influences in the world are unselfish." Business that create/distribute information must selfishly make profits, yet may also want to be a "transforming influence" on society. They consult with others when determining distribution patterns. What, in this Utilitarian scenario, could a possible process be for disadvantaged, invisible receivers to express their preferences and thus influence the equity of information distribution?

The Spring 2005 digital divides and differences web site is now open, with all readings listed for each week. Readings will be available for purchase from ASM Student Print by the time class starts. See you soon.

Soon we'll be ramping up for the Spring 2005 semester of Digital Divides and Differences. Watch this space.