Bridging the Digital Divide

A topic that came up in class many times and also appeared in some of the readings was the term “digital divide”. Since we are all familiar with this term I will not go into detail about when it means, but instead look at how it applies to my Blog. One of the main arguments that arose when talking about how to close the digital divide was by the use of cell phones. It was suggested and argued that cell phones might be the easiest and cheapest way to bring everyone around the world together regardless of how rural or suburban or remote the area was in which people were living and close the digital divide. Basically cell phones would be used to bring everyone together form different communities through technology.

I agree that there needs to be some way to close the gap in the digital divide and that if the whole world could stay connected by the same technology it would benefit all sorts of communities and not leave anyone behind in this fast growing digital world which we live in.

I agree with the argument that cell phones might be the answer to how we close the digital divide. Cell phones are one of the most inexpensive powerful technologies that we have today. For under $300 people have access to calling anyone regardless of how far away they are or what country they are living in. With cell phones, people have access to the internet without the hassle of a bulky computer that needs to be close to a Wi-Fi tower. With the compact size of a cell phone, the easy usability they have for new time users, and the low cost seem like a better option than modern computers. Although modern computers are capable of doing harder more complex tasks than cell phones, we need to think simple. IF we are trying to close the digital divide, we are simply trying to bring enough technology to everyone which would enable them to stay connected with people and access the internet, the breeding place for new technology information. People who have never seen a computer or a cell phone before, or simple do not have the money to afford to wire their community up with broadband do not need the latest, best, and most powerful sources of technology.

Closing the digital divide needs to be done with a technology with the capabilities of communicating with people around the world, internet access to simple websites, (web 2.0 would appear simpler with just text and pictures instead of videos and flash) portable, small, and easy to use, and also has to be low cost, and most practical. Since so many people have cell phones today, I feel that cell phones are the key to closing the digital divide. Not a lot would have to change to how these phones are made or how they work since most of them now are 3G and function on satellites. Although computers are more powerful, they are too expensive, bulky, and require too much construction in places that don’t already have these kinds of technologies (such as cable internet connections). Cell phones seem to the key to closing the digital divide. Although they are not perfect, cell phones seem to answer more of the requirements for closing such a divide than other technologies that commonly exist today.

This graph shows the number of people who use a certain media technology. Cellphones are used the most followed by T.Vs. About half as many people use P.Cs than Cellphones, and this was only in 2006. I know I didn't get my cellphone until 2007. This shows more people have cellphones than computers wich strengthens my argument about cellphones bridging the divide easier than computers since more people have cellphones.

This shows the grwoing rate of people buying cellphones. As time goes on, more and more people are using cellphones. Itis now becoming a device that everyone has, as oppsed to being rare if you knew someone who has a cellphone.

This graph shows the number of smart phones (cellphones that can access the internet) in various regions around the world. Rural places don't just have phones that make calls, but also phones that can got on the internet and keep their users connected with others around the world.

This graph shows cellphone developements around the world as opposed to other technology medias. On a globas aspect, the numbers for cellphones being developed is much higher than other technologies such as fixed telephone lines, broadband lines, and internet users.

Ubiquitous Computing: Helpful or Harmful?

After reading about ubiquitous computing and watching the “sixth sense” video at the T.E.D. conference in February of 2009, I got really excited about new technologies that are coming out. I was blown away at the thought of everyone having a personal computer strapped around their neck that enabled them to do whatever they wanted. Then I started thinking about it and how scary that could become. People accessing information about whatever they want without having to know how to hack into programs or data bases is definitely a bad thing. But more related to this blog’s theme, how would such devices like ubiquitous computing connect or divide a community?

As with every new technology that comes out, there are going to be the people who will go out and buy these new technologies even before all the bugs are worked out (innovators). This will happen when these ubiquitous computing devices become available to the public. At this point ubiquitous computing devices will really divide communities by people who have them and people who don’t. Although this isn’t a huge separation, it will still effect at community. The same thing happened with the iphone when it came out. If you had an iphone you could do things on your phone that others couldn’t do. Youtube could be watched everywhere, the games on the iphone are better, and it was an ipod, the most popular MP3 player today.

Eventually ubiquitous computing devices will hit where the iphone is at today; the early and late majority. This is about where we are today. It’s pretty common to see someone with an iphone today since they have been out for a while and it’s no longer a big risk to buy one. When ubiquitous computing devices get to this point, there will be more people with them and it won’t be such a shock to see someone standing in front of a wall uploading their pictures. I think what will happen with ubiquitous computing as opposed to the iphone will be how people look at others that don’t have such devices. For the iphone it is look at as a status symbol. You are cool if you have one. You get special treatment if you have the phone or are on the network (only AT&T customers and text in to vote for American Idol) and people want to buy one not because it will help them, but because it is the hot new thing. Ubiquitous computing devices on the other hand are looked at differently. If you don’t have one, things will be harder for you. This device is intended to help make getting information easier and truly be a personal computer. If you don’t have one you aren’t missing out on being labeled a “cool person”, instead you are looked at as someone who does not have the luxury of having a computer work hand in hand with you without the user having to do much.

These devices can really split a community because of how people look at one another, not buy people who can do more things than others with these devices. The division of communities will come from other people’s views and opinions of those who either have the luxury of ubiquitous computing or those who don’t. It’s not a matter of having the hot new thing, but instead how easy your life is by having a device that does so much for you without you having to do much. Sure it’s cool and I’m sure there would be a lot of people who divide a community based on your popularity that comes with these new devices, but I think it has more to do with the life one would live who had such devices as opposed to other people who are without ubiquitous computing devices.

This shows the ubiquitous computing device "The Sixth Sense". The video about this can be watched at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html

This is a picture of the all familiar popular ipod.

This shows the iphone sales when it first appeared onthe market. Similar graphs will appear whith the launch of ubiquitious computing devices hit the stores and become available to the general public. Clearly this will become a huge social phenomenon.

Facebook for Privacy

Privacy and Technology by Gary Marx brought up some good points about privacy that not only related to me, but that I have never really thought or considered before. When I think about social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook, I think of your own personal site where you have the freedom to do almost anything you want on it. You can find old friends, share videos with other people, send people gifts, and upload your own pictures. This all sounds like fun and a totally risk-free place to share who you are with people. The one thing I didn’t consider until recently is how much of your privacy is thrown out the window when you sign up for these kinds of social network sites.

When you create your account, you have to provide information about yourself so the network can recognize you. Your name, age, birthday, and other various pieces of information are wanted, and people tend to just fill this out without hesitation. But what they are failing to realize is that when you put your name on the internet, it goes everywhere no matter how secure or safe a social network sites claims to be. For the group of people who do realize that their personal information is made more easily accessible by others through one of these sites but choose to do so anyway is very interesting to me. They are willing to give up their right to privacy to join the new cool place to be on the web. People are willing to look past the dangers of exposing their privacy on the web to be a part of the new social network that’s climbing to the top.

I can remember when this happened with the end of Myspace being the top site, to Facebook becoming number one. People were having a lot of problems with Myspace. News casts and reports were warning parents to watch out for their kids who use Myspace. They claim that it was not a safe place to be on the web. Why were they saying this? People were meeting with others that were not safe people to be around (pedophiles, criminals, and other dangerous people). People’s personal information was being taken from them through Myspace and finally resulted in people not using the site as much as they did before. Then along came Facebook, the new hot place to be on the net which claimed to be nothing like Myspace. People, including the ones who went through problems with Myspace joined Facebok because it was the place to be. They knew that this site had all the potential dangers of Myspace (since it is just another social networking site) yet they sent in their personal information and signed up. Why are people so inclined to give up their privacy to join these social networking sites?

So what does this do to a community? If a community gets so used to the idea or very comfortable with the choice of giving up privacy for the new hip thing it opens the door for countless other opportunities where people will easily give up their privacy to get what they want. As a community that submits so easily to have their privacy taken away can lead to many problems communities face today including patient confidentiality. For those who aren't aware that they are trading their privacy for fun, they might not be aware to the fact that they are giving up their privacy for other things outside of social networking.

I think it all boils down to being part of the new cool thing which makes you popular. Kids start smoking at a young age so that they can be “cool” and “fit it” with other people. These kids are endangering themselves health wise for the same reasons people join social networking sites; to fit in and b a part of the current cool spot on the web. Despite all of the dangers and the total loss of privacy, people are still willing to give it up for Facebook. I don’t know if education people about this subject will really do anything, seeing how so many users of these social networking sites are well aware of their loss of privacy when joining these sites, yet they choose to do so anyway.

Mass amounts of Facebook usage connecting our communities

After reading Davis’ article: “Does Facebook Replace Face Time or Enhance it” It got me thinking about my role that I play on Facebook. I don’t get on it very often. I don’t have a ton or friends on my site, nor do I spend hours and hours checking it. To me I have a Facebook because I got one when it was the new and cool thing to do. I never really got into it though. Occasionally I will talk with my relatives in England or maybe catch up with a long lost childhood friend, but there is not a lot of serious interaction going on for me in the world of Facebook, but I’m not the typical Facebook user.

For a lot of people their lives revolve around Facebook, especially the older crowd (20s and 30s) who usually wouldn’t be using this kind of social network. Why are they drawn to Facebook more than to other social networking sites such as MySpace? For them it is like a digital address book where they can keep in contact with other people where normally they wouldn’t have the time or resources to communicate with these people. To me it seems like Facebook brings more good than bad. If people can use it to stay in touch with family and friends that are either overseas, or have too busy of a schedule to be able to communicate with them through the phone or email, Facebook is there to keep these relationships together. I do think though that some people are too involved with Facebook and are starting to lose the skills needed to communicate with people outside of their computers. If people start to choose to talk with others over Facebook than talk with them face to face (given that they are able to do one or the other just as easily) then their social skills off the computer are starting to deteriorate.

When people start to spend so much time on these social networking sites and become dependent on constantly checking them, it makes me wonder; what would happen if Facebook shut down tomorrow unexpected? Would these people who are so dependent on Facebook resort to other forms of communication to keep in contact with their digital friends or would they let their online relationships diminish? Honestly I don’t have an answer to this question. If I had to guess, I think that people would drop their more distant and weaker relationships and would build a different relationship with their closer friends, although I don’t think it would be as strong as the relationships we see today on Facebook and other social networking sites.

This is a simple graph, but it shows the effects of time spend on facebook and how it effects face to face communication

This graph shows the number of people who spend their time on certain parts of Facebook.(looking at pictures, looking for new friends, using the various Facebook applications, etc.) This shows the obvious, people are spending a lot of time on Facebook interacting with people online, rather than communicating face to face.

I know this graph is not in English, but you get the point. This is showing where around the world different social network sites (including Facebook) are being used. As you can tell it's not just Americans who are spending their time on social networking sites. What does this mean for face to face communication around the world with people from other countries?