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?

Crowdsourcing Legal Goldfarming?

When I learned about goldfarming in my own research for our tech talk in group 5, and after hearing Annie’s lecture about it in class, it got me thinking about crowdsourcing as well. To me these are two very interesting topics regarding the usage of technology and people. In my mind, I automatically think the crowdsourcing is good and legal, and that godlfarming is bad an illegal. Through my research both inside and outside of class I have come to a conclusion that this is not always the case.

As we know crowdsourcing is when a company or person needs to find a solution or get something done, so they post their problem to several people who do the research to try to find the answer, and a reward (usually money) is given to the person who gets it right. To me this sounds like a god idea. People search for others to do research for them and they get paid at the end. But this could easily be used to take advantage of people. One instance of old-school crowdsourcing comes to mind is in Huckle Berry Finn where he has to paint a fence, but gets others to do it for him. This would have been ok if he gave the people a reward who worked for him instead of just left them with nothing. This could easily be done today. A company could refuse to pay someone, or if the company is small enough, just take the solution, money, and run. Crowdsourcing is a great idea and can get a lot of stuff done, but like everything else, there are ways of getting around it, and people who will try to cheat others out of money.

Goldfarming isn’t always a bad thing. Lets look at one specific type of goldfarming, videogames. First off its cheating for the person to sell their character online to someone else to do the dirty work for them. The whole point of a game is to play it, and if you are paying someone else to play it, what’s the point? Why do you even have the game? But on another standpoint, when people sell their character to someone, they are providing a job for that person, and in many cases they are getting paid more working on someone’s character than they would if they had another job. Although the gamer doesn’t want to play certain parts of a game, they are giving other people money to play the game for them which is not only giving a source of income to the goldfarmer, but also opportunities to play the game. Although people are cheating because they are paying others to play the game for them, it’s their choice how they want to play the game. Just like crowdsourcing there are ways that people will get cheated out of their money. Sellers might not pay with a sufficient account, or the goldfarmer might not give the character back without receiving more money. A ransom if you will.

To me, I see goldfarming and crwodsourcing as something very similar. Both want to have a solution to a problem (or in the case of videogames, want to level up their character but either don’t have time, or don’t want to do the tedious job off leveling up) and pay others to find the solution to their problem. Likewise both crowdsourcing and goldfarming require many people to work on a solution for the seller. I think that in time crowdsourcing will become the best and most cost efficient way to get a solution to a problem a company has, and goldfarming will be very similar to crowdsourcing, where people pay others to do a tedious task for them where normally they wouldn’t have the time or the desire to do it themselves.

Here I have found a link to a video where a gamer has claimed how to get lost of gold very fast in the World of Warcraft. This eliminates the argument that paying someone real money to get you lots of gold is cheating, but does beating the system (by using the methods this person displays on their video) make it ok if you are doing it yourself for your character?
http://www.wowgoldfarmingguide.com/WoW/Gold-Farming-Guide/index.php

Political Campaigns Meet Web 2.0 Benefits

While reading Web 2.0 Powers Political Campaigns – From Presidential Race to Local Elections, it got me thinking how much of an asset the internet has become for candidates, especially young ones who are looking to get their name out there asap and become better known before the election. Having the internet- especially the tools and ease of access web 2.0 offers- makes it possible for candidates to interact with voters and make voters feel like they have more of a personal relationship with the candidate.

Several candidates now are using blogs and personal websites to stay in touch with voters and supporters. Using the internet to help support and run their campaigns is a great way to connect communities due to the mass number of people who use the internet on a regular basis. Having all of their information posted on the internet for anyone to see makes it easier to access and can be done whenever someone has free time. In communities where people are working hard and don’t have set leisure times worked into their schedule, watching the news to see updates on political campaigns can be hard. Internet sites created by these political people really cater to these types of communities.

Another important community that is truly benefitting from political campaigns being posted and run on the internet are young people and especially new voters. These new voters are inexperienced in terms of the voting experience, and are usually not as educated in politics and candidate stands as veteran voters. Having the candidates use the internet to post information about where they stand on issues regarding their election makes this information more accessible for young new voters who are more internet savvy than older voters who do not use the internet as much. Most canidades agree that the new voter vote is one of the most crucial groups of people to win over because their numbers are so huge. Having the internet on a candidate’s side will more likely bring young voters to their site where they can learn where a candidate stands on certain issues. If a candidate does not use the internet to cater to this community of voters, they are only hurting themselves.

To me, I see more positive things coming from using the internet to post blogs, information, videos, and forums than harmful things. Sure if a candidate uses the internet more to keep communities involved with their campaign they will shrink the older audiences who do not use the internet and get most of their information from the newspaper or television, but they will be attracting a greater number of internet users to their campaign and hopefully win their vote. I feel that a candidate that uses the internet primarily for their campaign will gather more communities to their campaign than a candidate who refuses to use the internet to aid them in their campaign. In this case, I’d have to argue that internet campaign information connects more communities than it divides. I guess we’ll just have to see how successful candidates are who use the internet than those who do not. Although just because you are using the internet to attract people, you still have to stand on the right side of issues so you can get people’s votes. It’s your political stance that wins votes, not how many members you have on your Facebook.



Below are a few graphs that I found regarding the political race of 2008. Here I have graphs that show the number of people who visited political websites during the election.

This chart shows the number of hits on Hillary's, McCain's, and Obama's website.

This is a graph of Democratic Candidates and the number of people who visied their websites.

Interestingly enough, this graph shows the number of people in the United Kingdom who vivited U.S. political websites. This shows that with the use of the internet, Candidates are able to get their message out to the people on a much larger scale. Also if people from outside the United States are interested in reading information about candidates can do so easily on their website.

Social and Culural Implications of the internet: Benefits and harms of the internet and how they divide or bring communities together

Please note before reading:
This is not a summmary of the article “Evaluating the Social and Cultural Implications of the Internet” by Philip Brey. Instead what I have done is taken 10 points he gave in his paper (5 benefits, and 5 harms of the internet) and have applied them in my own thinking and research to how they connect or divide communities. Enjoy! :)

Philip Brey’s article: “Evaluating the Social and Cultural Implications of the Internet” talks about how the internet is affecting society in both a positive and negative way. In one section of his article he lists several benefits and harms that the internet gives us as a community. It is here where I am going to be directing my attention to discuss his claims and go deeper into how his claims about the internet divide or make communities come together. First I’ll start with some of the benefits of the internet and then move onto the harms.

Benefits

Access to Information: Information can easily and quickly be accessed from anywhere. No longer do you have to go to a library to do all your research, you can do it wherever is easiest for you, whenever it is best for you. Having this information easily available is great on society. People can post information that they have gathered and in turn can help other people find the same information easier. Having other people’s work and research available on the internet is a great way to bring communities together because you are helping others find information by posting the work you have done.

Communication: People are now able to communicate in various ways including one-to-one, one-to-many and many to-many through the internet. Meetings with major businesses can all get together in front of their computers in their offices and hold live video meetings in their separate buildings. No longer do you have to get on an air plane or take your private jet to go meet with clients. By using the internet to communicate, families can keep in touch overseas for free, and still get all the benefits, if not more (video) of a phone conversation without the expensive long distant fees. Having the ability to communicate with people all over the globe through your computer in a blink of an eye is a great way to bring communities together.

Developing and Maintaining Social Relations: This one is very similar to the point made above. Basically if a company, or even for private usage, is required to keep in contact with clients across the world, the internet is the fastest, cheapest, and easiest way to do so. In a matter of seconds a meeting can be called in the United States, and members from China, Russia, Europe, and anywhere else clients are located can get on their computers and the meeting can start. For private use, families and friends can keep in touch with home if they go out of state or country for school, work, business, or vacation. Being able to keep and maintain steady social relations with people is not only vital for most businesses, both big and small, but also a very practical way to keep communities together.


Community Formation and Social Organization: By using the internet to set up social organizations or movements you are broadening the amount of people who will receive this information. If you want to set up a protest, more people will be informed of it if you send your invitations over the internet instead of standing outside the grocery store to get people to sign a petition. Not only is your audience greatly increased, but you also have the ability to condense your audience’s size to specific people or groups of people that you want to hear your message. This is helpful because you can eliminate all the people who you don’t need to contact and this will save you time. Instead of asking everyone on the street to sign a petition about something, and only talking to a small percent of people who are interested in what you have to say, you are only asking those who would already be interested and you can be more successful in your results. The internet is a great way to bring communities together for social movements and formation.

Leisure and Entertainment: The internet is a great way to kill extra time. People can do various tasks on the internet that can bring communities together. One can join an online discussion about a problem in the community that people want to fix. You can read up on current events that are going on in your community or worldwide. If done correctly, your leisure or down time from your other activities can be put to great use instead of watching television or playing videogames. One can use the internet to educate themselves about the things they want to know or things that are important. Since the newspaper is on it’s last leg and won’t be long till it is no longer in print, the internet will become the best way to gain information about current events. By using your free time to gather information on the internet, you are helping to become a better member of society and ultimately bring communities together.

Harms

False Information: Brey argues that the internet is often filled with incorrect information. As a result, it’s often hard to find out if the information you are looking at is in fact false because it’s almost impossible to look at the sources where this information is coming from. He claims that in many cases, “the internet is thought to represent a step backwards compared to more traditional information media.” Having so much false information on the internet can severely divide a community. If someone is doing research and wants to look up information from a specific place only to find that their information is often incorrect, they will stop using that source. If people see this more often, they will stop branching out to look for more information and only look in the places that are most familiar to them isolating themselves from other communities, especially new ones, that might have valuable correct information. To stop dividing communities in this way, all places should provide correct information on the internet, and get rid of those who provide incorrect or false information.

Harmful Information: The internet is becoming a home for inappropriate and dangerous material. Brey states that the internet is containing such harmful information such as “extremist ideology, recipes for making bombs, extreme forms of pornography, libelous information, and so forth.” Having the internet be the home of these things, it’s obvious that people are going to object the internet as an important place to visit because it houses such terrible things. If a house hold bans the internet because they are worried that their child is looking at pornography or looking up how to make a bomb to blow up their school, they are protecting them, but also talking away their ability to quickly look up helpful information for school projects, libraries to check out books, or to interact with a friend who lives out of state. Just because the internet has a bad site on it doesn’t make the whole thing bad. This misconception that many people have about the internet being the breeding ground for vulgar and inappropriate/dangerous information which results in them not using the internet can divide communities, especially since so many communities thrive on the concept and usage of the internet. Communities will have a hard time surviving if they isolate themselves from the internet when the majority of communities are so involved with it.

Harmful Communication: The internet is often filled with vulgar terms, and inappropriate language. When people communicate on the internet, more often than not they will use vulgar language to get their point across. If people are not using appropriate language on the internet, communities who are offended by this language will turn away from the internet and not use it so they don’t have to hear this kind of language weather it is directed towards them or not. If people are using such inappropriate language that results in people not using the internet or cutting their time on the internet shorter, it’s a no brainer that those communities will miss out on relations with other internet active communities thus dividing them.

Harmful Effects on Social Relations: It’s been argued that interaction on the internet is harming face-to-face relationships because so many people would rather spend time on the internet talking and interacting with people rather than doing so in person. If this is the case, then communities will definitely suffer. If people choose to spend more time online talking with people and not doing so in person, valuable communications skill will be lost and people will have problems talking with others face-to-face when they have to (meetings, speeches, checking out at the grocery store). If a community becomes sucked in to online communication to the point where they cannot function face-to-face with others outside their computers, they will suffer as a community, and will have no chance talking with others in person from other communities. Time communicating on the internet should not be greater than actual face-to-face talking off their computers.

Loss of the Sense of Reality: Another claim about the internet is that it makes heavy users of the internet have a hard time distinguishing the difference between virtual reality, and reality off the computer. People who cannot tell the difference between online and offline worlds will develop “ insecurities, disagreements, and a loss of meaning” (Brey). If people really can’t tell or have a hard time distinguishing the difference of between what’s real and what’s not, they will have no chance to survive as a community off their computer. Despite what some people might think, communities will never go completely digital because there will always be a real physical world in which we live in. People need to spend time in this world too and not dedicate all their time on the internet in their virtual worlds to the point where they can’t tell the difference between the internet and reality.

Brey makes several more arguments about the harmfulness and benefits of the inter net in his article. Although it’s pretty obvious what he means by his arguments as he displays his meanings quite clearly, I have taken it in a different direction by noticing his arguments and focusing on how they can be applied to argue how the internet divides or brings communities together. It’s important to think about how the internet can be harmful or useful, but also how it effects society and our ever growing communities on and off of the internet.