Digital Divides
Mar 29, 2010 Comments Off
The major purpose of this week’s readings was to examine digital divides from two different perspectives. Witte and Mannon explore digital divides through demographic splits. Norris explores digital divides by analyzing divides as global, social, and democratic. The only real conclusions that I received from the Witte and Mannon reading was a lot of statistical data to support their claim of digital divides being present across all demographic groups. The one thing they did mention that had the semblance of a conclusion was that the inequality of the internet cannot “be captured by thinking of the issue in terms of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’”. Norris’s global digital divide is the best way to think about digital divides from an international perspective, and Norris is correct to point out that it need to be addressed despite the attitude of the cyber skeptics. The issue of social digital divides is a subject that Witte and Mannon focus on using an American perspective. However, I find myself agreeing with the attitude of the cyber skeptics that “technologies adapt to society.”
The democratic divide was an issue that Norris focused on that I found really interesting. The idea that minority groups can use the internet to get there points out just as majorities and other groups can use the internet along with their traditional resources to get their points out seems to be a uniquely 21st century occurrence. While the minorities and fringe groups that use the internet to get out their points do not become mainstream, the fact that they are able to utilize the internet means that they can function in order to connect to others that may share a common ideology or unifying goal. This article made me think about the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Citizens United was a fringe group that produced a documentary that was critical of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Presidency. It sought to use both television and the internet to distribute their documentary. However, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act limited those kind of productions within a certain time limit of primaries. However, Citizens United challenged this law under 1st amendment reasons to try and overturn the law and allow their movie to distributed. The digital age allowed this small group to utilize its limited resources (relative compared to larger groups) to produce a documentary that would later be a culprit in overturning a significant Act of Congress and end the restrictions on campaign finance. This gets right to Norris’ point that insurgent groups can “challenge he authority and expertise of government ministers, civil servants, and elected officials on their own turf”
Recent Comments