by Ben Heine

What it is

“Digital Divide” refers to the gap between those who benefit from digital technology and those who do not. It took digital-divide researchers a whole decade to figure out that the real issue is not so much about access to digital technology but about the benefits derived from it. Examining the situation more closely, it turns out that upper-to-middle classes have high-quality access to digital technology because the profit motive pushes technologists to work hard at creating “solutions” designed specifically for them. In this equation, however, the poor are ignored because the assumption is that designing solutions for them will not be profitable. The result is that even where the poor are provided access to digital technology, it is low-quality. Furthermore, the digital technology they do have access to is often of a design that ends up being harmful rather than beneficial. This, in turn, widens the digital divide.

Consider, for the example, cyber cafés. Years ago, many pointed to their spread as an example demonstrating that the digital divide was shrinking. But when a local youth in a Cambodia village ignores his school work and instead spends his evenings playing violent video games at a local cyber café, he is not really benefiting from digital technology. Thus giving to the poor digital technology that has been designed for the rich may actually add to the causes of poverty and accelerate the exodus of the rural poor into cities already bursting at the seams.

The new view is that closing the digital divide will be most effectively achieved through a two-pronged approach, one direct and the other indirect: The direct approach will be for governments and businesses to work together to change the incentives that shape digital markets. The indirect approach will be for them to team up on e-government digital technology initiatives that extend rural health care and quality education to the poor. Through these two approaches, the poor will be able to reap many of the same benefits from digital technology now derived by the wealthy.

We are living in a supposed era of freedom of information, but in a world were supposedly democracy and freedom of speech and idea hold sway, then why do we still suffer from copyright laws, censorship and why everyday must people fight petty legal battles against conglomerate corporate might. Why still are people still suffering and being repressed for sharing ideas over the Internet, where such ideas should be able to flourish. Why do governments still attempt to control and limit our ability to create ideas and work as groups when groups that promote Nazi ideas and KKK groups are still able to march freely and in public. There is more persecution and censorship online than in the real world. Why is this?

Its because we are not intellectually free, and our governments fear our power as individuals to ride outside the system, to present ideas to one another and to be free of thought and mind, in a world that ultimately they have no control over.

The Internet and cyberspace, the last haven of intellectualism (if you can deal with all the leet speak that occurs), a place were many ideas can be shared by many people simultaneously. However the Internet is controlled and repressed by the government and commercial organisations that inevitably wish to restrict information and ideas, and want us as people to behave like sheep.

A solution must be found, and we have that solution. Independent media sites, community sites, many places on the web that are run by people for other people to use for free, where ideas are shared but unfortunately these are quickly repressed and controlled, but every-time one is taken down another 3 are created.

The Internet is free, Autonomous zones are created day by day, where people can do as they please, The Internet is our society, with our rules and our laws. The Internet is a true democracy. It should be The Democracy.

The question is:
Can we carry this democracy into all areas of life?
Can we remove those boundaries to free speech and idea?
Can we stop copyright and intellectual property laws?

The answer is yes, with time and effort maybe. Already many people globally fight for this sort of freedom. Can we as individuals, with our own minds, do less? No, We must fight for those ideals we believe in.

But we need to look at where the problems stem from. Cartels, and conglomerates of companies, corrupt bureaucrats and governments. So what can we do against such a force. An awful lot, Boycott industry and products, Vote for parties that have decent agendas, instead of voting blindly. Or form your own political parties. There are many potential solutions to these problems. At the most radical, overthrow the government. At the most basic, protest against them. We are intelligent people, and we have power.

“People shouldn’t fear their governments, governments should fear their people”