User:RM395/Course/Week 11

The term "digital divide" refers to economic inequalities between groups (demographic, geographic, etc.) in terms of their access to technology and/or information about technology. Without limiting the discussion to Wikipedia, respond to the following three questions

1. How big of a problem is the digital divide today?
2. We talked last week about the future of information and technology; what do you think the implications are for the digital divide?
3. Are there any steps now or in the future that governments, corporations, non-profit organizations, communities, or individuals can take to help fix the problem?

A Growing Problem

I think the problem of the "digital divide" is one that becomes bigger the more dependent we are on our digital products and technologies. At this point it is a moderate issue, leaning towards being a really big issue. However, our reliance on these products and technologies is not growing at a steady rate, it is growing exponentially. In discussing the future of information and technology one of the things I said was that within a matter of years all information would be accessed digitally. Books are going to become obsolete and rare, and libraries will cease to exist. When that day comes the problem of the digital divide will be at it's peak. This is, of course, unless measures are taken to stop the problem ahead of time. However, it's an incredibly difficult problem to solve. I think of it like world hunger, the resources are there to end it if people would just share. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to share. Socialism sounds okay in theory but it never works, and short of that I don't know what the solution would be. This sounds ridiculously pessimistic, but that's the way I see it. Non-profits in particular I think can contribute to the issue in a positive way, as they have with world hunger, but I don't think they are capable of solving the problem. They can only hope to slow it down and put a dent in it.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am actually really curious as to why you believe the digital divide, as you describe it, is actually a problem. You discuss how we rely more heavily on our technology products but you don't say why it is an issue. I personally don't think it would be a bad thing if we didn't use print books anymore, digital books are much more convenient.--MartellRedViper (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically addressing the physical vs. digital books debate, may I draw your attention to the mass deletion of 1984 from Kindle devices due to copyright issues?[1] While the (ironic) 1984 incident may very well be just a mistake and not a predictor of things to come, the mass deletions do raise a very good question: are we sacrificing control for the sake of convenience when we switch to purely digital media? I prefer digital and physical books for different reasons. But I have a copy of The Illiad from 1886 sitting on my bookshelf, and if someone wants to revoke my privileges to that book, they're going to have to fight me for it. It's discouraging to think that I can't say the same for my digital library. --Katerwaul (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is going to be a growing problem as well. The ability to keep up with information is dependent on technology. With such inequalities in income and opportunities across the world, there are a lot of people who cannot keep up. This divide is going to become deeper the more advanced technology goes. Lower income families and regions of the world will not be able to keep up with information or each other. Technology grows at a rapid pace, but does not lose its value at the same rate. Such as how the DVD and VHS road went. When DVD players came out it took a while for VHS to lose its value, until ultimately you could get VHS players for pretty much nothing. By the time that happened Blu ray players came out, so some people are always out of the loop. The new iphone is out now, but the older 4s model has not become cheap enough yet that they can be practically given away, but the iphone 4 is free at Best Buy. Any phone can connect to any phone but other technology is not the same. Some people with old technology cannot connect with people with the newer one such as online gaming consoles. The divide will continue to grow because something new is always coming out and some will get it and stay current, while others are stuck behind and it lowers their ability to access information and connect with other people. I do not know of a solution because you cannot just give things away but maybe one day it will become cheaper to produce technology that everyone will be able to connect with.--SJRick (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The digital divide is a very big problem. It represents the difference between developed nations like the united states and developing nations like Mali. Many people around the world lack access to computers or if they do have access the knowledge they can gain from the digital world is very limited. If we look towards the future with the expected technological advances the digital divide will only get larger. The only way to close the digital divide would be to help developing nations become modern developed nations with the infrastructure to support networks for computers and modern devices. There is no simple easy path to ending this problem because where the digital divide exists there is already a major lack of other things like clean water and food. You would need to help these country's deal with those problems before you could even address the digital divide. --Youngpenn (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the only way to close the digital divide is by bringing technology to less priveledged societies. However, I also agree that you will have to bring more basic necessities to those countries first. Maybe, if the technology (even in its most basic form) was paired with some of these necessities when charities/etc. give them to said countries, the two problems could start to be fixed at the same time. I realize that this would be hard, but there are always going to be more important things than technology, so the only way for the digital divide to be fixed is to increase its importance. Kslinker5493 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the digital divide is a huge problem. It will continue to grow and get relatively worse over time. This will likely be roughly proportional to the economic disparities between first and third world countries. Countries can help to lower the divide by starting projects to reduce poverty in general. First world countries can also extend internet access as a federally provided utility to give people wider access to the internet in a less expensive way.--Jeflicki (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We're screwed. The digital divide is something that is going to continue to grow because we will always have low-income/poor families that cannot afford the technology when it comes out new. Technology is growing exponentially and poverty is not being fixed at the same rate. --Thepresidenthal (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing poverty might not be the best way to go about it. Although that is the most ideal solution, it is also the hardest to do. Technology can be reproduced fairly cheap now, the things that cost the most are the name brand things. If you slap an "i" in front of a product name, idiots will buy it. We should be able to create cheaper technology with the same capabilities as the name brand stuff for much cheaper, thus allowing more people to have access.--SJRick (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Making Progress

The digital divide is a significant problem. When we talk about technology, one of the first things we say about it is that it links people together from all around the world and that everyone has access to it. Yes, many people have access to it, but not all. The biggest problem with the digital divide is that we sometimes forget that it does exist, and conclude that everyone has access to technology at any time. Technology and the internet are both excellent resources and people definitely benefit from them, but people lacking technology is less of a problem than those who do have it forgetting that it isn't a right.

I think the digital divide will definitely start to diminish over the coming years. We see how much the internet and technology in general has grown and how fast this growth occurred. If this trend continues, the digital divide will slowly decrease. However, I don't think that it will ever completely go away. There are always going to be some people and some societies that won't have the unlimited access that others are fortunate enough to have.

If the government, corporations, etc. could create foundations or charities that bring the internet to communities that don't have access to it, I think that would be a start to fixing the problem. The digital divide would decrease if that started happening. However, I don't think this would ever happen because there are more important things than the internet. When societies are struggling to just get food and clean water, they can't think about technology. Basics first. Kslinker5493 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is a digital divide, but I think the solutions to the digital divide vary. Yes we could bring the technology to them, but I think one of the reasons why they did not have these types of technology in the first place is because they have more important things to worry about. Some areas of Africa, for example, don't even have access to clean water. They have bigger things to worry about like survival before they can even start worrying about forms of entertainment or internet. If these areas cannot even achieve basic necessities, giving them an iPhone won't help them much (unless they sell it for money or something). --MangoDango (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with the opinions stated above. If the world is still suffering from hunger, clean water issues, disease and other global issues, technology rightly takes a back seat. I just can't imagine technology being on the list with food and water, but I guess it is a growing issue.--Tabbboooo (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with opinions stated above. If you really think about it technology is not that important compared to other major issues. The places where the digital divide is most prevalent have many more important issues to address than access to the knowledge on the internet.I think we should address those issues before we even think about addressing the digital divide.--Youngpenn (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is also important to note that technology may not make a society better. Let's say a community is living perfectly fine, they have no water issue and all of their basic needs are being met. This does not necessarily mean that their lives are lacking because they don't have the technology that we have. I actually read an article in my anthropology class about hunter and gatherer societies that still exist today. The article argued that they may even be HAPPIER than we are. They only have to work about 20 hours a week. Everyone's needs are provided for. They give to live in a close knit community without all of the stresses that our community provides. Here is some food for thought, perhaps we, the ones with technology, are the ones that are in the negative on this digital divide.--MartellRedViper (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a point that technology may not necessarily make the society better. In fact, too much technology may make people too dependent on them. Personally I used to be content with TV and toys such as dolls as form of entertainment when I was a kid, but now that I have switched to technology-based entertainment like computers and smart phones I feel that I am now too dependent on them. When there's blackouts and no electricity I start to wonder what on earth did I used to do as a kid without them? Technology based addictions (Such as internet/video game/computer addictions) has started to develop and is a problem in our society as well, as some people cannot even function properly or isolate themselves because of it. So I agree that in some ways we are not better off. --MangoDango (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually know how extensive the digital divide is. My own ignorance makes me think it's huge, but technology truly is global. I don't know the current percentages of who on earth has internet access, but I imagine there is still a huge chunk of people who are not connected. There are already multiple organizations (both charities and companies) who bring cell phones and internet to people around the globe -- which I think is a noble cause because knowledge really is power.Luna002 (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I, too, blame my own ignorance for me not knowing how extensive the digital divide is. I barely pay attention to local news, let alone news from other countries. I would say that the digital divide is pretty big, although I only say this because I know how digital we are in the United States. As stated above, the countries that don't have access to technology are mainly the ones that are without food and clean water. So, providing them with the latest technology shouldn't really be the main concern. I'm pleased to know that there are organizations that provide people with internet and cell phones, though. That is definitely a step in the right direction toward closing the digital gap. Rebaduck (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine there being a digital divide. I'm one of this generation of techno sapiens or whatnot, and even I feel like an old fashioned luddite when it comes to keeping up with the absolute latest technology and etcetera. Personally it's a combination of not wanting to shell out money for every new piece of tech, and also just a general lack of absolute need to go after the latest stuff. With that in mind, obviously anyone in the world who doesn't have the funds to live like many of us do and/or simply don't feel/have a need to acquire it all...then yeah I'd guess most the world wouldn't be surfing the Internet (if they even have it) on their iPhones. I've heard that compared to the rest of the world, just owning a car makes you one of the rich. Obviously there are some things of greater priority/importance since technically most of the tech we use daily are simply luxury. --Seannator (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of on board with this thread. The digital divide is an issue, maybe. If more people had online access, they would have access to knowledge and useful services. But how big a problem is it really for the people who don't have access -- that is, compared with the challenges of getting enough food for today?--Brodmont (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it Sideways

I think the digital divide is a big problem in some situations, but not in others. In the United States and other developed countries, there is an expectation that you will be computer-literate and, as a college graduate, excel in multiple digital applications. This is a huge problem, for example, with my job search right now, as I really don't know a lot about computers, and most of my potential employers want a proficiency in programs such as Microsoft Office. HOWEVER, I think about tribes in Africa that do not have computers and can I really say that they are worse off for it? Absolutely not. I stare at a computer screen all day long because that is what I have to do to get information, but I would much rather watch a beautiful sunset than look at pictures of them online. People should progress at their own rate. Everyone seems to want to "fix" everyone else, but putting them in a box and stamping it "Middle-class America-Approved" just makes us all the same. Tinaface86 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

[start] AMEN! Haha, really though. Is it wrong for me to believe there are larger issues facing the world, and that our society is supersaturated with technology? In terms of the digital divide being a problem, I honestly have no idea. Because I have been "lucky" enough to have access my whole life, I don't really know what it is like for those who don't have access. Honestly, I can't really imagine its this huge issue either. This is because I don't exactly view technology as a wholly good thing. I don't think everyone necessarily needs technology...its not food or water. Essentially, it is access to information. People already have access to information via public libraries (which may or may not have computers available). Technology to me just makes things a lot easier. In some cases, I guess you could say people could have more employment opportunities with technology. It could help people learn, and essentially serve as a free resource for things like that. I just cannot see it as a huge issue. Huge issues to me are disease, hunger, and clean water. Not internet, bluetooth, and smartphones.

I think the digital divide is an easy problem to overlook or misunderstand, considering we take technology for granted a lot. I think many things concerning the digital age are overlooked (ex: internet "laws", etc). I will admit I have never even thought about the digital divide until the professor brought up Wikipedia's efforts to provide access to third world or lacking areas. I think as we progress into the digital age these overlooked things will become more forefront and mainstream. Eventually I think efforts will be raised and movements will be started. I think things can only go up for the digital divide at this point. As it gains awareness, it will gain efforts to decrease the divide as well (I think).

Maybe these institutions can provide access and education. I think education is the most important aspect when discussing technology. I think corporations who have technology based products or services could offer access or a means of access for the digital divide. I really wouldn't be comfortable working for a non-profit that focuses on the digital divide when it could be focusing on food, disease or water....so I'm not exactly sure about that one. Maybe a small test program with the digital divide...but I'm not sure what. I don't see having a technology program like food stamps ever happening. Then again, who knows! [finish] --Tabbboooo (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

EXACTLY. I wasn't born with such a sense of entitlement in my head that I go around thinking everybody needs to live exactly the same way I do here in the good ol' US of A when, if I really think about it, I have 4 computers and 2 TVs in my house and not enough money for groceries most of the time. Is that so much better? I have cable and the internet but I can't go to the doctor because I can't afford health insurance. Who are we trying to kid here? I'm tired of technology dictating what is more important in my life, and I wouldn't push it on anybody. --Tinaface86 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Define "Big"

The thing about the digital divide is that it's just that: a divide; and really, people in parts of the world that rely heavily on information technology probably have little concern for less developed countries, and 3rd world countries probably have little concern for their lack of access to technology if they're used to not having it. So whether or not this is even a problem when the question is isolated to each group is an interesting thought. I guess in one aspect, the digital divide can contribute to xenophobia. Ideally, in a unified world, modern technology would help all parts of the world communicate. Unless they are completely isolated communities or Amish or something, at some point I would have to assume that these technologically inept groups will begin to have access to this type of technology but still remain somewhat behind the curve. I think that the future of information technology, like we discussed before, will either completely reform a worldwide community, or contribute to the "digital divide" becoming even greater and further apart. When looking at the final question for this discussion, my mind immediately jumped to the US assertion of government ideology when venturing into underdeveloped nations, and in that respect, whether or not technology will be a part of that I'm not sure about.--Eng395jy (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not Sure I Would Call It a "Problem"

Thought I would take kind of a contrarian tack on this topic. Question #1 asks, how big a problem is the digital divide today? In a way, this seems like kind of a first-world problem. If I lose my Internet access -- say, for a day or two, or even for an hour or two -- that becomes a problem for me, because I rely on Internet access for my work. But for the billions of people who struggle daily to get by materially, is it really a "problem" that they don't have an Internet-connected computer? Maybe they would benefit from having access to certain services or knowledge, but I think the things that rank as "problems" in the lives of people in developing countries are much more basic.--Brodmont (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to disagree with you on this point here. First off, I believe the digital divide is a huge problem that, unless governments encourage the spread of information to developing countries , will result in an elite "informed" population and a less-informed population. Yes, an Internet-connected computer may be a lower priority than clean water, but they're certainly not mutually exclusive. And we don't really know how these developing nations would use the technology we currently have, whether they would use technology in the same way we use it for work, this class, etc. Perhaps in their societies, they can adapt their technology into solutions that work in their contexts, and improve their lives intellectually, economically, and politically. --Katerwaul (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't picture governments ever encouraging the spread of information. As we saw with WikiLeaks, they have a lot to gain from the opposite occurring (and I mean that in a bad way). I also wouldn't call it a "first world problem," either. The Internet is the means through which people and communities share ideas — that's the basis for innovation. Third world countries fix a lot of their own problems with access to websites as simple as DIY projects and as complex as cryptography techniques. In that way, technology isn't the digital world and nothing else. It can serve as the intellectual root to physical manifestations that cure third world countries' biggest problems with a 3-minute tutorial. --Information-01152001 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I see questions #2 and #3 as kind of a bundle. If society wants more people to be connected, that is unlikely to happen by trying to run fiber to the homes of all 7 billion people and placing computers in their living rooms (if they even have living rooms). Online access would have to become something else. One interesting trend is that, in many developing lands, mobile access is leap-frogging landline access. Many, many people never use a computer, but are able to get access to all kinds of services and information over their mobile phones.--Brodmont (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole topic also brings up questions of user-experience design. How can technologies be designed so they are appropriate to the user, to the user's goals and circumstances? One of the most fascinating stories I have ever run into is the story of the "Hole in the Wall." A computer scientist working at a tech firm in India set up an Internet-connected computer in a hole in the wall that separated his company's campus from the slum next door. The kids in the community very quickly figured out how to use it. They developed their own names for virtual objects on the screen. They didn't know what a "cursor" was, so they called it the "needle." When a reporter asked one of the kids how he learned to use a computer so well, he responded: "What's a computer?" I wrote a blog post about this at The Hole in the Wall: Computing for India’s Impoverished. --Brodmont (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Location is Key

The digital divide is not really a huge issue. I recently took an anthropology class and we discussed how there are still hunter and gatherer societies today. They don't use any technology and yet according to the anthropological studies done on their group they are extremely happy, the study shows that they are happier than the average American, who has access to a lot of technology. The only time where the digital divide can really be an issue is when you live in a society where technology is prevalent and you don't have it. So overall I would say that geographically the digital divide doesn't really have a negative side effect whereas demographically it does.--MartellRedViper (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that how I framed digital divide above will still be relevant in the future. It is basically the idea that people don't miss what they have never had/blissfully ignorant about. It will make the digital divide demographically even worse though. Let us use an extreme example: Suppose that when you reach adulthood (your skull and brain are finished developing) you have the option, a fairly expensive one, to get a special brain implant chip. This chip will allow you to access a giant database of information (similar to wikipedia). Now lets say you are hiring someone for a position and you have two people one who has the brain chip and one who doesn't, who are you going to hire? Since the brain chip is fairly expensive only higher class people will be able to afford one and it will give them a huge performance boost over non-chip wearers. This will give them an unfair advantage in the work force and drive a wedge further between the classes.--MartellRedViper (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that one possible step could be to create donation based companies were people can donate their old electronics. Electronics get out of date so fast and people rush out to by the newer model and generally their old model gets thrown out. If there was a company that came and collected all your old electronics and then distributed them to people that cannot afford them this would help to even out the divide that is occurring. I know that this doesn't entirely fix the problem but I believe that it is a place to start. In my above example, were that brain chip ever to be developed, they perhaps should allow some sort of financing options to allow more people to be able to afford it that way they can still be competitive in the work force.--MartellRedViper (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that location is key when dealing with digital divide. Apparently, those citizens in third world countries would be more advance and have more access to information and advancement if they had equal access to the internet such as countries like the United States. I believe the reason why schooling isn't as prominent in other countries is because they are limited to resources that is easily available upon the internet. Geography definitely has a negative side effect when it comes to technology. However, I do believe the saying, you don't know what you have until you have experienced it. So those in other geographical locations definitely are not as impacted to divided technology if they haven't experience it before. If they have, then it will be of a hindrance and a "Big" problem". My friend, Kofi from South Africa says that the hardest thing about his country is the limited access to the internet since he been in the United States. However, he stated that it was not a big divided problem before he left Africa. So its on a individual bases on the prominence or impact of divided technology geographically.--Isaiahgee (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the digital divide is not a problem geographically. I too believe that those who live in societies without technology have been able to survive thus far just fine and are perfectly happy living the lifestyle that they are familiar and happy with. Just because those geographical locations who have decided to pursue technological advances believe it is helpful does not mean that all societies will feel the same way. I had not thought about it being a demographic problem and thought that you made a really good point there. In a technology prevalent society, it would definitely be a disadvantage to those who could not afford to have this technology or did not have it for some other reason.--Ryenocerous (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that location plays a huge role in the digital divide. As I mentioned in my post I do believe that not all societies are dependent on technology and will move forward as a part of the divide, but it won't really affect their society. There is a real possibility that every society on the planet will be subject to change. Maybe certain cultures will ditch riding animals for segways, or not, the divide will become minimized one day.--Jastout (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Internet Can Take Care Of Itself

I honestly don’t feel that the digital divide is as huge as it seems. And, even if it were, I don’t think that’s a bad thing — merely a temporary step to universal access to the Internet. There are two reasons underdeveloped countries don’t have access to the Internet: (1) government surveillance, and (2) limited availability of capital and of wealth in general. The online community is already taking care of the first point. Getting The Onion Router in the hands of foreign dissidents can ensure that they can keep up with real news in real time. Other tools are available, too. And market transactions in the U.S. can be protected via the Silk Road, Bitcoins, etc. Therefore, inequality due to government interference is moot. (So tempted to make a 4chan joke.) As far as economics is concerned, though, the market is a process. Automobiles used to be reserved for the only wealthiest individuals, but innovation took care of that, making the technology easier to access for everyone. The same thing will happen with the Internet. I mentioned a few weeks ago how some random guy compressed The Pirate Bay’s entire archive into a single 75MB file. This makes it difficult to imagine a successful blockade to the flow of information and technology around the globe. --Information-01152001 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Internet and technology have grown tremendously on their own without people making a conscious effort to decrease the "digital divide". However, we may have hit the point in the process that this conscious effort will have to be made because the remaining parts of the digital divide are harder to fix due to more important problems.Kslinker5493 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a Huge Problem

Although technology has progressed the lives of those who are capable of accessing it in many ways, I would argue that people were able to survive just fine for thousands of years without it. Sure, the digital world seems second nature to modern society. In fact, most people wouldn't know how to get by without it. This seems a little sad to me. I would like to think that I could be self-sufficient without technology, but so much of our lives depends upon it now days that I'm not sure I could. Just to get basic necessities like food and water for most requires a trip to the store where computers and scanners are needed to purchase it. I find it comforting that the digital divide exists and that there are still societies that can get by without technology, and I would argue that these people would be perfectly happy without it. I would say the implications of the digital divide may inspire those societies with digital access to attempt to bequeath it upon those nations that do not have it thinking that it will be of great benefit to them. I would argue that these technology-free nations may not be too welcoming of it. I would actually hate to see the native lifestyle extinguished to evolve into the modern digital society that is so dependent upon it.--Ryenocerous (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As I said in my post, we are not all the same and do not have the same requirements for a happy lifestyle. I don't think the Maasai people of Kenya are really lamenting the fact that they don't have access to the internet. There is something to be said for heritage and tradition, and being a part of the natural world- something we as college students really are not able to do. --Tinaface86 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not an issue moving forward

As a world view, the "digital divide" is rather large. But, looking strictly at the United States, the divide really doesn't seem to be that big of an issue. When looking at smaller and less fortunate countries, the technological divide it thoroughly evident and the time frame of when some of these countries may receive, and understand, adequate technology is still unknown. Satellite and cell phones, in addition to computers may be available but internet and other technology is not near as advanced. Considering how the "digital divide" will become smaller is yet to be determined. For example, how to get wireless internet to smaller, less fortunate counties. Some cultures will survive without technology, or try to hold off as long as possible. The understanding of new technology may take years to some, unlike people who are born into cultures where technology rules the world they live in. As far as the distribution, or closing the divide, governments and other organizations can send technologies to parts of the world that do not have the technology we do, but in addition to the equipment, experts need to be sent as well to help better the people's understanding of the new technology. As mentioned before, if governments start dispersing technology, or try to help other cultures who don't necessarily need new technology, the receiving culture may not be as welcoming to the idea. The divide may always be there--some cultures may strive and survive being part of the "divide."--Jastout (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Definite digital divide

I think the digital divide is definitely a large problem. Access to internet, reliable broadband, mobile capabilities, etc is predominantly in the United States, Western Europe and Australia. On the other end of the spectrum are mostly parts of Africa. As for the implications, the countries that are on the low end of the digital divide are definitely at a disadvantage for the spread of information. These days, people spread information most efficiently using technology -- online news sites, twitter, texting: essentially mass messaging that moves and changes quicker than newspapers and radio broadcasts (although the radio has the ability to reach far, it doesn't have the constant input of the digital community). Therefore, countries without huge amounts of access to these technologies are going to fall behind (if not already behind) in education, research and popular culture. I think the most important step to take is to work on internet and computer access throughout the world. The World Wide Web is a wealth of information (both fact and opinion) that can supply information on almost any topic needed -- from almost any point of view desired. There are many companies, such as Telecommunication and Information & Communication Technology for Development,who are working on the spread of internet connection in developing countries. Making this push to spread internet connections worldwide is (in my humble opinion) the most beneficial thing to the spread pf information and education throughout the world. --Eems.p (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)