OLPC

Hey. Sorry this one's late! I completely forgot about the blog. So here it goes.

My favorite part of the OLPC article was the part about the community not wanting to pay for the computers because they saw them just as black boxes with software that they didn't know how to use. This, and the video we watched in class today, just show how scary technology is to those who are technologically illiterate. It's easy for a class of college students, who have grown up looking at a monitor, to question why those on welfare don't apply for jobs, and why they don't continue their education. But for someone who is on the wrong side of the digital divide, like the children on OLPC, and many of those in the United States who are in povery, not having the skills puts them at a huge disadvantage. As we saw in the movie today, the mother tried to get a job multiple times, but was uncomfortable, as she didn't have the technological skills. Even after she was offered a free class, she was resistant to learn. It is next to impossible to teach those who have grown up without computers how to navigate them as efficiently as those who have grown up with them not because they don't have the capacity to learn, but because it is scary and foregin. It is often uncomfortable. The OLPC illustrates this as well, just by the language they use to describe the computers. They see it as a waste of money, because to them, it is a foreign concept.

James vs. Compaine

On page 56 James refutes Compaine’s argument that, "[A]doption of technologies such as television, radios, and telephones" will eventually lead to a closing of the natural gap.” Compaine compares the digital divide to the automobile gap that occurred in the past. That gap, which was significant and problematic in the past, cleared itself up. James argues Compaine underestimates the issues of the digital divide, and believes that the automobile and other technologies cannot be compared to the digital divide of today, because, for example, with the automobile, government spends money on public transit, and people live in places where cars may not be a necessity. This cannot be compared to people with or without the internet.

Compaine might reply by saying that James exaggerates his viewpoint. Compaine acknowledges the problems occurring because of the digital divide. However, when comparing developed countries to developing countries, the latter had issues far greater than closing the gap. “A society that has more important issues, such as feeding and housing its people and providing for safety and security, and creating a general well-being.” The digital divide is low on their list of priorities.

James v. Compaine

James criticizes Compaine, on page 55, for assuming that the digital divide will close on its own.  James is not convinced that the digital divide will close just because the divides of the past have.  Compaine could reply to James by saying that the probability that the digital divide will close is greater than the probability that the digital divide will remain a large gap.  Looking at past technologies we see that the gap has closed.  There is not evidence of older technologies the retained a large gap.  Although we can not say with absolute certainty that the digital divide will close on its own, we can say based on past evidence that there is a good chance it will.

James also criticizes Compaine by saying that "affordability is just one such factor" (57).  Users not only need to have affordable technology, but they also need to have literacy of the device.  Compaine could argue that literacy is consequence of affordable technology.  Once the price of technology goes down there will be a larger quantity demanded of that device.  When there are more devices in the market, then the demand for computer literacy materials will increase, and companies will be encouraged to help out users.

Digital Divide Complacency

On page 55 of Jame's article, he criticizes Compaine for believing that the digital divide is dissappearing at such a rate that Americans need not worry about it any more.  James brings up Compain's argument that the lack of ownership of computers should cause no more concern than the lack of ownership of an automobile, both of which are important.  I feel that James was right to point out this flawed argument;  Compaine gives the impression that the problem of not owning an automobile, which was of highest concern in the mid 1900s, worked itself out naturally, without great government efforts or spending to fix it.  This impression is partially true, people moved to cities where owning a car was less important, however government did, and still does, spend a good deal of money and effort on public transit.  Although James did not point this out, he wanted to show that comparing the digital divide to the automobile divide was not a very valid argument on Compaine's part.

On the other hand, the false impression that Jame's gives us about Compaine is that Compaine believes that the digital divide is completely negligible but this is not true.  On p. 333 of Compaine's article he explains that he is very aware of the problems caused by the digital divide but that there are problems greater than inequities in technology.  He came to this conclusion because he used to teach the importance of technology in impoverished countries.  He then realized that most of the problems caused by the digital divide were trivial compared to the more serious problems faced by these countries.  Compaine would argue that while the digital divide does cause inequities for certain groups, the places in which it is a significant problem have other, more important problems to focus on.

The Difference between James and Compaine

Hi all,

We didn't get to talk about the James article as much as I would have liked. To make up for it, I'm hoping to move our class discussion to our blog. The question comes from the list I sent out last week.

What are some examples of James’s evidence that he uses to argue against Compaine? How might Compaine reply?


James's article is replying directly to Compaine's--as well as a few others. You can see the number of times he cites him in his article. I'm asking us to give Compaine a chance to rebut. How might Compaine use James's evidence to argue for his point of view?

Please reply in the comment section of this post.

No longer blue vs. white collar

Reich says that “the principal division is no longer between blue and white color workers but rather among three new categories.” These three categories are routine production workers (e.g. payroll clerks, factory workers), in-person workers (e.g. janitors, taxi drivers) and symbolic analysts (e.g. software engineers, strategic planners). These new categories are different from the original separation of factory workers (blue collar) and business executives (white collar). Before, usually blue collar workers had no reason to use computers for their jobs because their jobs did not require it. As technology advances, it is being incorporated into blue collar workers’ lives. However, the point that Reich is trying to make is that although blue collar workers now use computers, they are still be separated from other workers. Reich is saying that although more people are using technology, they are not using it in the same ways, and therefore, we are not making as much progress as we thought. These new categories show how the first two categories use computers or the internet in very routine ways, but the third category elaborates on this usage and makes of ICT for analysis and interpretation of data. As I said earlier, although technology is spreading, each person is using it differently. It may be widespread, but HOW it is used really causes the racial ravine to exist. For example, both a taxi driver and a business executive might have a cell phone. For the taxi driver, they might just have the phone for their job and for contacting their families. The taxi driver might only use the phone for its basic purpose: communication. On the other hand, the business executive may use the phone to check the stock market, type emails or read the New York Times online. Although researchers may say that the digital divide is closing because cell phones are more affordable for all people to use, they are not looking into specifics. The taxi driver might have a pay-as-you-plan flip phone while the executive has an iphone. Furthermore, the fundamental reasons each person has a phone differs. Since a taxi driver has no need for an iphone then why would they pay extra money to have one?

One Laptop Per Child--Repsonses

While I have my own personal views on the whole project that reign similar to those on the rest of our class blog, I went back to the original New York Times article to see what New York times readers had to say and what kinds of reactions they had to the article.

Reading through many of the resposnes on the article website I was surprised to find that there was a lot of disagreement and dissent with the program as a whole. Many responses pointed to the fact that we face technology problems at home and that directing our attention abroad will not help the domestic digital divide. Some posts went as far to say that we would be wasting our money and that supplying the country with these kinds of tools could put Americans at risk of these developing countries rising above us. However, there were many replies that this kind of charity was highly beneficial and the next step in connecting the developing countries on a global scale. One blogger made a point about how even though some people lack independent access to technology in the US, most communities offer some kinds of free access to technology that can be obtained with library cards. Many bloggers attacked other bloggers for shooting down the charitable ideas.

While both sides have stronghold arguements, I believe that the One Laptop Per Child is a great start, but not an end all be all. Of course, there are children and adults fighting for more basic needs and technology access but no matter what kinds of policies and services the country provides, there will always be exceptions. Despite the economic turmoil we face today, I think it is important now more than ever to direct resources to places that would not be able to attain these tools on their own. People also need to remember that this is only a stepping stone, a place to start, to begin to connect the world through technology. This whole concept ties into globalization and how our world, in order to keep up with each other, needs to stay connected through global Internet technologies. As we discussed in class, it is our best interest to help other countries keep up with us and one another as far as technology goes. Leveling the technological playing field,will allow countries to succeed together in a more successful global economy.