| |
I
first encountered computers as a high school student in the mid-1970s.
I took an introductory course in programming, which consisted
of drawing flow charts on scraps of paper and filling out bubble
cards. Yes, bubble cards. When the cards were filled out, they
were tied together with a rubber band and sent from our school
to the Ministry of Education office a few miles away, where the
programme was run on a mainframe. The next day, we would get our
output, usually full of error messages, causing us to repeat the
process.
I hated
it.
I vowed
that I would never use a computer again.
That
vow lasted well over a decade. In the early 1990's, a student once
again, I was a volunteer on my university's student newspaper. When
I got there, the newspaper employed a pair of clunky used phototypesetting
machines to produce its copy. Soon after, it switched to a desktop
publishing system. The advantages were too numerous to mention.
Of course, the microcomputers that were then available were much
more user-friendly than the mainframe I had been introduced to.
As I became familiar with the computers at the newspaper, I began
to see how they would help me greatly in my personal writing (for
instance, by not having to type out whole pages of text to correct
a single typo).
The
rest, as they say, is personal history.
The
important thing to note about this story is that I didn't become
involved with computers because of some abstract need to be part
of the developing future. Nobody was talking about "life-long learning"
or "the information society" at the time. I started using computers
because they helped me achieve very concrete goals.
I've
noticed this about others, too. My mother, for example, resisted
using computers for years; she was afraid that if she pressed a
wrong button, she could break something. Seriously. She has a passion
for bridge, though, and when she found out she could play online,
her fears were quickly overcome. (To the point where her connection
was down for a couple of days recently, and she almost drove us
all nuts.) She has been slowly adding new skills to her repertoire
(email, for example) as she has seen the need for them.
So,
it was with interest that I read a recently released report by the
Pew Internet & American Life Project that concluded that 57% of
those without Internet access say they never plan to log on. According
to the report, half of the people not currently online say they
do not think they are missing anything by not being connected.
These
are politically loaded observations. For the past couple of years,
there has been a debate in the United States on the "digital divide,"
the idea that some people are being left out of our brave new digital
world because they cannot afford computers or access to computer
networks. This debate has been catalyzed by three reports issued
by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
called "Falling Through the Net," which found that there was a serious
disparity in computer ownership and Internet use based on income,
and that the difference was growing.
If there
is, in fact, a digital divide, it means that some people will not
only not be able to participate in e-commerce but, given the increase
in government information and services which are moving online,
they will be less able to participate in civic life. This will further
marginalize people who are already not participating as fully as
they might in society. As Don Tapscott, author of Growing Up Digital
observed: "Poverty begets information poverty begets poverty."
Critics
of the concept of the digital divide, and government attempts to
address it, will use the Pew figures to argue that those who are
not online simply don't want to be. (That argument was already being
made before the report was released.) No need to spend public money
to solve a problem which doesn't exist.
Such
naysayers should look more closely at why people don't want to go
online. According to the Pew report, 81% of those who say they will
never go online are over 50. But the companies promoting connection
to the Internet stress the pleasure of surfing, e-commerce and other
applications which, while they may appeal to younger people with
some computer experience, may seem of little value to older people.
Moreover, much of the press coverage of the Internet has focused
on its negative qualities: a supposed glut of pornography, fraud
and incivility among them.. Many of the people who don't want to
use the Internet don't have a realistic idea of how it can affect
their lives. Hell, if I hadn't found my own reasons to use computers
and go online, I would be convinced that it isn't worth the effort.
If we
are serious about equity in the coming digital world, about not
allowing the benefits of digital communications to accrue to a minority
of the population, we have to show those who don't want to go online
how it would be to their benefit. Older people might find the Internet
useful to stay in touch with children or grandchildren, to buy groceries
which they can have delivered to their home, to pursue hobbies,
etc.
As Amanda
Lenhart, principle author of the Pew study, put it: "This analysis
suggests that high-minded pitches about the civic, educational,
or even commercial virtues of the Internet would probably not be
enticing to those in the Never group. Rather, it suggests that Nevers
might be more open to the idea of going online if they are convinced
that the Internet is useful, entertaining, and not-too-difficult
to use." (9) Just like me and mom.
Some
people will never want to go online, and they have that right. Most
resisters of computer mediated communications, though, just need
to be shown the concrete ways in which it can improve their lives.
Once they have found the will to use computers, society must find
a way to make it possible for them.
SOURCES
The
Pew study can be found here.
Accessing it requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Falling Through
the Net reports can be found here: (1995),
(1998)
and (1999).
UPDATE:
after I submitted my article on Contentville, I received another
email saying that Canadian dissertations had been removed from
the site and would not be put up for sale until an agreement on
payment could be reached with organizations representing Canadian
writers. Perhaps the problem won't end up in the hands of lawyers
after all.
Copyright
© 2000 Ira Nayman. All Rights Reserved.
Ira Nayman does stuff with and about computers. He can hardly
believe it, either. He can be reached at: Inayma@po-box.mcgill.ca
comment?
discuss this article on our
discussion
board
|
