|
Introduction |
|
The “Digital Divide”, or the relative gap between affluent and
poor, white and minority citizens, in access not only to the
technology as a whole but to the Internet and its benefits.
However, not only is it disputed that the Digital Divide
exists but it is also disputed that the problem is one not only
that the government can fix but should fix this supposed gap when
it comes to access in the home. |
| Whose Fault is it? |
|
The ability to own a computer
is within the reach of most American households.
The average cost of an Internet ready computer system is
lower than that of a television yet most Americans prefer to own a
television over a computer system.
In addition, different groups of the same income continue
to have disparities as well: poor whites and Asian Americans are
more likely to have Internet access than poor African Americans
and Hispanics of the same income level.
This demonstrates that there may be a cultural preference
which determines whether you are likely to have Internet access
which is outside of income levels.
Whether or not you have a computer in your home is more
likely a combination of circumstances, such as preference, than
simply an ability to purchase the technology.
The argument that not having ho
me
computers or Internet is damaging to a person’s educational
level is also not entirely valid.
Computer and Internet access are available at all public
libraries and in most schools, and most schools teach computer
skills to all students. The
government doesn’t need to provide additional services at its expense
when it has already created a system which provides near universal
access to the objects which supposedly constitute the Digital
Divide. The resources are available but are not being utilized.
It is not the government’s responsibility to make it any easier for people who are not
willing to utilize the plethora of options available for using and
accessing the Internet. |
| The Internet as a Luxury Item |
|
In addition, arguments that the government providing access to these things in the ho
me
will provide additional convenience for people who do not have the
ability or the time
to access the Internet from a public location are not entirely
true. Convenience is a
privilege, and the government is not responsible for making sure that this kind of technology
in your ho
me
if you are unwilling to make the effort to use it elsewhere.
Providing ho
me
PCs with Internet access creates an entitlement situation in which people feel that it is their right to for
the government to provide luxury items if they can claim that it provides a
useful convenience or purpose.
Under this model, people would soon be able to claim that
there is a “cell phone gap” or a “video game
gap” (video games do increase hand-eye coordination, you know), though no one
makes this claim –computers are luxury items just as much as any
other technology, and the government should not be held responsible for handing out technology for
free to people who are unwilling to buy it themselves.
The Internet and ho
me
computers are privileges, luxury items. For
so
me
, this is what the argument against closing the Digital Divide co
me
s down to. Having a
computer and access to the Internet constitutes an unneeded
convenience which provides services and information which can be
obtained elsewhere. The
Internet also serves as a distraction—its main purpose is not
informational, but rather for entertain
me
nt. Surveys conducted
show that only small amounts (less than ten percent) use the
Internet as a
means of obtaining employment and only 34 percent use it to take classes.
This leaves over half unaccounted for, and no one asked if
whether or not that half is being used for entertainment or illicit purposes. These
studies also do not account for overlap—people who use the
Internet both at ho
me
and in public—nor do they provide demographic breakdowns of who
is using the computers in order to demonstrate that having
computers in public arenas has increased usage or desire for usage
among those who cannot afford access. |
| Digital Divide as Low Priority |
|
In addition, access to computers
should be considered one of the lowest priorities in helping the
poor. In a nation
where one out of every four children is born into poverty, and one
out of every ten is undernourished, making sure that Johnny had
email is the least of one’s worries.
This is also a perception found in many other nations
besides the
USA
. A college student,
Leikila, in the Philipines stated, “The digital divide is clear
even here between classes. The
poor don’t have computers. They
also don’t have ho
me
s, and we see children outside and on television wandering the
streets in rags. There
are clearly more important gaps in services and wealth to be
worrying about.”
In terms of the
United States
, the Divide is not as bad as people believe it is. The majority
of Americans do not have access to the Internet in their ho
me
s. There are alternate
sources of information and access available, and there are other
means of communicating. As
longer as these things exist, the Internet is mainly just a faster
and more convenient way of doing things, not the only way. |
|
