0nes and zer1s

This week I read Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the New Millennium by Andy Carvin, NPR's senior product manager for online communities.

I found the article to be very interesting. I will admit, I try to get an impression of where an author is going asap. When he started out the paper with overused catchphrases of the internet and stated that before the internet, "click here" was completely baffling, I started to get the feeling that somebody was about to feed me a line. However, I was relieved when the paper took a turn for the better and he gave me some numbers. I will paraphrase them here:

• Households making $75K or more were 20 times more likely to have net access. I took that to mean if you took a sample of people that was the same size out of each income bracket, that for every one household with an income under $75K that had internet access, there would be 20 households with the higher income that had access.


• 6.6% of Americans with education levels of elementary school or less use the Internet.


• In rural areas, people with college degrees are 11 times as likely to have a home computer and 26 times as likely to have home Internet access as those with only an elementary level education.


• People with college degrees are 10 times as likely to have Internet access at work than those with only some high school education.

I found these statistics to be pretty significant, although I would assume that conditions have improved over the last 8 years. He went on to state that although these statistics show a link between Internet access, education, and income, there are other implications aside from access alone. He goes on to mention that even if the people did have access, the type of content that would be accessible to them would be limited. People with lower literacy levels won't be able to take as much advantage of resources and information on the net as those who do. Other reasons he mentioned were that even though the technology is there, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be used and that if in order for the power of online communities to be utilized, a person has to be willing to make relationships in a virtual setting.

This paper got me to thinking a little more modernly about what the current generation of smart-phones and their Internet browsing abilities bring to the table of the digital divide. With a data plan, a typical phone can run close to twice the cost of broadband internet access at home. What kind of benefits will people with access to these devices with the world's information at their fingertips 24/7 enjoy? What sort of disadvantage will those without be at?

Cyborg'd

I just read Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto" This blog entry discusses what I took from it to some depth.

I found this to be a tough read, mostly due to my own limited vocabulary. I am glad she used all of the big, picturesque words though, otherwise it probably would have been REALLY long. :P As a side note, I wasn't aware that a lot of technology was so far advanced in 1985. The alignment between what she wrote about and modern technology is impressive.

The driving concept that I took from the paper was that the author perceived that technology may provide a way for certain groups of minority women (or even women in general) to find an identity or a sense of empowerment that might advance their cause as a group or as a gender in society. Throughout the essay, she talks about cyborgs, which are mash-ups of man and machine. She draws parallels between cyborgs and several aspects of humanity, such as an illegitimate child's independence from his/her father.

I think quite a bit of her talk of cyborgs and feminist comparisons to the metaphor went over my head and weren't gully realized by me.

With respect to gender and technology, I think that Haraway indicates that technology can open up doors for women. It wasn't clear to me if she meant that women would gain access to tech jobs because the men might not want to stoop so low as to do work for the military and women would find a good opportunity there. I sensed she was headed in that direction, but it seemed like she never really said.

I thought it was interesting that she pointed out that all the good technologies operate using things that we cant see (ie. televisions, cell-phones, etc).

Race Cyber Space

Last week, I read a paper ("Erasing @race") by Beth Kolko that talked about the absence of race in cyberspace. She seemed interested in finding out what race's place (if any) in cyberspace was, and examined both its exclusion in online games, and the ramifications of importance/use of its inclusion.

This week, I read an article by Guillermo Gómez-Peña talking about the presence (or absence) of Latino people in cyberspace. Gómez-Peña seems to agree with Kolko, that there is a lack of racial representation in cyberspace. Unlike Kolko, Gómez-Peña is interested in exploring use of technology in 'cultural, political, and aesthetic' ways. Gómez-Peña sees a great opportunity to use technology to educate and preserve a culture, and as a platform for art (cultural or otherwise) to be created and shared. He also seems concerned with stereo-types applied to his culture as being unable to grasp modern (high) technology.

I think that there is an absence of race online. I don't know that this is a bad thing. It seems that most forums online where you might want to express race provide an avenue for you to do so, via an avatar or even your nickname if it is that important for you to express. As with almost every website membership you have online, there really isn't a mechanism in place to verify what race you are. This lack of verification may devalue the expression of race. Race in real life is something that can't be chosen, and it can't be conveniently changed. I do agree with Gómez-Peña in that 'high technology' provides some great outlets for expression of art and culture.
A lot of his concerns echo the concerns of many minorities in America. The internet is a global entity and a lot of the countries that dont have widespread access to it are going to seem like minorities in that space.

Cybernetic Tourist Trap

Recently I watched 4 YouTube videos of commercials for the 2008 Olympics. I also recently read a paper by Lisa Nakamura from Race in Cyberspace. In this posting, I am going to look at how these commercials relate, if at all, to cybernetic tourism as conveyed by Nakamura. In my paraphrasing mind, Nakamura portrays Cybernetic tourism to be the perception that advertisers are selling their goods to be used by consumers as devices, services, technologies, etc. that can provide a portal to the world (or possibly the future) through their use.

First Commercial

The first commercial I watched was an ad for Adidas® showing a huge crowd of Chinese people (I am assuming they were Chinese, the commercial never tells me) cheering with their hands in the air. All of the people look very similar. Suddenly, an athlete comes running on top of the people, they are holding her in the air with their hands. She runs with a basketball and jumps up to lay it into a hoop made out of the people. One by one, athletes (presumably Chinese because of their red athletic attire) are shown doing what they do with the people facilitating their efforts. The people assume the role of several things:

• a basketball hoop and court
• a soccer field and a soccer teammate
• a supporting team for women's volleyball
• a high dive platform and then the water

The last segment of the commercial just shows the athletes and then the phrase "Impossible Is Nothing".

I can see where a parallel might be shown here between the people above, and Nakamura's "other", but I really don't think that was the message of the commercial. I think it was simply meant to acknowledge and celebrate what has been overcome in order for the Olympics to be held in Beijing.

Second Commercial

This commercial shows Jackie Chan attempting to use his Visa to get to the Olympics. His quest started when he saw a billboard with Yao Ming on it and the message to "JOIN THE TEAM" at Beijing in 2008. Jackie first uses his visa to purchase a ping pong paddle, and attempts to get to the Olympics playing ping pong. Things just don't work out, and Jackie is forced to go back and buy more sporting goods with his Visa to attempt to get to the Olympics by means of another sport. This process repeats through several different sports, and finally Jackie sees a bus driving by with Yao Ming on the side saying that Visa is the easiest way to get to the Olympics. At the end of the commercial, Jackie is sitting at the Olympics when Yao Ming sits in front of him, basketball under arm, and completely blocks Jackie's view. Jackie pops the basketball out from under Yao's arm and pokes his head through so he can see. Yao looks down at Jackie and smiles and they happily watch the games together.

It seems likely that Visa is sending us the message that their product will bridge the world divide for us and bring us closer together. In Nakamura's paper, she says that these ads "claim a world without boundaries for us...".

Third Commercial

The third commercial I watched is a commercial for GE. It shows two traditional-looking Chinese girls walking through a wooded area. They join up with a group of people all headed up a nearby mountain with backpacks carrying what looks like branches, twigs, and grass. They throw it all in a big pile and a dragon comes out and starts eating it. The two girls get a little close and the dragon shoots flames out of its mouth onto a large copper ball containing water. Steam results and pipes leading out of the cave are shown with steam coming out of them. The pipes lead to an outdoor hot tub with a bunch of villagers swimming in it. The narrative states that turning plants and grass into energy is "no longer the stuff of legends".

This commercial really seems to parallel Nakamura's view on cybernetic tourism. In the beginning, a traditional looking view of the Chinese country-side was shown, followed by the trip to see the mythical Chinese dragon. I believe this demonstrates some of what Nakamura saw in her examples of the "other" being shown as different, "unspoiled", and exotic. Certainly, the hot tub could also be interpreted as showing a commonality between 'us' and 'them'. One might also read into the message and think that the use of GEs product will bring upon the utopian (read bio-energy) future.

Concluded

According to the great Wikipedia, "Cybernetics was defined by Norbert Wiener, in his book of that title, as the study of control and communication in the animal and the machine". Based on that, it seems that a literal definition of cybernetic tourism might have to do with technology allowing people to explore the world and, more specifically, how it works. Or, it might mean that tech facilitates some sort of spiraling effect similar to a wheel in motion on our society.

Digital Diversity

I am taking a course about digital diversity at school. It seems like it will be about the emergence of digital media and its impact on our culture.

By digital media, I mean anything that brings data into our lives via an electronic read digital) device. I mean data to be a pretty broad term emcompassing the internet, modern television, and any sort of ebook or epaper (ie. a digital version of the WSJ sent directly to your digital device).

From the course, I expect to become more aware of how the internet is effecting society and learn about issues relating to that.