Slashdot Mirror
So Long, Digerati: The Vanishing Digital Divide
As recently as three years ago, studies showed that the majority of Net users were similiar -- high-income, tech-savvy, mostly white, male and very career-minded. They constituted a highly tech-centered subset of the population, a distinct techno-elite.
Their understanding of and experience with technology was radically different from that of most Americans, few of whom were online. Included in this group were the people literally constructing the elements of the computer revolution, and building the Net and the Web. There was consequently a powerful class element to computing -- poor, older and blue-collar people were, by and large, not involved.
That has changed, suddenly and dramatically. Despite media reports of a tech slump, computer and Net use is exploding, and among all age groups and class, racial and ethnic categories. As many suspect, the much-hyped tech slump has mostly hit poorly run, ill-conceived dot.coms, not mainstream technological use or growth.
And boy, has the Net gone mainstream:
According to Nielsen/NetRatings, 56 percent of the U.S. population, nearly 154 million peoople, accessed the Net in the month of November, 2000 alone. This represents a whopping 30 percent increase over the previous year alone.
The average age of the Net user, reports ZDNet, is now 39 years, and rising. At the same time, their average education -- 38 percent hold a college degree -- is falling.
So is their socio-economic status. One of the dominant characters of tech culture has been it's affluent, educated, tech-centeredness. No longer true. The fastest-growing segment of Web newcomers are Americans over 55 years old with working-class incomes, older members of minority groups, blue-collar workers, and people with decidedly non-tech interests and backgrounds. The new generation of wired Americans, says American Demographics, looks "increasingly like the folks who cruise your local Wal-Mart." From the surveys, they are clearly drawn online by e-mail, other messaging systems, and especially, entertainment and related communities.
These new figures don't mean that all poor people actually have computers or are even online. Members of the underclass -- especially minorities -- continue to lag behind when it comes to access to computing. But the divide is definitely shrinking, and faster that all but a few starry-eyed visionaries ever predicted.
This means that in the United States, Net users are no longer a monolithic group with anything resembling a common view, either of the Net, technology or other political issues. There are so many different people of different backgrounds using the Net in different ways that the very idea of a typical Net user -- or a digital citizen -- has vanished.
Despite that, the tech core -- the geeks, nerds, programmers, designers will almost surely continue a separate entity, shaping and and influencing computing and the evolution of the Net and Web.
But clearly, there are other significant constituencies online now as well, and the class differences are interesting. The newcomers are different from the first generation of Net users, primarily because they aren't as interested in the underlying technology, but see the Net much as they see TV, a focal point for varied activities.
There are other differences as well. In fact, says Nielsen, last May the number of women online surpassed the number of men for the first time. And Harris Interactive reports that the online community has grown by more than 900 per cent over the past six years.
This new reality will change the political and economic environment surrounding the Net. It will be a lot tougher for politicians to demonize cyberspace as a nest of theives and perverts now that many of their constituents are regularly online. Nor can Net users be dismissed as an arrogant elite.
The new American Demographics data shows some surprising trends -- the poorer the user, the more time they are apt to spend online. Why? Because many upscale Americans are Web-surfing vets who have bookmarked their favorite sites, and know how to use search engines efficiently. Nielsen//NetRatings says that Internet users now frequent an average of only 10 sites per month, down from 15 just one year ago. While on those 10 sites, they are digging deeper, reading more pages than they used to.
Another class factor is Net work access -- those who lack the ability to surf the Web at the office (blue collar workers in particular) are more inclined to go online at home. Another socioeconomic difference is that more affluent Net users go online to gather information, access services or data, while poorer Net users are more likely to go on the Net for amusement or entertainment.
The study has enormous political and economic implications. Vast potential new markets are coming online for businesses, despite all of the hysteria about the dropping NASDAQ. These numbers make it more, not less, likely that the Net will soon have an impact on new forms of retailing, and on the political system. It means the entertainment industry has bigger problems than Napster. Issues like copyright and intellectual property will move beyond colleges and into the broad population, as these newcomers are particularly interested in accessing entertainment information and content online.
The much ballyhooed Digital Divide isn't quite bridged. But it appears to be growing inevitably smaller. And like it or not, the Digerati will soon be rubbing elbows with the hoi-polloi.
yo jonny boy use the preview button. Even us poor working class americans know how to spell!
When cars first came out, they were just toys for the idle rich. The working class walked, rode horses, or took public transportation.
Then, Henry Ford decided to apply production line technology to autos, pay his workers a good wage, and the masses were able to afford autos.
Timewise, comparing computers to autos, I think we're at about 1930. This is well before expressways, suburbs and drivethroughs, if that makes you think.
does that mean more seedy old men need to beat off and best way to get off is net porn? I dont think my grandad would use it for anything else?
Mruphy's Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules...
I've done tech support in the past, and I shudder to imagine what it will be like when the userbase starts to reach the 80 to 90th percentile. Already about 15% of the calls taken are from people that can barely run their computer as it is. (No joke! I've had to explain mouse usage to a few people in the past.)
Let's hope that with increased Net usage, general computer usage skills of the average American increase as well....
so...when can we all move to Internet2 and up the average IQ again?
---
I post links to stuff here
As long as those who aspire to be "internet highbrows" still exist, you will still have a audience. I'm having a vision...Katz...a fiddle...a burning city...
Blar.
Derek Fawcus to the MPAA upon release of DeCSS: "You can take your Content Scrambling System and shove it."
LAME team to Fraunhofer IIS: "You can take your sluggish, proprietary fast fourier transform method and shove it."
ShugaShack users to George Broussard on February 7, 2001 after the cease-and-desist order on DIOQ3: "You can take your intellectual property issue and shove it."
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I had always understood the current tech slump as the bust that would naturally follow the dot-com boom. I don't think anybody was ever afraid that Net usage would be suffering. Just because people aren't buying their cheese graters from eGrater.com anymore doesn't mean Net usage is down. I don't think anybody was disputing this.
--
"A dessert without cheese is like a beautiful woman who has lost an eye." -- Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
Members of the underclass -- especially minorities -- continue to lag behind when it comes to access to computing.
Which minority would this be, according to statistics, Latins outnumber whites, and blacks are just slightly under whites as well. I guess you meant the Chinese, or something.
Anyways just think about what the snippet posted said and look from another angle, so poorer classes are online now (or Wired). This does not mean they will be purchasing anything online at any time soon, in fact the way I took this article, I'm thinking too poor to have a credit card, so bye bye e-commerce.
Now on a downside to having a slew of newer users, yuo have higher bandwidth, so it'll cost you more, more people in these lower classes will likely look along the lines of, "Where can I get this for free", which means they still won't be spending. Incidents such as cybercrimes will likely go up as more and more people who've watched movies like The Net, Enemy of the State, The Matrix, will be attempting to act out some of these things, which could at some point force the government to propose strict rules as there are in China, and recently Australia's new non forwarding mail rule.
EOF
Framing Private Ryan
I am surprised the number of users has jumped up that much, but I think I can understand why. Simplicity and price. We crossed Geoffrey Moore's Chasm, and are now standing on the other side, but in reality, I think there are two (or more) "chasms." A lot of people are willing to try new things, new technologies, but there is another larger group of people who will, but are slow to, become part of the "information age".
As more people jump online as the article states we'll slowly be doing more and more online! Part of the slump was all of the early businesses that started up and couldn't hold on for the motherlode. Wait a while, and see how it flowers...
The Net isn't a FAD
LFS. Have you built your system today?
!!!!!
-----
No the game never ends when your whole world depends
crazy dynamite monkey
There is still a long way to go before there socio-economic equality is approached. Predominately white schools in afluent neighborhoods get better funding than others. Better funding means better resources and thus the cycle of inadvertantly suppressing minorities continues. The net is a wonderful tool to breach this gap, but it will require a change in the minds of the financial controllers of the nation, not just retired folks using AOL.
Oh, yes, they will. Those days you could still keep up with Usenet, the days 99% of posts was relevant to the group and the previous message, those days when "Flame" stood for an intelligent, almost literary rebuttal, instead of moronic incendiary gutter-drivel, the days of the Crystal Cave, the days the 'net _was_ free and open, and abuse and crass commercialism non-existent. They will be missed, Jon, until they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead fingers and nail the coffin shut. And I bet many will agree, if maybe not here.
Stefan.
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
Can anyone provide statistics about non-American users?
All things considered, the poor in America are still much better off than most of the rest of the world. So while the picture may be kind of rosy on the home front, it's a sure bet that the rest of the world isn't keeping pace.
The whole notion of a narrowing "digital divide" is small consolation if you live in a place with no health care and no clean running water.
That, of course, is the real divide, but it's not usually of any interest to the American marketing machine.
The US is at an advantage here, and good on them. In the UK (and many other countries), unmetered phone access (even for local numbers) is a dream, and far from a reality. People can't afford to spend a long time online, as their phone bills go through the roof. BT (our main phone operator) is offering unmetered local & Internet calls in the evening and at weekends for a flat rate of (I think) £4.99 a quarter (around $7.30), but this still isn't good enough to get everybody online.
From my viewpoint, the greatest value of cultural diversity on-line, which doesn't get much attention, is exposure to diverse points of view, which mass media hasn't been giving us. I The benefits of participating in diverse on-line communities resemble those of bio-diversity: there are more approaches to problem-solving, which increases the system's stability and responsiveness to stress... even though internally, there's more chaos. I'm alluding to complexity theory here, with its odd marriage of chaos and order. Inexpensive distribution of new points of view can have a deep impact even when only a portion of the population can access them at the source. Five hundred years ago in Europe, much of the population was illiterate, but *everybody* was quickly talking about Martin Luther's theses challenging the alleged supreme ruler of the universe. Those who could read shared the ideas with those who couldn't. This is not an argument against bringing technology to under-served communities (I'm on the board of Plugged In (http://www.pluggedin.org/, which does exactly that). It's an argument against the idealists who insist that all people must have free net access or we're doomed.
The days of the so-called Digerati are numbered (they will not be missed) as poorer, working-class Americans thunder online in amazing numbers.
This is no bad thing, but there is a mistake in thinking they are 'computer literate' instead of just 'net literate'. These new users will hinder, not help, attempts to fight DMCA etc.. because they will be the first to accept, and unquestioningly use, copyright friendly content viewers/players. And are very succeptable to the suggestion that anyone who deviates from this path must be a 'evil nerd/hacker' to be despised, bullied and then called a coward by lame presidents when they finally snap.
sorry, bad mood today.
EZ
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
I saw a reference to cars, and I think it applies here. Even if everyone has them, the people who get the most from their cars are the people who have the time, skill, effort and money to maintain the cars themselves.
We're already seeing the end of free tech support, especially in the business world, so I think that this maxim will hold true for computers and software as well. Those who build, maintain, and know how to most effectively use their own code, web sites, etc... will always be the ones on top.
To create 'award winning' websites, for example, one must know the ins and outs of inter-connected systems. A good knowledge of HTML, Javascript, any of the several graphics editors, and the minute differences between the major browsers is necessary to create the front-end of a 'good' site. A better than average knowledge of SQL, a scripting language like Perl, PHP, or something more robust and clunky like Java is necessary for the back-end.
Those who say that 'Microsoft FrontPage' can eliminate the barrier between content producers and users have obviously never to use FrontPage to make a sell-able website.
By the same token, Granny just ain't gonna up and start making kernel patches despite the fact that Junior came over and installed Mozilla and StarOffice on her clunky old P2-200 machine. Even if Granny can wrap her aged mind around the interface, which the folks withe Gnome and KDE have been making better and better, you need some real computer skillz to get down and start editing conf files to make your computer do what you want it to.
While I used an improbable example above, it holds true for every OS. To make it perform... to be a 'digerati' so to speak, you gots to gots to gots to know what you're doing.
Trust me. I'm a professional....
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I don't think so
Just because there are more people on the net, doesn't mean that they are clued.
Refer to The September that never ended.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Imagine more internet users with cheap PCs...maybe even free PCs gotten with their cable-modem service. They don't have the cash to drop $300 for the latest Microsoft office suite! All the really good software is money, and these users probably won't be messing with their PCs to install Linux. Can you imagine a Windows XX PC totally remote-controlled by the ISP who provides it? Of course the ISP won't support an alternative OS! Of course the ISP will cooperate with the government to find users with illegal MP3s and un-liscensed software! I'm hardly a bleeding heart, but this could easily become just another way for the authorities to keep the poor down :)
Blar.
This will not be the case in most (all?) countries in Europe, because you pay for your phonecalls, and thus being online, per tick or second (yes, even for local calls). So, at least in Holland, it's probably: the poorer you are the less time you spend online, if at all.
How to make a sig
without having an idea
I hadn't given it much thought until recently, but do you think the $xxx rebates from online providers are helping people who coun't/wouldn't get a computer before? I've told everyone that asks me about these rebates to stay the hell away becuase you don't know what will be out in three years so why be stuck with old tech. My grandparents didn't listen and did it anyway. When I asked them why, they said they were perfectly happy with the (what I consider) painfully slow connection. The $400 allowed them to get a nicer computer then what they would have bought without it. Do you guys think these rebates are actually helping people get online? I've always viewed it as hurting because you HAVE to use AOMSPCOMPUPROD for three years.
the digerati would certainly be missed were they to disappear, but I think think you parsed that sentence as "those days ... will not be missed". I miss them.
It is a really good thing that more and more people are getting net access, just like it's a great thing that most people have telephones and TVs. There are a lot of benefits filtering up and down from universal access.
But it's also true that elitism can be a very good thing if you are one of the elite. It's nice not to get spam, it's nice to ask questions and get them answered by smart people, etc., i.e. the digerati are great digital neighbors. A lot of that has been swept away by the^H^H^H hoi polloi ("hoi" means "the" in Greek) as we see everywhere and especially on Slashdot. So, yes, universal access is good, and hordes of users supply the add revenue you need, but don't pretend there is something wrong with the digerati, they're great in some unique ways and we'll miss them in every way that they get harder to connect to.
You are too right...there are people in industry and government having wet dreams about the scenario you've proposed.
Blar.
I doubt that the digital divide will be going anywhere soon. It's true that there's a greater "middle American" presence online, and that things are starting to diversify along lines of gender and race, but I'd wager that a lot of the new users are far more dependent on a few key points of distribution for their access and information than the Digerati you describe. I'd also guess that they're more dependent on "easy to use" programs and features, needing to be hand-held through many simple processes that we often take for granted. (Like setting up DUN, downloading a mail client, or FTPing HTML documents.) This doesn't make them lesser people, or stupid, but it does indicate that they're still beholden to an elite.
I have mixed feelings about this. I suppose it's good that interenet access is becomming more widespread among people from different social and economic circles, but the "technosnob" in me is wishing that the internet would remain somewhat of an elitist place.
Of course, over the past few years, with the proliferation of free or low-cost access, inexpensive computers, etc... the internet has changed significantly. I curse silently every tiume I get one of those "make a wish and send this message to 10 people to make it come true" or the infamous "Intel/Microsoft/Disney/mega rich corporation will send you $$$$$ for forwarding this message". It's typicaly not the "technosnobs" who send these things, it's the typical "consumer" who does.
As more and more consumers get internet access, more and more of the content will be "dumbed down" for them. Just look at the typical cable television network in any city. There are a few channels with reasonably good content, some of the time, and a whole bunch of channels with nothing of any value. The internet is moving in that direction as more and more people get online.
Now, I know that due to the nature of the internet, there will always be sites with quality content, they'll just be difficult to find.
It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few years. I hope that the changes are for the better.
"You can take your Tech Slump and shove it..."
.coms will still go under. The techies will all go back to their old jobs at companies that can actually turn a buck. Sure those companies will be doing stuff with the net, but nothing spectacular.
How does a new influx of internet users change anything? Are they likely to suddenly start buying things from all the dying online stores that do not turn a profit on items sold anyway? Or will they view so many of those ads that do not pay for the bandwidth the site uses? Are you expecting them to all start buying tickets on priceline when the airlines sell the tickets just as cheap?
Or will they all just be a bunch of non-paying content producers/digesters like most of the net users before them.
More users does not mean an end to the internet slump. All of the useless
And in short, everyone will get over the internet, until some huge change (Like easy, cheap, accessible broadband.) comes along to get the net moving again.
Jon, I really hope that you have a day job. In what way is Net usage related to the 'tech slump'? And what 'tech slump' are you talking about? It's already been determined on Slashdot and many places that there is NOT a shortage of jobs for technical people. Are you suggesting that more Net users will help the stock market's tech company slump?
Now they'll have to revert back to their original primordial secret society, the Illuminatti, regroup, come up with a new plan to enslave the humans and try again. Nice try with the digital Internet thing, but good triumphs again, woohoo!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The lies of politicians will be easier to refute with more open access. Initially this will be more damaging to the Democratic party, but eventually could touch the Republican party as well.
Minorities online mean that the old race warlords are also going to be in a fix, suddenly they won't find the world to be a black versus white issue.
The net will be liberating to the minorities who make it there, mainly because they will have the means to find the truth instead of having it spoonfed to them.
The net will be liberating to many people, because now perhaps they will finally be presented with contrary opinions, not ones given to them by their local politician.
Granted some people will use the net to scam voters and minorities, but hey, I actually work with a guy who believed that FOX program saying the moon landings were hoaxes. (and we'er both IT professionals)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Note that these views cast the new numbers as consumers to be entertained and marketed to, rather than as participants in information production. And general Net trends these days seem to support this characterization.
The one thing that I will miss about the "digerati" (as Jon calls them) is that they really believed in the Net as a medium to facilitate our communications among ourselves as a group of peers, as members of communities. It appears that the rush of the masses online is drowning out that vision with the somewhat competing vision of the Net as a delivery vehicle for spoon-fed, one-direction-only, cross-tied Valuetainment (tm) marketing. The displacement of the so-called techno-elite in Net demographics has not come without its own price. But so long as the technical core can continue as niche communities on the Net, I guess we have gained much over the truly one-way media of old.
Electic light: Approx. 40 years to hit 80% of households
Telephone: Approx. 80 years to hit 80%
Television: Just under 15 years for 80%...wow!
Auto: 65 years!
Radio: About 20 years
To have roughly 50% of Americans install a very complex device (relative to the above technologies), and a fairly expensive one at that in under 10 years (when the internet became truly accessible) is pretty darn good, I think.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Moderator wanted people to toe the party line: America great, everybody else, sucks, unless told otherwise by an American (American being defined as anybody who is a citizen of USA, and pastywhite)
Je ne parle pas francais.
Sorry to spoil your Illusions but most /. readers are the Digerati.
As people have said before those with the real skills will rise to the top. Even if we are hampered by others. The influx of people who believe WWF is real, people who voted for Bush and people who believe in Microsoft will hamper the internet. These people aren't interested in free speech, the DMCA or gnutella. They want hotmail, MSN Messenger and AOL/Time Warner telling them what to watch and read.
The same thing happened with newspaper. In the mid >> late 1800s newspapers were only read by the educated. Now we have the National Enquirer, everything is ground down to the lowest common denominator.
What we need to do is to get rid of free tech support, break up AOL (spam, adverts and nasty software), and remove all restrictions. Mmm now that's my kind of internet.
-- Be careful what you say. Someone might remind you about it another day.
When we have seen Alexander Bell revolutionize the then telegraph into the telephone industry, the critics all said, "It's only for fun(music), not real use." /. because it has a tech edge that may not deliver all promised, but it does deliver. Just like phones of yore, people are waking up to the fact the technology is a tool, EMPOWERMENT! If they have access, curiousity will take them places they could never go before. TV was a way to manipulate and sell ad space, 'program' people to use products, promote Political speak, and dumbs down. What you expect is what you get.
I don't think the net started off in such a fashion, but I see similarities(novelty wearing off, real use...)
I think it's a wonderful thing, when the net reflects more of what WE? are. Suppose, for example, we have more participation in political forums ala net, what do you think will happen?
Or suppose some -o- those po' folk manage to get a better education(managers cringing everywhere) wnd demand a better standard of living.
No, I don't think it's a matter of "Me too"isms. I think people can see more potential than the TV. Bandwidth be damned, people want a creative outlet, not just a better "brain morgue©".(I hope&&pray) People want interactive at a level 'we' never had before. The NET doesn't care if you belong to a country club, own a BMW, or other facades. It exists for the user without typecast(kinda like Javascript, no?)
I like
Nah, my vote is for telephones...
This mind intentionally left blank.
The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
Oh, yes, they will. Those days you could still keep up with Usenet, the days 99% of posts was relevant to the group and the previous message, those days when "Flame" stood for an intelligent, almost literary rebuttal, instead of moronic incendiary gutter-drivel, the days of the Crystal Cave, the days the 'net _was_ free and open, and abuse and crass commercialism non-existent. They will be missed, Jon, until they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead fingers and nail the coffin shut. And I bet many will agree, if maybe not here.
Just how far back are we going, Grampa? I started reading newsgroups a couple of years before the September-that-never-ended, and absolutely none of the conditions that you mention above obtained. Pretending that, by October, all those clueless newbies either caught the train or dropped out ignores all of those dysfunctional yet persistent perpetual students who eschewed getting a life in favor of ceaselessly trying to exert some sort of control or influence, however negative, on that imaginary world displayed in 80 columns of monospaced type on their CRTs.
Hey, maybe there was, indeed, a time before that when there was a lower S/N ratio, if only because there were only a handful of research institutions on the net and only CS majors had accounts. Certainly there's a lot more noise these days on just about any group. But mourning the "days you could still keep up with Usenet" strikes me as just a little creepy; it's kind of like being nostalgic for the days when you could still keep up with all the books being published, because there were only about twelve, including the Bible.
I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
Now that would be progress
LFS. Have you built your system today?
First, poor people learned to read and write...
Now they're learning to use the Internet.
So much for pathos.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
Don't tell anyone about movies like "The Net" and "Hackers" and the like. Those movies are so full of real world hacking instructions that our digital society would collapse completely should the wrong people ever see those movies!
Give it up, Jon. Your pseudo-intellectual crap doesn't fit here. Geeks have finely honed bullshit detectors, and most of what you say doesn't make it past our filters. Go write for the Village Voice or something.
...is decreasing the things and doesn't help the bodies. There was a time when education (=basically learning to read and write) was only for the rich and the talented patronized by the rich. This made them an elite and the works created by this elite could only be appreciated by this elite. The most wide spread works were the ones appreciated by an educated and aware audience. Thoday the most widespread works are the ones appreciated by the average men. In the past books from Aristotle, Petronicus, Dante and the like where remembered. Today something like Dawson's Creek books are the ones. There may be some rare gems, but you just cannot see them anymore. The net made the same development in the last 20 years.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
Not only that, but broadband is become more mainstream as well..in areas that it is available in. That's great that everyone is on the net now...but can they use it? Not only should we help them get access, but spread the knowledge on how to use the internet! There are a lot of AOLers out there and AOL is a terrible first ISP to start out your internet experience. Although there are a lot of people from AOL who might be here and actually realize there is an Internet out there... For example, just last night, my friend who has AOL, didn't even realize what was IE! Another one, practically everyone in my high school had AOL, except me, (I just had to be the exception, I didn't feel very good about a company with such a horrible security record). They had no clue what any outside features of AOL were! Sometimes I had to come over and help their asses out. Lets work on Computer Literacy so people like me can post freely on /.
"Forgive me father for I have sinned, I bought a Microsoft Product"
All Postings on this Computer are brought to you buy the Free Software Program of UB Micro
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
Um, don't the Chinese make up one quarter of the world's population, the biggest race in the world? China has CITIES bigger than the entire population of the USA. So in what way are the Chinese a minority?
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
I think with enough patience (especially among tech support and sysadmins), people from a wide cut of the socioeconomic spectrum will begin to use the computer and the Net on a daily basis. But there is a difference between being an active and a passive user. Let's consider the two technologies most compared to the Net/Computer in this discussion: TV and automobiles.
TV is inherently a passive technology: users are fed and there is only limited feedback from user to TV programmers. So it is not really a fair comparison to the Internet revolution, a revolution where users not only can get a lot of content but also actively participate in the shaping of the available content. I think Slashdot is a great example of this two way feedback. So talking about how the digital divide will disappear like it did for TVs is a misleading comparison. The divide will still be there if most of the 'masses' only learn to accept content from the Internet (such as check stock prices, news reports, sports scores) as opposed to build/manipulate some of the contents themselves.
As for the comparison with automobiles, this one probably has more merit as there is more of an active participation on the part of automobile consumers. But I think the divide that was crossed earlier is now widening: most people cannot fix nor truly understand how their cars work. This is especially true with modern cars that require sophisticated, specialized electronics to diagnose even the simplest of engine problems. And I think the automobile metaphor provides an important lesson: a divide that appeared to have been crossed can in the future re-widen. As more people become savvy with the current state of PC and Internet technologies ... we have to keep in mind that technology does change (especially in the PC/Internet world) and that the divide can re-appear and widen if we don't make sure people keep up.
So in summary, we need people to embrace the digital revolution as opposed to just accept it in order to close truly the divide.
Hey Jon Katz, has it ever occurred to you that there's a much bigger divide in the world? Ever heard of "third world nations"? They don't even have adequate food.... where are all of your articles about the "food divide"? How about the "adequate living conditions divide"? How about the "rudimentary medical resources divide"?
I think you are far too US-centric in your perspective on things. You attack the so-called "digital divide" as if it were something meaningful at all.
What are you thinking? Do you honestly think getting rid of the "digital divide" will suddenly eliminate the world's problems? Will it stop your US corporations from exploiting third world resources and people?
It's time for you to broaden your perspective on issues, and start writing about the REAL divide in the world - the divide between the US and other first world nations, and the impoverished third world. THAT is the REAL divide!
And no, the "third world divide" is not showing any sign of closing.
Help the world for a change... rather than your writing career.
Some may claim the move onto the net of the Average Joe is a boon for society as a whole, but it won't be for those of us who've been here a while (evern if we are young, white, male, and career-oriented)
though i'd say it's a lot longer than 3 years ago, the state of the Internet when i joined (mostly academic, with very little independant use except usually ex-academics on dialups), Usenet was informative and useful, searches (on gopher before the web) were concise and accurate, people followed posting standards for all manner of content, and users were helpful, well-mannered and well-informed. it was a pleasure to be there. no having to wade through reams of "DOOD HOW DO I GET BRITNEY SPEARS PR0N????/".
seems to me the increase in numbers has not been matched with an increase, or even consistency, in netiquette/resourcefulness. seems perhaps the old adage of "there is a finite amount of intelligence in the world" may be true substituting "usefulness" and "the internet"...
there are still areas of good stuff on the net, but they're increasingly hard to find. best of luck.
david
Saying that the digital divide is disappearing is just another way to sell more banner ads.
-schussat
The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Seriously, the days when the net was dominated by computer professionals are gone, but they're still there, if you know where to look and demonstrate knowledge and civility, which are also in short supply on the net these days.
Consider pop music: in the 50s and 60s Elvis was outrageous and Beatles records where burned. Now they're national treasures, Elvis is on stamps, and fake rebellion is marketed by megacorporations (will the Real Slim Shady please fuck off), but you can still hear alternatives, be it rave, metal, folk, indie if thats your bag, you just have to be more selective.
So it is now on the net, and people bemoaning the eternal September only need to look a little harder.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I would love to hear this piece in full digital dolby surround sound with THX. Why, you might ask. I'll tell you. The special effects in Jon's latest are great, but could be oh so much better.
JonKatz, I am your whore, your bitch, your personal sex-toy. Please, I beg of you, for the love of the goddess, please fuck me! Cyborg monkey has snubbed me time and time again.
Please, Mr. Katz, do me baby, one more time.
You like to talk of sex and fucking
You like to talk of sex and fucking
But indeed, I'm a whore, so do me now!
I guess one point that is missing is the fact that the intended uses of these new users is different than what people used to think about in the old days. One of the big points that used to be made all the way back in '94/95 was the low cost of informaion distribution that the web would allow, being a revolution for people of all SES levels as we handed the equilavent of printing presses out to every person who could reach the network. What JK mentions are pretty much the same-old same-old: new markets for business, and new opportunities for the entertainment industry. Sure we are bringing the poor online, but they are being brought in now that we have figured out how to make them customers/an audience -- consumers of information instead of producers. At least the the Wal-Mart comparison is right.
I have spent seven years working in community networking and still see, every day, vast differences in the way the technology is used by schools, non-profits, churches, and the poor. So while the news about access may be good, there are significant qualitative differences between the way that the tecnology is applied by people with different abilities (white educated techies compared to the wal-mart types) to raise their quality of life.
Though closing the gap between the social strata online cannot be a bad thing, I still find myself waxing nostalgic for the halcyon days of '94 when the www was new and not so commercialized. Now the "info superhighway" seems a lot like TV, a medium of mediocrity and homogeneity of thought, with notable exceptions, of course.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Does this mean I will never have to hear the STUPID FSCKING WORD 'DIGERATI' ever again? That's certainly worth a Katz article... and not a bad one, either.
Can we also abolish Esther Dyson while we're at it?
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
We used to think that poor people would be at a disadvantage by having to buy dead tree porn.
Now it turns out they not only are buying bigscreen TV's, but PCs too, so they can enjoy e-porn.
Another killer article, Katz.
***
Go ahead and mod me down. If you don't like my opinion or sarcasm that makes me a troll or flamebait, right?
Oh, come *on*.
Canonizing unstable children as potential avatars of electronic activism is a blatant Katzism.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The Internet still has at least as much hardcore computing information as ever (in fact much, much more). If you don't like the fact that the Web is now more of an entertainment source than a forum for computer geeks, don't visit entertainment sites. The beauty of the Web is the fact that you are in control . . . if you only ever visit the übergeekiest sites out there, as far as you're concerned the Internet can be just as geeky as ever.
Being on the Internet at all used to make you "digerati". Now that everyone's on, you just have to find something else to feed your elitist complex. Learn to program Smalltalk. Get into nanorobotics. Learn to troubleshoot assembler for some obscure platform. There are plenty of areas to get into with a small, geeky, "elite" audience.
If I want to share information about overclocking, Linux, configuring Apache, or any one of a thousand related topics, the sheer volume of the 2001 Internet makes my search for information that much easier. With the rise in mass Internet culture comes a concurrent rise in the ranks of Geeks.
I can go to Salon and discuss any number of non-Geek related issues, and in many cases the caliber of discussion beats the pants off any Usenet discussions I was privy to in 1994.
Think of it this way - the rise of the CD made audiophiles everywhere panic. Now vinyl is back, there are small, high-quality record manufacturers selling vinyl to afficionados.
Once Budweiser reigned supreme in the aisles of American liquor stores. Hell, maybe it still does - but microbrews are everywhere, and some of them are damned good.
Sure, 99% of American television is total crap, but there are some bright spots (History channel, Discovery, A & E, etc.) that would never have come into existence without the expansion of all the other crap TV.
The Internet is a market, in many ways like any other. Supply will meet demand, as long as the Net remains decentralized, new ideas will flourish. The masses can have their crap, but discerning users can still have quality.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The Net circa 1994 was eye-opening.
Those of us using usenet which was mainly
academic was invaded by AOL and webtv newbies.
The discussions definately downscaled then.
I don't think going from 30% to 90% usage is
going to be as traumatic.
You made some interesting points, but I think you're simply looking at all the bad things without balancing them with the positive side.
/. Would it have been thinkable to see such a phenomenon 10 years ago? Depsite the mandatory trolls/flamers you get for every story, there are some mighty discussions going on here. I can't think of any other place where important philosophy issues are discussed so much, except maybe university philo classes. You miss completely the power of the net. Sure, the noise ratio went up dramatically as the 'net grew more and more popular, but on the other side we can now reach this mass.
/. are politicizing a LOT of people. I've seen it happen. I've seen friends wondering why I was reading /. every day, come here and have their eyes opened to political issues. Then they, too, become avid readers and posters. I think it's time to stop complaining about the sheeple, and try to cut their numbers instead of being elitist. In the end, this is what's going to make a better place to live in. The less drones you have, the harder it will be to pass fascist laws and for big corporations to bully Mr Everyone-without-tons-of-money.
Look at
Sites like
Instead of wanting it back the way it was by reducing the number of people, you should be working to get the sheeple out of their self-made intellectual lazyness. Maybe we'll actually be able to change things then.
P.S. My english's not very good, especially when I haven't had my first coffee. I just had to reply.
Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
All that needs to be done is set up the machines with monitors, printers, and modems, and do fresh OS installations, but there is no money to pay for the work. The mayor is now asking for donations.
Maybe some slashdotters in the Baltimore area could spend a few Sunday afternoons and help?
The American Demographics website does not appear to have been updated since January. So all of us techno-elitists will have to go out and buy a copy of the magazine!
China has CITIES bigger than the entire population of the USA.
Um, no. The largest city in the *world* is Mexico City, around 25 million. The US has a population at least ten times that. Yes, there are a lot of Chinese. No, there aren't *that* many. Check your facts.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Actually, MPEG encoding uses dct, not fft. And Fraunhofer has nothing to do with it. Layer 3 is just some (obvious, really) extensions on top of the MPEG-1 codec.
"Watch these suckers jump when I get Administrator."
LAME just makes an MPEG encoder. The only real difference between that and the Fraunhofer encoder is optimization and the psychoacoustic model. "Proprietary" does not really factor into it. Maybe you should change your analogy to Ogg Vorbis instead of LAME.
"Watch these suckers jump when I get Administrator."
On the other hand, I have a couple of CS graduate degrees, and became a Usenet reader in September, 1989, so perhaps I have left my low-class roots behind?
Anyway, quit your damned elitist whining. Look around the net a bit to find a group that shares your sensibilities. If you can't find one, whip one up! Then you can moderate out the rubes and keep the conversation up to your high standards. There is plenty of bandwidth for us all.
By the way, I've noticed that special interests can still result in the caliber of exchange you want. If you are into something like antique radios or Middle English literature, I'll bet you can find newsgroups/mailing lists/web sites galore that have high signal-to-noise ratio.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
This is no bad thing, but there is a mistake in thinking they are 'computer literate' instead of just 'net literate'.
These new users will hinder, not help, attempts to fight DMCA etc.. because they will be the first to accept, and unquestioningly use, copyright friendly content viewers/players. And are very succeptable to the suggestion that anyone who deviates from this path must be a 'evil nerd/hacker' to be despised, bullied and then called a coward by lame presidents when they finally snap.
Therefore the Digeratis' responsibility is to continue build a better 'up-town', built on our values and standards.
We need nurture & educate these new comers about the consequences of issues like RIP/DMCA, instead of insulting & alienating them with derogatory labels, because they don't follow 'our' rules.
Indeed in many ways we are actually better placed to achieve this. We can win this fight, it's all about knowledge engineering 'our business. Those wishing to 'take-over' and 'control' the net are the same established power trippers, politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, etc that everybody loves to hate.
Indeed in my experience many of us Digeratis' are from working class (blue collar) backgrounds, IT certain gave me (and my brother) a chance to escape from 'down-town' on my own merit, a chance we would not have had at another time, or profession. As incumbents we have a natural advantage, providing we don't piss it away. We need to appeal to mass aspirations, present the benefits of the Digital Suburbs, of Open Content rather than the proprietary getto of AOL/MSN etc.
What's the future, of mankind?
How should you know?
You got left behind...
That's so funny. Usenet. I don't think that, ten years ago, all of usenet together got even 1% of the hits /. gets each day. There just wasn't enough people online. That's what I meant by "reaching the masses".
I supposed I shouldn't have answered to an obvious troll, but it shows so well the "elitist" stupidity of some people. Sure. Keep most of the people in ignorance, and you just promote a society where most don't have a clue and just follow around yelling "Bleeeeeh!". You're not l33t because you just happened to use Usenet 10 years ago. Though I suppose some people just need to feel superior about SOMETHING.
Ok, I'm done venting.
Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
I couldn't agree with you more on this point! But there's one thing I just don't get about it: why do the juveniles and anonymous cowards focus so much of their energy on destruction? One of the reasons I keep coming back to Slashdot is that sometimes the discussions, or even arguments, are well thought out, intelligent, and make me happy that some of my species actually exist. And then the inevitable "you stink like monkey ass" comments come out, or goatse.cx links, or what have you, and I just get embarrassed. There are people who actually thought hard enough (or did they?) to make a post that has no taste or redeeming value whatsoever. It's not funny, it's not meaningful, it's just, well, noise.
Are there little green men reading this stuff? What must they think of the bile that's spewed here, and on Usenet, and surely on IRC, and whatever other communications channels, daily? The USSR and the USA dealt with each other in a much more cordial manner at the height of the cold war, when each was prepared to completely annihilate the entire planet!
I have been a certified PC technician for three years and I know more about computers than end users who have used them for several times longer. Why? Because your average end user only knows how to use the bare minimum of a computer's or specific program's functions to do their job and nothing more. Some secretary or manager at Podunk Inc. who doesn't know how to open a program without a shortcut on their Windows desktop is not going to displace professional technicians or people in the know.
It's mostly (I think) a lack of any true sense of responsibility for actions. This comes with age, as you begin to empathize with others, and respect the feelings of others. But it does come with age, and you can't apply adult morality to children and adolescents.
I feel I was a fairly good kid (my parents seem to agree, looking at my younger brothers), but I remember instances as a child and adolescent when I was cruel, when I destroyed other's property, and when I thought things like the anarchist's cookbook were cool. Looking back, it was as if I was a different person, and I'm glad I grew out of it, and I still think I was a good kid. If I did the same things today, though, I'd have to admit I was a bad adult.
Parents seem to understand this - that you can't reason with young children, and often a little spank is all that will stop their animalistic impulses. Eventually, the kids internalize what is right and wrong, and non-corporal punishment (grounding, extra chores, whatever) becomes a reasonable deterrent. Eventually, when they have matured some more, you can give them rational reasons for what is right and wrong, and indeed they demand them (heaven help the parents that are still saying "Because I told you!"). Sometime after they ask for rational reasons behind rules, they recognize that not all rules are rational, and either fight them (which is good, if the rule is bad), or they respect them, because of the rewards of following the rules (stay out of jail, earn the respect of those that love them and/or have control over them).
So, we can't do much for the annoying elements of SlashDot - they have to follow the rules themselves. We can hope that someday they try to run for office, or get promoted, and their goatse.cx links come back to haunt them (formative years my ass!!!).
I secretly hope that the Slashdot moderators are recording data about anonymous posters, etc, and will one day create SlashJustice, where you can find the names and addresses of the most annoying posters, ranked by how close they are to you. You could then exercise SlashJustice on their asses. Penny Arcade had a comic on the issue, but it's amoung those lost in the server move.
The USSR and the USA dealt with each other in a much more cordial manner at the height of the cold war, when each was prepared to completely annihilate the entire planet!
You also have to remember, for every US/USSR summit with its dignified and cordial atmosphere, there was a Sylvester Stallone movie or a Vietnam. We weren't always very nice to each other.
Hey, Moderators: Is it really off-topic if it was an honest responce to a previous post?
I don't own a TV precisely because there's nothing worth watching on it except the news and the Simpsons, and the news is mostly misreported and hugely biased (much like /. ;-)
;-). And the new internet might even resurrect Usenet if someone will get down to business and crack Google/Deja to get the old posts back. ;-) Of course, I personally have nothing but disgust for posters who let anyone else have the rights to their posts, and they kinda deserve what they got.
So why the hell do I want my PC to become a new form of TV? That's bullshit. I try to teach every net newbie I meet what the internet SHOULD be, what it was, at least.
It's a winnowing-out process, you see. First you add a huge amount of new users who don't know what the internet was originally like. To give an example, modern SAT tests could convincingly include "internet access" and "satellite TV" in an analogy. Then, you criminalize and dehumanize the few (relatively) remaining people online who refuse to be a cog in the marketing machine. Once you can criminalize them, you can get rid of them.
I foresee a time when anyone who is NOT online via AOL etc will be considered dangerous and a cybercriminal. IMO, if that's what's going to happen anyway: create a new net, hopefully based on Freenet's topology or something very like it, for the "digerati" to move to. (Gawd, I hate that term, makes me think of starbucks-frequenting latte-sipping Wired-reading twerps, or in Denis Leary's words, "haiku-writing motherfuckers")
This new net will have the disadvantage that it will also be looked on with suspicion and denounced by politicians as the abode of "hackers", "terrorists", and "child pornography"... But at least we evil monsters will be safely hidden away where the AOLers wouldn't be in any danger of catching our cooties. I think that may actually be a solution.
Then the computer plebes can stay on the old internet and use it for their mp3's and their Jerry Springer streaming video and their online shopping and their cotton-candy-censored-"for the children!!" content. Who cares? Let them have what they want. If a cable modem is just another form of satellite TV box in their opinion, who am I to stop them from enjoying it?
As for me, I would move to the "new" internet where one might be able to have an intelligent conversation and do some coding and/or get some pr0n and/or play violent games. And maybe NOT get 3 million unwanted ads for penis enlargement in my email (which is actually kind of an insult when you think of it
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Until the schools get tough with bullies and sanction them (up to and including expulsion) for "creating a hostile educational environment", we can expect the victims to reach the ends of their ropes and do something about it. As it is we are only seeing the tip of an iceberg with the shooters, because most of the victims respond by transferring schools, dropping out or committing suicide. The losses in destroyed educations and lost lives from bullying and harassment are many times as large as the losses from school shooters, and it's high time that something was done to address it.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Cowardess inspired by a cowardly act is still cowardly.
I'd say it's worse than being bullied. If you are bullied you are offered a chance to fight or flee. If he was to afraid to fight and risk getting his ass kicked then he's a coward. If the only way he can approach the problem is to hide behind a gun he's a coward.
To all the geeks out there getting picked on: Quit being such pussy's. Start fighting. If you let yourself get pushed around you will be pushed around. If you fight back, you will get your ass kicked. Once, Twice, probably more, but once you've proved you are willing to fight for your self respect you will find yourself with a lot fewer opprotunities to do so.
I truly long for those golden days when flames were flames and the signal much stronger than the noise. Before there was the web and gui's and dsl. Dial up on a screamin' 300 baud compuserve account to send email to your friends who's address were silly numbers? Yeah, me too, I am 30 and been messing around with this stuff for 2/3's of my life... I agree with you but I think you are missing something really important: The Internet will be the great equalizer in times to come and our hard core techno eliteist mentality will disappear (at least to those unwilling to scratch below the surface) as more come to realize that this is the information age. Think of how many more influences and directions will be explored in the use of the net and how many more minds will grow as the user demographic changes. Sure, the level of lameness will go up and the noise increase geometrically. These new netizens will move along the technology without directly developing it by using application X because it has nice features versus application Z which crashes all the time and trend Y becomes mainstream instead of 'merely a trend.' They will open doors and in time be able to look back and exclaim "I remember when I used to surf the Web..."just as you and I can right now. The web as we know it today will not even closely resemble the net 5 years from now because the shift from net as a luxury to net as a utility is happening. I used to bitch about all the AOLamers that would clog the web and vandalize sites, news groups, message boards, etc. (troll=graffiti, no?). As time passes I realize it is all just part of the noise and the real evolution of the web is just begining. They are the masses and eventually their collective influence will shape the big picture of the net. I say bring them on, let go of the past for it is these very people that are whom the net was built for. When everyone, at all income levels and educational levels and ethno/religious backgrounds have access to information things will get really interesting. Besides, the digirati will never completely disappear, just shift to some other channel where the signal is the same vibe as you and the noise still low.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
good points... if only i had moderator status again...
Employers are required by law to stop behavior like this in their workplace. Failure to do so exposes them to huge liability, and nobody is even required to work at a particular job (or at all)! There is no excuse for schools failing to give the same protection to people who attend schools paid for by tax dollars. There is no excuse for bullies having the run of the school.
It takes a lot more guts to get your own back when you know you're going to pay a price for it than it takes to pick on someone you think cannot fight back. You sound like you are defending the bullies. You didn't spend your secondary-school days slamming smaller kids against lockers, did you? Crap on that. To all the geeks out there getting pushed around: report the behavior to the administration. Look it up in your state's criminal code and cite the paragraph that the bullies are violating. Tell the administration that they can either stop the bullies with sanctions or you are going to go to the police the next time this occurs, and right after that you are going to go to your lawyer and file suit against the school for failing to control unlawful behavior on their premises which was known to them. Then do it.We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic.... Isn't it true? It doesn't have to be; it only persists because all of us let it.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Hey, if Katz himself can be a troll, then everyone here has a little THBT on his forehead...
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Your body heals, you can buy new things, but pride and self respect are difficult to build.
Fight in a school you're required to attend, so that you can get to the classes to which you are entitled. Endure threats or even assault and battery so some coward can feel big.
And this doesn't apply to assault with firearms? You advocate self defense when you have a clear advantage but to take the highground and fight a bully on his/her own terms you feel is wrong?
Employers are required by law to stop behavior like this in their workplace. Failure to do so exposes them to huge liability, and nobody is even required to work at a particular job (or at all)! There is no excuse for schools failing to give the same protection to people who attend schools paid for by tax dollars. There is no excuse for bullies having the run of the school.
That was never in question. I'm not advocating repressive violence, but it exists. As a society we need to deal with it by undoing a few millions years of evolution. As individuals we need to learn to deal with it practically, without waving our arms and saying it should go away. You're mistaking my solution to the problem for approval of the situation.
Crap on that. To all the geeks out there getting pushed around: report the behavior to the administration. Look it up in your state's criminal code and cite the paragraph that the bullies are violating. Tell the administration that they can either stop the bullies with sanctions or you are going to go to the police the next time this occurs, and right after that you are going to go to your lawyer and file suit against the school for failing to control unlawful behavior on their premises which was known to them. Then do it.
That's a solution. Probably a good solution. But it puts your fate in the hands of others. It makes you dependent on authority. Break free from that dependency. Take action on your own, but take that action out of courage. Back to my original argument: By shooting unarmed people your a bully. You have become what you wished to destroy. By fighting those who would bully you on their terms even when you lose you can destroy their power over you.
Not everyone can. The "Hellmouth" series was re-published not long ago. Go read it and see if you have any suggestions for people who are too small, too slow, or have already been beaten down too far to bring themselves up your way.
I'd say more, but I think I've said too much already.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Take a look at this article.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist