This article originally appeared in the November, 2000, Number 14 issue of *spark.
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 lves. Once they have found the will to use computers, society must find a way to make it possible for them.
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.
Can’t get enough of *spark? For more intellectual stimulation, go to the source: *spark online.