1995 US Department of Commerce report

David Harris

Telephone and Computer access in 1995

Falling Through the Net

Blog Post #3

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html

 

FALLING THROUGH THE NET: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America was released by the United States Department of Commerce in 1995. The reports goal was to inform and educate Americans on the importance of access to the telephone and computer in the home and what could be some variable factors that play a significant determination of the results. The variables that the survey focused on were race, income, age, education and region. For region the designations were split up into rural, urban, and central city. Rural is defined as “places of less than 2500” persons. Urban on the other hand is “areas comprised of all territory, population, and housing units of 2500 or more persons”. Prior with the Current Population Survey, geographical identifier was not taken into consideration. Also subscribership data typically collected was limited to telephone services. With this new survey conducted by the Commerce Department two changes were made: there were questions on computers in the home, cross-tabulation of variables (described above).

                The statistics give valuable insight of the effects of race, geographical location, age, and education on access to telephones and computers. With this newly garnered research, social outreach programs will have more information to now tailor their programs to those most in need. It was sighted multiple times in the article that those who are most enthusiastic about online services for “economic uplift and empowerment” are at the most disadvantage to access to telephones and computers. These access points can have the greatest effect on their lives; now social programs can with greater evidence create their strategies for reaching out.

                This was the first report created with variables of race, age, education, and geographical location being key components. I do wonder, how much has this changed in 20 years? I assume that many of the same inequalities of distribution are still present in 2015. I think the greatest strength of this information is that it gives all that read it a bird’s eye view on the social issues that cohabitate with phone and computer access. Your race, age, education, or geographical location can have an enormous effect on whether you do have access to these life altering devices. While much of this comes with little surprise, it does change my thinking as access to these devices is the next social issue. Access to these educational devices is limited. I have always thought that education is the great promoter of class and social movement. Now I see that the telephone and computer can also facilitate class and social upward mobility. I have always heard this issue spoken of in general or vague. Seeing the evidence itself certainly changes my view on the subject of access and variables such as race, age, education, and geographical location. By seeing all of the statistics, you also gain a holistic view of the situation. Usually when statistics are given about social issues there is little background information given to compare it to. Having all the research allows you to see the entire picture and be able to understand the relativity of the statistics.

Lisa Nakamura's theory of cybertyping

Lisa Nakamura takes on the issue of cybertyping in her book Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. Her goal is to persuade the reader that the internet is not the great equalizer that it has been hailed as. Instead it propagates, disseminates, and commodifies images of race and racism: cybertyping. Cybertypes are “the images of race that arise when the fears, anxieties, and desires of privileged Western users are scripted into a textual/graphical environment that is in constant flux and revision” (3).  The way that I think of cybertypes are racial and gender stereotypes online; Nakamura would disagree with my simplistic interpretation. Nakamura wrote her book in 2002. The Internet along with media in general has evolved since the release of her book. Nakamura is writing you internet users who believe that the internet equalizes all—and all that believe that it is a good thing. Instead she argues that the internet is creating a monoculture, producing an assumption of whiteness, not fully representing minorities, and creating false sense of racial equality. While I agree with Nakamura’s theory with cybertyping, I do have some serious concerns with her argument. She takes a deterministic stand; the color of your skin defines that you cannot join the internet community without losing your race or feeling under attack. Because you are black, brown, yellow, blue, indigo, magenta, you will feel attacked on the internet by the representation or lack of representation of your ethnicity. Also one of the key claims Nakamura makes is that the internet does discriminate based off sex, age, race, and location. She cites a claim made by two plaintiffs defended by Equal Rights Center for racial “redlining” because of what was perceived as geographical discrimination. What Kozmo judged as Internet-penetrated zip code “follow racial lines”: Kozmo refues to deliver to a neighborhood of Washington, D.C. occupied primarily by upper-class African Americans with equal “Internet penetration” as white neighborhoods (10).  However, with further research I saw that David Berenbaum on behalf of the Equal Rights Center announced on Dec. 5 2000 that  "Based on our discussions with Kozmo executives and our review of the evidence, we concluded that the definition of Kozmo's initial service area was not motivated by racial discrimination” (freelibrary) . Besides the fact Nakamura makes a claim based off a claim, this comment by the representative of Equal Rights Center completely takes the bite out of Nakamura’s claim.  My final critique of Nakamura’s book is her criticism that “Commercial sites such as these tend to view women and minorities primarily as potential markets for advertising and merchants rather than as ‘coalitions’”.(8) To me Nakamura ignores that the Internet plays a pivotal role in a capitalistic economy that many of the major nations follow. She criticizes these sites for treating their users as potential markets. Many websites need funding to run. In order to gain funding they allow companies (who their customers might be interested in) to market on their website. Also, of course they would market themselves and their beliefs, which is what people/companies do.  It seems ridiculous for Nakamura’s critique of commercial sites.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Kozmo.com+and+Equal+Rights+Center+Announce+Initiative+to+Bridge+the...-a067584214

Digitized Lives Chapter 1

Digitized Cultures

Digitized Lives was published by Thomas Vernon Reed in 2014. Based off the initial chapter, his goal is to clear up misunderstandings that exist with the invention of the Internet/World Wide Web.  A new epoch was created with the invention of the internet.  This “virtual” world is constantly in contact with the physical world that we all live in. This new world does not persist without its fair share of issues and bias. Reed seems to view the internet era as a phenomena—one not very different from the inventing of the printing press or television. He fluctuates from emphasizing the life changing importance to how it is a basic invention.  It is obvious he has spent years researching the digital world based off the questions he asks: “Is the Internet making us more knowledgeable, or just drowning us in a sea of trivia?” and “Is the Web as creating new transnational person-to-person understandings, or amplifying existing cultural misunderstandings?”(Reed 4). One thing I agree with Reed is that virtual world is spoken about with the internet in a derogatory way, it shouldn’t. Reading a book places you in a virtual world. Day dreaming can certainly be defined as virtual. The Internet places you in a virtual world (one that does not exist) just as reading and day dreaming, yet the internet is criticized for this. If the user believes the virtual world that they escape to be real, who are we to tell them it is not? I don’t agree that the domestication of technology is a gendered process. By thinking this way you are stereotyping the way men and women think to fit all of their gender. Women will use the technology to look up recipes for cooking because women cook.  That doesn’t apply to the women that do not cook, and leaves out men who do cook. It is a simplification of a group of people based of their gender. I wish Reed would not have done that.