Social Movements: A combo of ICT and CI

A social movement (SM) does not have to be a group of extraordinary individuals (see image for classic example), rather it can be any “large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues" issues” (http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Social_movements). Considering this quotation I would like to emphasize/add that SM today are largely facilitated today through the use of ICT, a point that was abruptly brought to my attention last class.

Although quite fatigued last Wednesday, I found myself caught up in the class presentation on social movements. Previously I had considered ICT to only be an aspect of modern social movements, however this presentation truly opened my eyes to the possibilities that ICT could provide for (almost) any SM. In the past, I had considered the role of technology in SM as a means of advertizing about the “need for change”, and as a tool for recruitment of new individuals. Although ICT still serves both of those needs, from what I have learned in class ICT provides and allows for so much more. For example considering the fact that SM are based around a shared theme that often unites many people together, ICT can serve to tackle huge boundaries such as geography, cost, and as well as issues surrounding self-disclosure.

Given the above, it is obvious to think about the power that ICT could bring to the organizing of a large SM. To contrast this thought, consider the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dgPIV5RwRU
Although I’m sure that this video is nothing more than clever editing to further the creators’ bias, it does provide an example of how a large protest of people can seem silly rather than powerful without organization or direction. Taking what I learned from Wednesday’s presentation, I came to realize just how applicable and intertwinded the field of community informatics is with modern social movements. This was one of the more powerful links between class topics that I have made this semester, and this junction caused my mind to snowball with ideas. I thought back to the awesome presentation on community informatics and considered how the example of “Oracle Beehive” Software could be applied to help organize any SM, providing a large group of people with constent updates, greatly increasing communication, and providing software flexibility within the group.

Although the above sounds like a wonderful solution to help solve any organization issues a large group of people might have, I feel the solution potentially falls flat when applied to a group of people who are not familiar with computer technology. These groups of people might include senior citizens or individuals with very low incomes and as such they either have no use for or can't afford the technology. Therefore although ICT is able to improve many aspects of a social movement, it perhaps still falls short when trying to aid certain individuals or demographics.

-Dan

Who are you?

“Tell me, who are you? ‘Cause I really wanna know!” Aside from being belted by the iron lungs of The Who’s Roger Daltrey, these words have been running through my mind for the past few weeks concerning the topic of online authority. This topic has been touched upon in previous classes, and after I reviewed the literature on community informatics an interesting point was raised by Michael Gurstein as he points out that “the individual may control their profile but they can do so only within the rules over which they have no direct influence and which they can resist or ignore only at the risk of being de-networked”. When considering this point I was initially taken aback as such a thought had not before occurred to me, and the idea that many of my activities on the internet are ultimately under the control of someone else seemed foreign. That being said this provoked a question for me which was: Who is authoritative on the internet?

After looking around on the internet it became clear that authority on the internet (and elsewhere) is not just “someone with their finger on the button”. Rather, I learned that authority is multifaceted. An example put forth in the following video (http://www.churchofcustomer.com/2009/01/what-is-authority-really.html) considered an individual’s popularity as giving them a sense of authority. When considering this standpoint I found myself in agreement, as popularity in my own experiences (schoolyard and elsewhere) has led to an individual having considerable influence over others. However when taken into consideration that in online communities a “friend” is for the most part just a rough approximation of a “real friend”, the notion of popularity then seems inflated. As such this “popular” person might have no actual influence or over their acquaintances, and as such might be lacking in actual authority.

When considering online authority, popular persons are not alone. Consider the following quote: “Jerry Seinfeld Might Make a fun spokesperson for Microsoft, but Bill Gates didn’t place him in charge of R&D” (http://copywriteink.blogspot.com/2008/12/dispelling-myths-online-authority.html). Reflecting on the above, this quote sheds light on the fact that people don’t need to be popular to be authoritative over others (especially on the internet), rather they just need to be in a position of control. In the case of online communities this position of control typically takes the form of an individual having greater autonomy online, and thus the actual ability to control the online activities of others against their will. The part that I found most intimidating about these authoritative people, is the fact that as individuals they did not need to be popular, they just needed to create a popular website.
-Dan

Digital Divide: The Poor get Poorer

Sitting through our class on “The Internet, Adult Education and Community Development” on Jan 14th I left that night with a concept that although only briefly touched upon, remained burning inside my mind. The concept of a “digital divide” was at first benign to me as I considered it to be a matter simply of cohort and computer anxiety. However as I began to consider the transformation of the internet into a training ground of informal learning, a source of business development, and an ever growing pool of information I became aware and nervous of the hierarchy that the digital divide maintains as access to the internet seems to be governed by class.

The past has taught us that maintaining power consists of controlling information, as this has been one of the cornerstones of imperialism’s success (http://www.mailarchive.com/penl@csf.colorado.edu/msg00297.html ). In today’s modern society a block to computer access is not just a barrier to information, it is a barrier to personal development. In first world societies many jobs have a required standard for knowledge of computers and the internet, however it is within these countries that access to technology is abundant. In the “undeveloped world” there is a deficiency of such technology as outlined in the image, and this leads to a global situation whereby very few control so much (http://www.itu.int/wsis/tunis/newsroom/stats/). This concept of haves and have-nots is nothing new; however the control of information to maintain such a divide has changed with the evolution of computers and the internet.

Today a wealth of resources is readily available on the internet for those who can access it. However there exists an economic divide, whereby being able to afford and acquire internet access is a challenge for the under-privileged. If internet access is achieved there exists a usability divide whereby the resources cannot be understood or used by that individual. An example of this is the fact that the majority of the internet uses English as its main language, which in turn requires that individuals understand English in order to learn (see right). Further, with the majority of the internet being presented in text, it is implicit that users can read, (not to mention see) this in turn creates huge gaps in understanding among populations of developing nations where literacy and accessibility are already scarce (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/digital-divide.html).

Such standards and the internet being used as a resource in its current capacity, has created a divide of intangible resources on a global scale. In this light, the developed nations have already in a sense "laid claim" to the internet and its resources. Although accessability to the internet is possible by anyone with the right equipment, the paradox of the situation is that the accessed information could prove to be useless unless usable by that individual. Given these facts, the digital divide and the internet seems to me only to place the "haves" much further ahead than the "have-nots". This realization in conjunction with the fact the first nations have been hoarding tangible resources for centuries makes me feel that the digital divide is only a part of an ever growing much larger gap between the rich and poor.

-Dan