User:RM395/Course/Week 14

That access to information and the tools provided by the Internet and digital media are empowering hardly needs to be mentioned these days: people in remote areas gain access to massive libraries, people who might not be able to afford college can choose from tens of thousands of educational websites, people interested in any subject can find like-minded individuals with whom to learn, network, and socialize. The possibilities are massive, and I'm sure you can think of many many more. This week's discussion, however, is about the other side. What are the problems associated with the belief that "if we can just get people access to the Internet, their lives will be better?" By that I mean what assumptions are built into that statement and how might they differ from what happens in practice?

Note: to say one of the problems is "it's too hard" or "it costs too much" is to agree with the statement but disagree about its implementation. What are the problems with that statement (reasons someone might disagree with it in principle).

Internet Drawbacks

The internet is hugely empowering, but it comes with an avalanche of problems. For example, when everyone is empowered, that includes all the wrong people. In a very extreme example, the industries of pornography and sex-slavery are thriving in our country where internet is accessible to everyone and even available on our phones. People are also completely addicted to social media, and walk around like zombies on their smart phones. I went to a third world country in Africa for a mission trip for 6 weeks a few years ago and people would talk to you for hours on end. I was astounded at the contrast and how in our culture we have lost our attention spans and ability to hold conversation and I think this is due in large part to the internet's availability and supremacy in our country/culture.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's really so true. Just as I'm doing this today I was thinking that I don't even know who most of the people on these discussion boards are in class. It's like we see each other three times a week but the only time we ever communicate is on a faceless, nameless wiki. Until anyone actually stood up to talk about their pages in class, I couldn't even SEE half of our class because their faces are behind computers and they don't talk, but they're talking to someone because I can hear click click clickety click on the keyboard... it's sad, really. --Tinaface86 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not that I feel strongly one way or another but here are some ideas to think about. First off, some people are always going to do the wrong thing not matter the situation. Yes this may empower them even more to do wrong but it also empowers them to be knowledgeable of what they are doing and perhaps they will stop and pursue something else because they now have the option to. It also makes other people more aware of bad people so they can better avoid them. The way you talk about social media makes it sound like a bad thing, that people become zombies while on it. Do you believe that people become zombies when they read a good book? I enjoy reading, I get so immersed I feel like I am in a different world for a time, and I experience the emotions that a character in that world would feel. Do you believe that this makes me zombie like? I believe the same thought process could be applied to going to social media. Yes it may not be face to face but they are interacting with others, sharing experiences about their, getting instantaneous feedback and a lot of it. To me that doesn't sound like such a horrible thing. --MartellRedViper (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all Information is Useful

The assumption that the Internet and media are empowering completely depends on what information the readers are getting. Because everyone has access to the Internet and anyone can write on it (which is considered one of its biggest merits), people who aren't qualified to write on certain topics can still do so. It is a well known fact that not all information on the Internet is reliable, but in practice, people seem to generally ignore it. We can try to use "credible" sources, but sometimes it can be hard to determine how reliable a source is. If Internet users (especially those who don't have a formal education or are in very remote areas and have limited access to other sources) trust information that an unqualified author puts up, it is not only not "empowering", but actually detrimental to that person. The Internet's capabilities are immediately dependent on the general public putting up reliable information for others to use based on actual knowledge and not just for entertainment.Kslinker5493 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this statement the internet is a place that offers many freedoms but those freedoms can also negatively affect other people. The freedom to write and express your self on the internet is the greatest thing the internet can provide but it also can lead to many problems. Many people are likely to trust the information on the internet as fact even though a lot of the information available on the internet is based on the views of the writer and not solid sources. If people are not able to identify which information is true and which information is false it could lead to many different negative effects. Having a high level of education does not make you immune to be tricked my people on the internet either many well educated people have fallen for scams on the internet as well. --Youngpenn (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And, on top of that, you can have information on the Internet that is 100% true and the user simply reads it incorrectly or doesn't have the background knowledge to understand it. Take medical information as an example. It is common knowledge that people misread medical information all the time, leading them to believe they have illnesses or diseases that they don't actually have. While yes, there is a psychological factor to it, the Internet is the main reason behind it.Kslinker5493 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just consider Google News on any given day. In spite of all the big news -- breakthroughs in science, acts of war, etc. -- something about Kim Kardashian always seems to take top prize for "Most Searched." I think the majority of the world is just fine without Kim Kardashian. --Luna002 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Information can be bad. If someone without an Internet connection has 3 pieces of correct information while another person with an Internet connection has 10 pieces of information — 5 correct and 5 incorrect — who is better off? Many people end up being influenced by the overwhelming mass of information and begin to think that things are more complicated than they really are. I wouldn't call this a net positive on the world. On a side note, I disagree with Luna002 that "the world is just fine without Kim Kardashian." grl u str8 ^ tripin --Information-01152001 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

HAHAHA that was so awesome that this is my only commment about any of this. --Tinaface86 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is def. funny, but is also sad at the same time. What a good point though! The information generated by one of the most prominent search engines of the world is based on "hype". Why would people around the globe care about Kim Kardashian? Who needs to know how many people she has slept with, or what she is going to name her baby. It doesn't matter, it is completely useless and can be seen through an uneducated mindset as primary sources of info....or more interestingly, as what is important to the United States. Spreading false conceptions or ideas = badness haha!--Tabbboooo (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be unhealthy if they aren't careful

While the internet can give many good things like access to many different kinds of information that could be helpful to them, there are also lots of things about the internet that could potentially be harmful physically and mentally in the long run. If people get too addicted to the internet, they could spend all day sitting in front of a computer without exercise, which is not good for the body. Likewise, if they spend too much time on the internet, they can develop different types of addictions like internet or video game addictions and worse case scenario, would not be able to function properly without the internet. --MangoDango (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this statement. While the internet can bring about many possibilities, it can also take some away, in the sense that people could become too involved to go search for a job, or too involved to pursue an education all the way through. I think many of the institutions that have been digitized are missing the in-person aspect, or the physical aspect of going out and doing things. Having to physically go look for a job or go to school requires discipline, and is a lot harder to squeeze by with, considering you have to physically be there and be a part. I feel like it reduces social interaction which is healthy for many people, and can lead to solitary unhealthy lifestyles with those who don't know how to use it in moderation. I also agree with some comments below about it being unnecessary for some people, considering their ways of life are reliant on things that have no need for the internet. Introducing a resource like the internet or any technology that really isnt tailored to a certain lifestyle can destroy some cultures and lifestyles in the process. And, as stated below and above as well, some people who don't know the difference or certain rules of the internet can misuse the information they come across, and post other information that isnt founded on reliable resources.--Tabbboooo (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

May be Unwanted

To me this topic is similar to the one from a couple weeks ago about the digital divide. While those societies that do have internet are reliant on it to a certain extent, others may value an internet-free lifestyle. Those cultures that live outdoors and off the land do so with generations of knowledge and have been able to get by fine without internet accessibility. These people taking pride in their way of living and enjoy a hard day's work. Although the internet it very convenient for those who choose to use it, others may not feel the same way.--Ryenocerous (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I recently took an anthropology class and my professor talked about how women in papua new guinea would wash clothes in the river and outsiders found it to be inefficient. A wealthy American man decided to create a laundry place with many washers for the women to use to save them time. The women used it for a while and then stopped. They stopped because if they finished the laundry that quickly their husbands made them to other work. When they went to the river it was slower and had more time away from their husbands and to themselves. Just because something seems better because it is how you do it does not make it true. Culture is a giant factor in this. People from different cultures have different ideas about everything. Having access to internet might not make everyone's lives better. I think of the Amish about this. Their lives might be simpler with the internet and technology but it would not be better.--SJRick (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Technology has becomes such a huge lifestyle changer in recent years that I definitely believe it could be unwanted. Even if you simply look at older generations, you can see the skepticism they have towards the Internet and technology. My grandpa only got a cell phone because my aunt forced him to so that she could more easily stay in contact with him. It took him weeks to figure out sending and receiving emails. This isn't because he's not a smart man; he has a PhD and was the head of a community college for over 20 years. He simply didn't have the mindset for the technology and didn't want to learn. He was happy in his ways and completely content without using it.Kslinker5493 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a lot like the digital divide question. I agree with all of you. The internet may change lives but there is nothing inherently wrong with the way people choose to live their lives. The problem that arises from this is forcing change into somebody's life when they might have gone on just fine, forever, the way they were. It's okay to live a simple life, and if you interfere with that, you are interfering with the potential of that group of people to evolve on their own. You can't just hand someone a computer and "fix" them. --Tinaface86 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is true. Even the most remote places and third world countries develop technology culturally over time. It might not be at the same rate as first world countries, but all places are changing. The technology gets better for them as long as it does not change them culturally. Changing from a stone axe to a steel axe is not going to change who people are, but changing from face to face communication to something like cell phones will.--SJRick (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This thread is heading toward the way I've been thinking: That access to information might or might not be helpful depending on the cultural context. Regardless of how much useful information might be available and regardless of how much it might potentially improve someone's life, it needs to be introduced in such a way that it will be used. I think I mentioned elsewhere that in many developing countries mobile phone access is becoming very popular, as it helps people to start and run small one-person businesses. In fact, in many areas the communications providers are not even bothering to install landlines and fiber. They are just popping up cell towers, which are cheaper. Mobile access is affordable and good enough for many of the people and they have found their own uses for it, so it has "leapfrogged" traditional phone and internet access. --Brodmont (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Worthy Goal, but Not an Easy One

There are certainly many potential benefits to giving more areas access to the web and its information that were previously without. These new people will have to learn how to successfully navigate the web on many levels, such as quickly sorting through sources to find which ones have credible and relevant information. The learning curve could be a huge problem for the technologically illiterate. Overall their options with increase and the benefits may not be apparent quickly. Another significant issue is cost. Even if getting the infrastructure into new areas was an inexpensive process, many people may be unable to afford to purchase internet access with low income.--Jeflicki (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As a tool the Internet is a vital one for the modern age, but it's a bit different for unreached folk. I also agree that providing Internet services for such locations would be costly and probably not profitable, and unfortunately the business of providing Internet is hardly efficient or properly executed (see how quickly you can get a plumber to come fix a leaky pipe vs the cable guys to fix a bad modem...or just installment). I do think public access locations would be proper though. We see a lot of folk who wouldn't normally have Internet at home, if they have a home, access the Internet a public libraries or whatnot. I can also see more Internet Cafes or similar structures opening up to allow those who are truly seeking to utilize the Internet to help advance themselves. These locales would make for easy access for proper use of the Internet without trying to overreach. --Seannator (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with more public access, bigger computer labs, and more engineers. Third world countries aren't going to know what to do with a smartphone if you handed it to them. It is not only this putting-technology-in-more-hands notion, but that we need to teach these tech-wielders proper use and function. More stupid people on the internet is only inhibiting our progress. It is difficult for some people to decipher between knowledge and intelligence, as we talked about in class on Wednesday. We are a long way away from this idea of making lives better through the internet.--Thepresidenthal (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I too think it would be difficult to introduce modern technology to a country that was previously without it. Those societies that have these capabilities today have been experimenting for decades, learning and adapting to the technology and developing more advanced technology. I think that those countries without internet need to develop it themselves and learn how to use it rather than having it simply dropped in their laps with no understanding of how it works. I think if they were to create it themselves it would not only allow them to understand it and be able to better ensure its success, but it would also mean that they were ready to use internet as they would be creating it rather than being given it.--Ryenocerous (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

People Have Other Stuff to Worry About

As Ryenocerous mentioned above, this question kind of prompts the same response I gave to the discussion about the digital divide. Yes, I think there are some assumptions and maybe prejudices built into the notion that giving people access to information electronically is going to make their lives better. Potentially it could, but it would need to be done in a culturally- and contextually-appropriate way. Many people are just trying to figure out every day how to get enough food and water and to keep their families from getting sick. Could access to information help them with those problems? Maybe. But it would need to be designed in a way that really makes sense to them. I know that mobile phone access is growing very quickly in developing countries, and many people are using mobile phones to help them manage small-scale entrepreneurial efforts. That kind of thing makes tremendous sense. --Brodmont (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I think it all depends on how far your outlook is on the situation. Giving these people access to information might help there children or there children s children by providing them with a opportunity to advance themselves that they might not get if they did not have access to such information. I do agree with your point that it needs to be designed to fit there needs though. If it is not designed in a way to help them they will see it as something useless and unnecessary. --Youngpenn (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel pretty strongly about protecting people from the bombardment of information technology offers/forces. As nice and convenient as it is to settle a debate with the stroke of a couple keys, it is incredibly exhausting when you are EXPECTED to have instant access to information at all times. I can't help but think about that episode in Portlandia when the guy goes into a technology coma... Sometimes I relate. Actually, usually I relate. I don't think I'd wish the constant noise from ubiquitous technology on anyone... But I'm probably a hippie at heart.Luna002 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Illusion of Socialization

On one hand, sure, I can see the benefits of networking with people online. I think the problem with this is that online networking isn't real human interaction, and is really a virtual misrepresentation. You don't really get to know someone's personality from facebook or chatting online. Many times, social media amounts to be no more than a facade of human identity. I people use it as a way to maintain relationships with friends or even to meet people, I could see the advantages, but it is by no means a replacement for actual human connection. Maybe this shouldn't be a legitimate worry, but it seems like we might be in danger of human isolation to digital interaction and not truly establishing a real-life community. --Eng395jy (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You say that Facebook and chatting aren't a good way to get to know someone's personality. What about talking to someone on skype using a webcam? This allows you to see them and hear their voice. Is this not as good as in person meetings? If so, what makes it inferior? --MartellRedViper (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree that digital socialization provides just a sliver of the information that face-to-face human interaction provides. But, I think people realize that as soon as talking through IM or whatever turns into a real-life meetup. And if I can put this in a half-crass sort of way, as long as the quest for sex continues, I doubt there's legitimate worry for the human connection to disappear. --Katerwaul (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Many People Don't Care

As Mark Twain once said, “The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.” The same idea applies to the Internet, which is nothing without the people who create and appreciate it. Connecting to digital media is only beneficial to societies who want to access the information within. If we focus on infrastructure within somehow fostering people’s sense of importance toward the Internet, we’re left no better off than we were before. That is the first faulty assumption built into the statement, “If we can just get people access to the Internet, their lives will be better.” I know a lot of people who spend all day surfing the Web but have nothing to show for it except an enhanced talent for playing computer games. We also have to focus on how to maintain the freedom we expect all Internet users will have. Many third-world countries’ governments control their citizens’ access to the Internet despite an alleged “universal access.” If politicians decide which websites you can go to, it’s the same as choosing not to read. We talked about Tor in class; perhaps tools like this are just as important as infrastructure in success. --Information-01152001 (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I Have to agree with the idea that even if we get people the internet it does not mean that the information they will gain will be correct. If there is a government organization that monitors what people have access to then they really don't have complete access to the internet. That does bring up the question if even having limited access to the internet and information is better than no access at all. I think it actually is better than nothing because then people then have at least some source of information even if it is full of errors. It could make someone interested in the topic and go on to do even more in depth research. --Youngpenn (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Taking things for granted

With easy access to the Internet, people often take it for granted. Everything is so easy to look up online, people no longer take the time to discover things for themselves. I know how to make a really great risotto dish, but not because I've spent time experimenting with different spices and vegetables and not because I've spent hours perusing multiple cookbooks in search of a recipe. I simply went to Google, typed "risotto recipe" and clicked on the first link because I assumed the first is the most popular. The latter took me about a minute an a half. The former would have taken several days or maybe even weeks of experimenting with my meals. There's just not as much satisfaction in finding something through a Google search. The Internet really takes away from the value of discovery and experimentation. People use it so nonchalantly, which definitely retracts from the exposure to hands-on experiences.--Eems.p (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that looking things up inhibits discovery and experimentation. Sometimes new things are created purely by accident, like penicillin. So I believe if it wasn't for accidents then there would be less inventions. If people followed step by step instructions online without experimenting, then they would get what they wanted, but it also leaves out the possibility of making something completely new. --MangoDango (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Many people do take the internet for granted as it is readily available in many forms such as mobile devices, laptops, pda and desktops. Information is not learned but moreover encountered and never digested. Google has allow many users to be handicap in obtaining information because it provides quick answers sometimes without explanation. The command + find key allows users to look through articles with keywords instead of encouraging users to actively read and understand. Instead of learning any giving topic we are so ready to google or look up information via internet. Instead of going to a library or taking classes of interest, we go to the internet for information and get quick answers instead of content and overall information. We take internet for granted and is enables us to be information seekers verses information gainers.

--Isaiahgee (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it is that the Internet is a tool. If made available it can assist you greatly or you could simply ignore it and go about your own way. It's easy for us to see the negative side to the Internet in our culture because we are a generation and a half SOAKED in the techno culture. We see our youth distracted by the Internet rather than stimulated by it, apathetic towards the multitude of information rather than invigorated and excited by the available knowledge. However, we may be a special case as a nation where the average kid holds the Internet in a single hand. Maybe an individual sticking one's head deep into the world of the Internet for the majority of their daily life is a negative thing (and probably is), but that doesn't mean having it available as an asset to access wouldn't help those whose cultures don't involve 24/7 connections. It's somewhat relating to the "Teach a man to fish" idea. Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself, but he doesn't have to only eat fish if he doesn't feel like it. It doesn't hurt to have the option when the land animals become scarce or whatever. Just got to make sure he doesn't spend all day wallowing around in the pond (e.g. our youth). --Seannator (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Internet != Better

I have actually mentioned this on at least one other discussion before but it is very relevant to this one as well. I have taken an anthropology class and we discussed a group of hunter and gathers in the present day. The anthropologist that studied them argued that they were happier than the average american, even though by our standards they have a lot less than us. They only have to work 15-20 hours a week and all of their basic needs are met. They have a shelter, food, water, and companionship. I don't think that bringing internet to them would improve the quality of their lives. On another note you could say that once you give internet to a culture that didn't have it before they could then develop a reliance on it. This would then require a significant change, most likely more electricity available, probably staying up later because now there is more to do when the sun goes down, and the list goes on and on. This would start to make all cultures similar and similar and could potentially ruin the variety and uniqueness in the world. This may or may not be a bad thing but it is a real consequence of the spread of the internet.--MartellRedViper (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Internet isn't always better

The assumption that having internet makes someone's life better is somewhat asinine. Just because they have access to an endless amount of information and can communicate with people all over the world, it doesn't mean that it will better their lives. Some people in countries that don't have access to internet, or older folks who choose not/can't use the internet, probably consider their lives sufficient without the internet. Some people can't survive without it and would have a meltdown, which is understandable given a certain culture, but there are plenty of people who can find information in books or other means of learning. --Jastout (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I can understand this because maybe information does not make certain cultures better. Obviously for us our entire economy is pretty much based on it, but there are plenty of places that do not need to be in the loop on the latest technological advances to be successful. Countries with a more agricultural based economy can be successful in their own sense without the use of the latest technology and information because their methods work well enough.--SJRick (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

People are People

The main problem I see in the statement, "if we can just get people access to the Internet, their lives will be better," is that there's the assumption that people will alter their behaviors once they have access to the Internet. More specifically, a person on the Internet is going to visit places that interest her, and if this person is particularly close-minded, it stands to reason that she is going to visit only a select few places that reinforce her beliefs. While alternative views are accessible on the Internet with a click of a button, that doesn't mean the users themselves will try to understand other worldviews or change their own behaviors. --Katerwaul (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a good point. Just because someone has the tools and the means, it does not mean he or she will utilize them. Assuming that the Internet would create better lives is contingent on it actually being used and explored. However, because of how easy it is to Google something, I think people would eventually explore, even if they are close-minded.--Eems.p (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)