Life in the Network

I believe that having access means both physical access and cyber literacy. Today, and probably just today, I am anti-internet and anti-access. I just got back from vacation and even though I had set up an auto-reply on my business email accounts telling clients I was out of town and wouldn’t be available, my clients (and some friends) were still perturbed they couldn’t reach me immediately. (Mind you it there weren’t any emergencies.) I couldn’t relax because I knew that being ‘off-line’ for a few days had repercussions. This leads me into a diatribe of reasons why I don’t think people of all ages, races, socio-economic status, etc, should be pressured, expected, or judged for their ‘access’ or non-access of the internet.

I feel sorry for the senior citizens who are being forced to use the Internet.
I know if my grandma were alive today, she would not use the Internet, let alone own a computer. She lived in a town of 300 people, was a mother, and a farmer’s wife.
She taught me how to cook, sew, and plant a garden. I am so glad I learned these skills and hobbies from my grandmother, instead of a website. There is sentimental value there- that could never be replaced. While Pew reports that “The share of online Americans who say the Internet has greatly improved the way they pursue hobbies and interests has grown to 33%, up from 20% in March 2001.� (Pew, Internet Penetration pg. 1), I wonder if the hobby/interest offers instant gratification and then fades away with time because there wasn’t a human element behind it.

Pew’s findings appear accurate in terms of what groups of people are using the Internet. “Overall, 42% of Americans do not use the Internet. And there remain clear differences along five demographic dimensions: race, income, educational attainment, community type (rural, suburban, or urban) and age. Race, ethnicity & income� (Pew, The Evershifting, pg. 7). Again, my grandma was from a rural area, with little education, and earned an income as a farmer. I believe that Pew’s research concludes that the Internet is the rich white man’s playground, especially for the up and coming younger generations. Which is very unfair for my late grandma, my ex-Hispanic neighbors in California, and my starving artist friend in Australia. How will they ‘get ahead’ when they were already set up to be so far behind? Their lack of access to the Internet puts them at a great disadvantage.

With regards to children and Internet access, my belief is it’s best if used in moderation. When I was young, my elementary school owned 20 Apple and IBM computers. I looked forward to computer lab, but am glad that it was only a few hours of my week. By giving 1 laptop per child anywhere poses a danger that they will be held prisoner by technology and will lose sight of other communication methods. If there isn’t anyone to monitor the time spent on the laptop, how do we ensure they develop properly? Will they interact less (physically) with each other? Will they become dependent on computers? Will they lose their penmanship? Their ability to read social cues? Perhaps a better solution is provide 1 Family or Village with a laptop so everyone can learn the benefits and the dangers of the internet together-and seen as a tool, rather than a toy� so that they, their families and their communities can openly learn and learn about learning.� (OLPC.com), and give aid or food as well.