The Notoriously Muddy Term

Chapter 10 in Tavani spoke of the Digital Divide and I found the ethical arguments surrounding this issue to be the most interesting read.

  I agree with Jeremy Moss’ argument that access to knowledge is significantly lessened or prevented for people without access to cybertechnology. More and more information is directly found online and not in print. I hear more and more radio contests being done on Facebook and Twitter and a majority of advertising directs users to the businesses website and/or Facebook page. This would not be available to the people without access to the Internet. There is also the lack of broadband coverage in rural areas which affects the availability of information.

  Moss states with his second argument that participating in politics is becoming much more difficult for people without cybertechnology. The new White House page is one of the most instantaneous and transparent means of communicating with the public that the government has ever done. I know that a majority of political correspondence I’ve received in the last 2 years has been digital and I no longer receive the usual flyers in the mail like I used to. I can see how people without Internet access or members of the rural population would fall behind on important political issues and election information.

  In terms of the title of this post, I meant that primarily in regards to the nebulous nature of the ethical dilemmas surrounding the Digital Divide and that is really an off-shoot of the already-established “perceived gap” (Tavani, 301). I believe the Analog Divide will prevent most of the attempts at bridging the Digital Divide as long as sociodemographic issues like class and race are still a factor the accessibility and availability of information.