A common critique of the Internet
goes like this: the technology is great, but it is only accessible at considerable
cost, and to a small percentage of the population. Until we make it more
universally accessible and bring down its cost, few of the poor can benefit
from the technology.
Such a critique sees the Internetaround which new information and
communications technologies (ICTs) are converging dailyessentially
as a democratising factor. At worst, it sees the technology as class-neutral,
a tool that can be as useful to the poor as it can be to the rich, once
it becomes affordable and universally accessible. The solution, according
to this critique, is therefore to bring the Internet to the masses. Or,
as some would probably put it, to bring the masses to the Internet.
From Chiapas to the Balkans, from eastern Europe to Indonesia, popular
movements have used the Internet to reach millions. Email and mailing
lists have led to the emergence of virtual communities. E-commerce offers
tantalising possibilities to small economic players for competitive advantage
and huge markets. All of these factors have enhanced the seemingly democratising
image of the technology.
But today, the Internet's reach in most developing countries ranges from
less than one to perhaps five percent of the population. In the Philippines,
for example, it is currently in the range of 2-3%.
Optimists often cite Internet growth trendsa few percent a month
in some fast-growing marketsto predict that the technology will
become universally accessible at some time in the future. Then, according
to this critique, the only remaining problem will be in reducing the cost
of access.
A deeper critique of the Internet can be based on the following issues:
Rapid Internet growth immediately results in vast expansion of
markets for hardware, software, connectivity, consultancy and other ICT
services. Except for some niche areas, the information economies of North
America, Europe and Japan are in the best position to exploit this market
growth.
The Internet creates its own hierarchy of access that retains
and may even worsen the gap between rich and poor.
The Internet reinforces the automation mindset that replaces workers
with machines. Even the new jobs the technology creates are subject to
this automation mindset, resulting in loss of jobs and job security.
The Internet's impact on physical and mental health has been largely
unexplored in the public discourse. Problems with hands and fingers, with
posture and with eyesight are the most common. But there are also incipient
problems of Internet addiction and skewed mental development.
The Internet is becoming more and more like television, albeit
an interactive version. TV turned out to be an 'idiot box' for many people.
It could be argued that an expensive, interactive idiot box is not much
of an improvement.
The seductive powers of computers and the Internet are so compelling
that they are drawing precious resources away from the major intellectual
challenges of our time.
In contrast to public spaces like the radio spectrum, the Internet
has basically become private space owned by rentiers. Until cyberspace
becomes a public commons, to move our lives into this private space is
essentially to fall in to a trap.
The Internet has deeply hidden centralist elements that negate
its democratic and even anarchistic claims.
The Internet also reflects an embedded globalist bias, from the
widespread use of English to hidden subsidies by local users for international
communications.
Roberto Verzola is the Secretary-General
of the Philippine Greens
|