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
|