Tonight while driving me home, Josh and I stopped at Maccas and bought a chocolate sundae. He asked me whether there are McFlurries in China and I said yes. He was glad, and joked that this isn’t something he’d be willing to give up for Jesus. We laughed, because this isn’t true. We both would give up much more than McDonald’s icecreams for Jesus. I love this boy.

The new technologies will bring “every individual … into immediate and effortless communication with every other,” “practically obliterate” political geography, and make free trade universal. Thanks to technological advance, “there [are] no longer any foreigners,” and we can look forward to “the gradual adoption of a common language”.

—1893 article

Communication technologies have long been perceived as harbingers of significant transformation in society, from the tumult of 15th C. Europe in the wake of religious and political revolution enabled by Gutenberg’s invention to the domestic telegraphic and telephonic innovations of the 1800s. As boundaries between countries have, with increased access to Information and Communications Technology (ICT) beyond the elite, begun to blur, proletarian access to such technologies has commensurately grown apace. Despite common access to such technologies, however, their utility for grassroots activism, the devolution of state boundaries, developing global commerce, and advancing political autonomy remains in question. Considering China, particularly, with over one-fifth of its population having access to such technologies based on official estimates, the question of the utility of these technologies, particularly in the realm of their impact upon the social and political psyche of China, is an important one.

Most commonly levelled critiques against the Chinese Government in the field of Internet politics gravitate around the issue of Internet censorship. In a global context, this has ramifications for a variety of organisations, both TNC/MNCs and governments. The Golden Shield Project (金盾工程), it is often argued, is both facilitated by the complicity of and provides benefit to a variety of ICT vendors in western democracies. In the United States particularly, vendors including Cisco Networks, Microsoft and service providers Google and Yahoo! have all been dragged before various inquiries into the foreign practices of the global subsidiaries and branches of such businesses. Although various US export restrictions on some security products (high grade encryption being foremost amongst these) remain, export constraints apply principally to countries with which the US does not have diplomatic relations or where it is presently engaged in military conflict. China fits neither criteria, and her internet practices, although considered oppressive by some, do not even depend particularly upon any advanced encryption technologies: indeed, such technologies are often used for the circumvention of controls.

For all its faults, control of the Chinese internet is an imprecise science, exemplified in former-US President Clinton’s description of such attempts as like “trying to nail Jello to a wall”. Other media, limited by a raft of controls imposed by the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (SARFT) and the General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP), are particularly controllable in a manner the Internet is not. While both SARFT and GAPP have attempted to assert control over the Internet in a variety of forms, GAPP’s online authority is limited in scope compared to the tight control it retains over periodicals and book publishing through ISSN/ISBN issuance, while SARFT’s March 30 notice, “广电总局关于加强互联网视听节目内容管理的通知”, is concerned only with ‘audio-visual programs’ published through Chinese video sharing websites. While the SARFT notice singles out videos published by 拍客 (‘vodcaster’, or video netizen reporter), it does not target bloggers or any non-visual reporting. Particularly the permit system in part 4 of the notice, essentially an extension of existing SARFT regulations over film/TV serialised content, raised the ire of a number of video-on-demand websites. For the average user, however, this appears to have had little impact. While various administrations may attempt to challenge or even change the nature of Internet interactions, the Internet shows equal resilience and, indeed, presents an inverse challenge to such established bodies. Despite this, however, the prolonged censorship of the internet under the direction of the Ministry of Public Security’s Golden Shield Project, particularly in conjunction with various MIIT directives to service providers, has resulted in what is effectively a culture of self-censorship of the Chinese Internet.

However, there are many issues, often neglected in the wake of clamorous discussion surrounding the censorship issue, besides that of access. Particularly, when considering the Internet as an instrument for disrupting the official discourse and challenging or transforming societal conventions, it is important to consider usage patterns in online activities. China is predominantly interested in very different activities to a wider sample of the online community. While considering the issue of utility, it is worth noting that the top Internet applications in China, namely Music, News and Instant Messaging (IM) activities, constitute entertainment related pursuits, as opposed to more commercially motivated Internet activities of much of the rest of the world.

This usage disparity is reflective of other consumer attitudes within China. It does not shape them. The dependence of global online commerce upon a consumer-credit based systems, specifically, third party brokers with broad networks and the capacity to instantaneously authorise and/or decline transactions based on verification of available credit (in Mainland PRC, the only domestic interbank network facilitating this is China UnionPay (中国銀联), though affiliations with global VISA and MasterCard networks of course persist), is obviously problematic in a country that has only begun to embrace credit systems, with high saving rates. Accordingly, services such as AliPay have emerged, with agreements spanning existing banking institutions as well as larger existing credit networks, UnionPay and the global VISA/MC networks amongst these, in order to facilitate trust-based internet transactions.

The emergence of such institutions is a recent development in Chinese society. As Nie Jin observes in a 2007 paper concerning current e-payment solutions in China, one of the virtues of a centrally planned economy prohibiting individual and private transactions is that there is no need for any trust/credibility system to enable such transactions. As these have emerged in the wake of economic reform, so too has demand for escrow and trust-based transaction services developed. The paper continues to note that, outside of China and planned economy states, accrued data suggests as much as 90% of business transactions are settled on the basis of integrity (i.e. without resorting to third party escrow services, etc., though possibly involving a payment network mediator without a trust layer).

In this, the Internet functions not as an instrument acting upon China to change it, but merely another manifestation of an already-changing economic reality. As private enterprise grows, it is logical to pursue the Internet as yet another sales and/or marketing channel, and, in doing so, the same issues already identified will be faced regarding trust online as in person. There are of course particular challenges to online business (fraud/verification of identity, logistics/delivery, etc.), but at the level of changing social landscapes it is clear the most pressing issue, that of integrity, is derived not from the emergence of a distributed, globally inter-connected network of prospective clients and vendors, but rather as a result of economic reforms implemented over the course of thirty years.

What, then, of transactions that transcend national borders and geographic boundaries? Traditionally China’s largest trading partners have consisted of Asian neighbours whose socio-cultural and personal ties commend them as such. In an era of global trade facilitated by buyer/seller protecting trust networks, is there any reason for this privileged trading status to continue? Of course there is. Guanxi can only account for so much: there are logical, practical reasons beyond this for barriers the Internet cannot (yet) alleviate. The so-called ‘digital divide’ is often spoken of in terms of access to technology. It is clear, however, that physical access to technology is not sufficient. Education is often addressed as an issue affecting access, but it is generally raised only at the level of computer literacy. With China rapidly embracing the Internet through both PC and mobile technologies, and particularly with the recent approval of licenses for TD-SCDMA/TD-LTE networks (3G/4G network technologies that will dramatically improve network access speeds), the issue of physical access is decreasingly relevant. Additionally, as mobile access improves and touch-capable handsets increase in prevalence, barriers to usability also decrease.

What, then, is the problem? The networks are in place, users can access them, and yet trade barriers persist. There are several issues at play here. Firstly, the dominance of the Anglophone Internet compared to English literacy in China. While China is one of the largest English-speaking countries, as a proportion of its own population this is not a dominant language, and access to much Internet media and technology requires English literacy in order to comprehend or use services. This is a contributing factor behind the adoption of social networking services such as Kaixin and Xiaonei over their antecedent equivalents in the wider Internet: Facebook particularly has offered for some time now an Chinese language version, but its failure to sufficiently localise content from the beginning (it is, by default, served in English) granted Chinese clones advantage required to capture the mainland market first.

Secondly, there are cultural barriers. China has an enviable adoption of blogging and ‘independent’ publishing technology. On CNNIC statistics, there are over 162 million blogs in China: representing half of China’s Internet population, on the assumption of only one blog per user. Yet, despite such dramatic adoption of this medium, expression is tempered by various regulations imposed upon publishers by service providers. Service providers who fail to conform to such regulations face unpredictable service denials facilitated by Golden Shield Project proxies and firewalls: Blogger and WordPress.com represent two prominent examples of such providers. Technical considerations aside, the effect of this conformity is a homogenisation of blog content that is prohibited from featuring controversial material. The video netizen reporters targeted under the March 30 SARFT directive are particularly addressed on account of the difficulty of automatically protecting against video content: scanning blog posts for banned keywords is much more achievable. Thus, this (imposed) self-censorship stymies the development of an independent Chinese blogging community within ethnic media: ironically, the dependence of dissident bloggers upon non-conformist service providers reduces the effects of their dissidence and, commensurately, their relevance and impact upon the wider Internet. The entertainment-oriented activities of Chinese Internet users are primarily consumptive in nature, and the generative activity of content creation is accordingly marginalised while so much attention continues to be paid to officially regulated media. One hundred and sixty two million bloggers can’t be silenced, but they can be (mostly) irrelevant.

Thirdly, the economic barriers to global participation are significant. In a positive reflection upon China’s internet penetration, for the past several years CNNIC’s annual reports have identified approximately one quarter of internet users as having monthly income of less than 500 RMB.

This has an obvious impact upon the willingness of netizens to engage in financially-related online activities, as disposable income is negligible for many of them. This is borne out in another CNNIC report particularly concerned with adoption of security software (安全软件) in personal computing, particularly a section identifying individuals’ greatest concerns where computer security problems are encountered. The greatest concern is loss of computer files and any virus that will affect the operation of the computer: these two comprise over 50% of respondents’ greatest concern. Neither situation involves the theft of files, only the disabling of the user’s computer.  This reflects relatively lethargic adoption of e-commerce and internet banking in China, and is not a cause of it. General consumer attitudes beyond Internet-specific security concerns represent the greatest threat to Internet-based financial services growth.

The Internet has not, here, changed China. Indeed the question of income equality is in need of resolution before the Internet can be used to any great economic effect: it certainly does not presently fulfil that role for many users. Despite these qualifications, it is undeniable that China is of advanced global standing in purchase of certain digital goods connected to digital social contexts. QQ/Tencent is one prominent example of an effective digital goods business model not really replicated with great success in the west. Similar to this in a game environment are massively multiplayer games that allow conversion of cash to in-game currency. This form of digital economy is unessential and recreational in nature. Internet development practice here is unique and at the forefront of global industry, yet it continues to reflect real-world paradigms: Nike shoes, Gucci bags, and other luxury brand items function as signs of status in the same way webpage decorations or virtual decorative armour does. Thus here, too, the Internet fulfils an emulative, rather than transformative, social role.

The Internet has been lauded and demonised as a challenger to the establishment. This is evidently the party view of the matter: its Golden Shield Project reportedly accrued 6.4BN RMB in costs in its preliminary phases, and countless more since. However, as a result of regulation and control, the Internet in China represents not a threat, but a mechanism for the effective consolidation of party power. Far from functioning as a broadly transformative social mechanism, the Internet chiefly embodies the attitudes and values of the community in which it is set. Additionally, the boundaries imposed by linguistic, cultural, hypertextual, political and technological mechanisms function in effect to produce a ‘localised’ form of the Internet. As Goldsmith and Wu note in their book Who Controls the Internet, one of the virtues of a ‘bordered Internet’ is that domestically held values and standards can be preserved in a form that permits peaceful co-existence in online contexts —certainly there must be many within the Chinese administration who have wished this to be true as issues of international diplomacy have spilt over in nationalistic fervour on BBS and forums across the Chinese Internet.

All these boundaries are, of course, fluid. This is one of the great virtues of the Internet, and one of the enabling forces that will perhaps one day enable significant change, offering more than a reflection of society. For now, however, China is captive to broader societal forces that impact upon its Internet usage. The decline of censorship does not appear imminent: media reforms in recent years have been driven largely by economics rather than social discontent. If the benefits of open information exchange eventually outweigh the CCP’s desire for control, it is likely that the framework of control established over the Internet over the past 13 years since public BBS access was first offered will persist: if ensuring a stable and ‘harmonious society’ is the goal, whatever critics may say of oppressive Internet regimes, the promotion of a culture of consumption and self‑censorship promises, at least in the short term, to reduce immediate challenges to the administration. The Chinese Internet has changed China’s attitude to the Internet, certainly, but the speculations made over 100 years ago concerning universal free trade and common language are as close to fulfilment by the Internet as by the telegraph. A globalised culture, enabled more by force of advertising and mass media than by the Internet, is driving these factors. Technology, whilst providing a channel for the expression of such culture, remains stoically neutral in imparting values and attitudes.

Footnotes

Bibliography

Angelova, K., “Chart of the Day”, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-chinese-get-more-entertainment-online-the-americans-shop-2009–5 Published 22 May 2009. Accessed 5 June 2009.

CCTV News, 3 September 2002, recorded at http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/3/10/22/n397830p.htm Published 22 October 2003. Accessed 7 June 2009.

ChinaInternetWatch.com, “China Internet Statistics 2009 Whitepaper”, ChinaInternetWatch.com, 13 April 2009. Accessed 4 June 2009.

CNNIC, “2008年中国网民信息网络安全状况研究报告”, http://www.cnnic.cn/uploadfiles/pdf/2009/3/27/142455.pdf Published 27 March 2009. Accessed 4 June 2009.

CNNIC, “Internet Timeline of China (2008)”, http://www.cnnic.cn/html/Dir/2009/05/18/5600.htm Published 18 May 2009. Accessed 4 June 2009.

Drake, W.J., “Dictatorships in the Digital Age”, iMP, October 2000, in Hughes, C.R., “Controlling the Internet Architecture”, April 2002, in ASNS3619 reader, Dr David Bray, 2009.

Goldsmith, J. & Wu, T., Who Controls the Internet?, 2006, Oxford University Press

Lü Yao-Huai, “Globalization and Information Ethics”, Localizing the Internet: Ethical Aspects in intercultural perspective, 2007, Paderborn.

Nie Jin, “Analysis of Current E-Payment Solution in China-Third Party Payment Platform”, First International Symposium on Data, Privacy and E‐Commerce, 1–3 November 2007. IEEE Xplore 10.1109/ISDPE.2007.22

国家广播电影电视总局, 《广电总局关于加强互联网视听节目内容管理的通知》, http://www.sarft.gov.cn/articles/2009/03/30/20090330171107690049.html Published 30 March 2009. Accessed 5 June 2009.

Accordingly, the improved bandwidth situation at the present prohibitively expensive costs of ~$600/month for a good link is ultimately a bit irrelevant if mobile tech delivers last-mile infrastructure and the mobile web enables e-commerce, social media participation, governance, healthcare and more. This isn’t a case for existing ISPs to drop prices: they’ve definitely got a very good business case for leaving prices up but using the link to improve value while this is still a valuable commodity. The only significant short-term challenge to this comes, potentially, in the form of any government policy implemented. They might do well to intervene here and stimulate economic development by promoting global connectivity… but I suspect the interests of established business and government, if they resemble anything like those in Australia, coincide too significantly for such bold maneuvers to ever come to fruition!

From a business standpoint, it makes sense to capture these markets with medium bandwidth technologies early. That said, the relatively limited capacity of this additional global link makes co-location essential for any serious engagement. What this represents is an important in-road for low-outlay development of new markets with significant parallels to existing products (i.e. to English-speaking populations without need for additional infrastructure).

For East Africans, however, this is much bigger. Internet connectivity enables exports of innovative solutions, and, as social media uptake improves, of localised (l10n)/internationalised (i18n) solutions in response to this newly-visible Internet market segment. The problem of ghettoisation along language lines is not so prominent perhaps as a result of significant Anglophone influence — Francophone Africa will, of course, engage in different networks because of language barriers. Yet some services, Twitter perhaps eminent among them, have irrationally succeeded independently of ‘native’ language (it remains at present offered only in English and Japanese, despite significant Chinese membership, and, who can forget, Iranian political application!) — while others (Facebook, to pick a similar example) have languished and been replaced by clones despite their linguistic plurality (26 unique languages last I recall hearing a count, including English (Pirate) and many more serious ones) — Xiaonei being but one example of this.

If language is not an issue, it is possible other disparities will become divisive in the same way. Developmental barriers in terms of software industry (a key driver of domestic web innovation) and global trading partners will steer usage in any number of particular directions. For example, China’s inept attempts at achieving independence from Microsoft software in the last decade have been effectively squashed by their rampant piracy situation. Parts of eastern Africa engage in literal acts of piracy, but it’s probably not indicative of an attitude towards or developed industry against protection of intellectual property. If the criminal distribution network doesn’t yet exist, and software adoption is insufficiently mature, it’s entirely possible that open source could win. This is naive, and based on the presumption that Africa has, to date, existed in a vacuum — but if we consider for a moment a day working on a computer without Internet connectivity, something of the radical difference between minimal connectivity and full-on broadband enabled connectivity begins to sink in.

One Australian commentator recently observed, in response to a dramatic increase in average per-capita bandwidth consumption/annum, that there are a number of “tipping points” in Internet usage. For example, in the last 18 months, availability of online services as well as wider adoption of home broadband has resulted in a massive expansion of data transfers despite only a marginal increase in average connection speed. Youtube and its ilk have entered a perfect storm of gradually expanding connectivity: it just so happens that at certain points, connectivity results in usage peaks (which then plateau but don’t decline) as consumers discover new ways of using the Internet to interact. This happens with the transition from dialup to always-on Internet, and it happens again at certain speed points–consider tabbed browsing as well as video on demand/what we now consider “bandwidth intensive” activities.

This could be a tipping point for economic development and global integration. Watch closely!

About to share some fun stuff from Chinese friends I collated with Tori last year (for a DVD resource for Aussie friends thinking about caring for China through prayer and other things) with the Jam kids this morning. Praying that Jesus would keep working to call people to Himself in China!

Essentially, the manufacturing processes continue to use a carcinogenic chemical in quantities and with exposure to workers such that, if what Adam was told by other residents in this village is true, employees in this factory can expect they have less than three years to live before contracting a terminal illness.

Ours is a messed up world.

Some things that your average travel agent and TRAVCOUR visa processing probably either don’t know, or won’t tell you. Unless you’re booking through a China specialist, but hey, more info out there can’t hurt. The few travel agents I’ve spoken to this time around were happy to admit they didn’t understand what was happening, so nothing too bad to report on that front!

1. Only tick the bare minimum. If you’re going for sightseeing, just tick that box. If you tick the relatives box you’ll have to prove they exist. You need to prove everything exists. The whole process is an existential nightmare!
2. A certain security guard at certain consulate (hint: I haven’t been outside of Sydney since February and have been told in the last month to do this, which certainly narrows it down a bit!) will not let you in without perfect documentation. He’s not Chinese (they use a private security firm at least for public areas), and not very understanding. If you’ve filled in a form before you get there, pretend you haven’t. If you need to go inside and try to talk to someone this is probably the best strategy. Call me naive, but this is preferable to faking documents using a travel agent, which was the course of action he recommended. I kid not. Let it be noted: The other security guard at the embassy is fantastic and nice and helpful… but only speaks English. Must be hellish for Hua Ren (with not-great-English) trying to get in!
3. Don’t actually fake your papers if you can avoid it. I was (again, probably naively) shocked at being essentially instructed to lie as a matter of process, and obviously this isn’t a course of action that actually should be recommended by anyone. The process is difficult enough without added complication brought about by fraud!
4. If your travel plans are uncertain, don’t worry about documenting other cities too much.
5. If you need double-entry, for example because you’re traveling to Hong Kong and back into China, be aware that you will need to document a destination back inside China. Again, the specifics of this don’t matter too much — but you are meant to produce tickets for travel along with your visa application. Specifically speaking of Hong Kong, you can circumvent this requirement by writing in the itinerary field “Destination (by train)” or similar method of transport that is very unlikely to be documented months in advance. You will need proof of accommodation at your first destination, but beyond this it doesn’t seem to much matter.
6. If you’re staying with family/friends that may complicate matters. You may or may not need booked accommodation for the duration of your stay… I didn’t test this one out!
7. Hong Kong SAR isn’t a problem at all re: accommodation or anything else if you’re an Aussie. So don’t bother with this for your visa application… it’s part of China, sure, but not for the purposes of complicated bureaucracy!
8. The actual Chinese staff at the embassy are really nice and really helpful, once you get past the trollish security guard and figure out at least roughly what paperwork you need! If in doubt, figure out a way to get inside and stand in the visa queue and ask them, and they’ll probably be able to help you with whatever question. That’s how I discovered the (by train) itinerary flexibility!

Finally, this is just my experience in one place in Australia, and will probably change. Even in 悉尼 :P

we forget.

sometimes not soon enough, painlessly enough, loudly enough. as though our protest will make it sooner, easier, clearer. clearing these clouds to what end? dispelling an illusion alone? concentrating precipitation at some other time, in some other place? seeding rainfall is an imprecise science, you know. beijing would like to think otherwise — will have the world think otherwise, but we will have to wait until the eighth hour of the eighth day to learn — or at least observe the culmination of many factors not totally understood.

our control is at best imprecise.

rumours of tesla weapons and unheeded seismologists and toads are one thing, but the burial of thousands and grief to families and subsequent suicides and infertilities and abandonments are quite another. as, too, are rescues and outpourings of compassion and global relief efforts and prayers of thousands, at least some of which are being heard.

the opportunists? the profiteers?

“no man has power to retain the spirit, or power over the day of death” (Ecc 8:8) — so let them lie and cheat. let the cheaters lie. they are digging their own pit.

why do good things happen to evil people?

it was not always like this. it will not remain like this.

“he [Jesus of Nazareth] is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42)

but he, too, makes us at peace with him through paying the price for us on the cross. “[God] reconciles to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (Col 1:20)

“Surely I am coming soon.” (Rev 22:20)

come, Lord Jesus!

Three minutes of national mourning for earthquake victims. Taken seriously and moving in a way that is a little difficult to imagine an analogue for in Australia — tongue-in-cheek about re:cessation of Google-ing… but intended as a broader comment on national displays of stuff in all seriousness. Perhaps unfair as Australia hasn’t really had any disaster of this magnitude in recent times, I know.

Everyone was outside as traffic stopped to remember and share in the grief of millions. Some things are more important than search.

[Google post via]

Can you ever have enough storage? I carry half a terabyte around with me on a daily basis, just in case, uh, I suddenly need to connect an HDV cam and record everything that happens for the rest of the day *shifty eyes* … yeah, it’s overkill. But overkill is the name of the production game. I’ve got two desktops that have been replaced by one desktop and this laptop — the laptop is a backup, primarily, and normally gets relegated to the oh-so-interesting task of PowerPointing (sometimes it gets to record audio, too… nice and spaciously even when it’s full of rips of video, just in case! The second hard drive normally houses any realtime data applications to make sure that normal response time isn’t impacted).

In case the main playout PC (has some fancy things that the laptop doesn’t, like RAID 0’d drives and better video processing hardware) decides to throw up, as it did late last year, the laptop serves as a ready-to-go alternative. I’m starting to carry a second, smaller laptop for slide playback — it’s a lot slower, but it also used to be the lightest laptop on the market (1.19KG) and I’m about to kit it out with solid state hard drive goodness. This makes it hopeless for recording/writing applications, but I’d never trust it with that, anyway. It does, however, ensure it’ll be lightning quick especially for applications like slide playback — ever had a hard drive spin down and pressed a key only to hear the computer laboriously whir back to life before changing slides? That’s one of the main attractions in retrofitting a relatively old laptop (it’s a Pentium III/256MB/touchscreen… the touchscreen is mostly what inspired the purchase when in China last time!) with a relatively new technology.

Of course, it’s quite possible none of this stuff will ever come in handy. But it might (and, surprisingly regularly, does). I just ordered about another 40 assorted connectors and cables that I’ve used, loaned, or lost over the course of the last year or so… not because they’re strictly necessary right now, but because they almost certainly WILL be (and, when you order them from cheap overseas suppliers, you can’t have stuff next-day when you need it!)

Anyway, I think it all ends up in the “better safe than sorry” basket. More important for some jobs than others, certainly.

The second-most missed thing in China.

But I haven’t got any education units. Or any history units. And… that has certain drawbacks.

I.Am.So.Confused.

Meanwhile, I declared war on Taiwan today on account of a particularly vermicious vehicle for volumes of veraciously vacuous vignettes. Or just regular data. But whatever, it’s a decidedly evil external hard drive enclosure with USB2 and SATA2 ports on it. SATA2 works great, USB2 worked great for all of about five minutes and then stopped working on every computer known to mankind. Where mankind = my house. Which is not quite sentient, but getting there. *drapes more blue cables, pats switch.*

This is punishment for not purchasing goods from where Josh recommends :) Nevermind that I recommended them once, I think that once, in the very distant past, I recommended Cworld and look where that got us. Okay, that fiasco was actually before content on this blog began. And I still haven’t forgiven them. I hold brand-grudges lonnnng time.

Present sweetheart supplier is Umart.net in Kingsford, because they’re nearly as cheap as MSY and within comfortable walking distance (or lightning-quick drive/bike distance). And the service isn’t too bad, either, especially when it comes to ordering stuff and getting it in same-day. Dad needed an external hard drive and bought the bits from THX (I will persist in calling them that for as long as I bloody well want to. Simply because thx.com.au is easier to type than txcomputer.com.au, and because tx.com.au was (unsurprisingly) taken — not by them. Rule number 1 in retail IT business naming: easy to recall/guess domain names. Most important IP a business like that will ever have. And, also, the name THX evokes all kinds of wonderful geeky nostalgic feelings which can’t be passed up lightly) who sold him a hard drive for $40 more than it would have cost from Umart and an enclosure for… who cares, it’s a piece of crap. Actually, so far as industrial design goes, it’s probably one of the better ones I’ve seen (if a little cramped), but the fact is it doesn’t work. So game over.

Ah, nothing like a good geeky rant to forget the troubles of the world as they pass by (IhaveanexamIwillprobablyfailonWednesdaymorningohcrap). In other moderately exciting news, apparently Raw Ideas are moving office to somewhere that there’s actually elbow room and I’m possibly going back there for some work over the summer. Depends a lot on how project stuff goes between now and the end of the year but it’s nice to have options. Would be good to be working full hours for a few weeks even if it’s split between employers. Australia needs more web monkeys (optionally imported as stowaways from China).

News, apparently, but all it really means is that we’re (a safe enough contraction, in light of the fact that if you’re reading this, you’re part of the fifth of the world’s population that has access to a computer/the Internet) overconsuming. And they’re not. And if they do, too — that is, leave the ranks of the sustainers/impoverished populations of the world — then there won’t be enough resources left.

Wow, clever. I’m pretty sure I agree with the researcher’s idea(s) entirely, but the way the article is written it’s like… damn those emerging nations for coming out of poverty, etc. It reads as ridiculously parochial (in a global “Western” parochial kind of way. Maybe stretching the definition somewhat.), but maybe that’s just me being cynical. Yes, I see IT/sustainable resource usage as not being mutually exclusive. I’m not being completely hypocrictical on this one… though I have to admit, air conditioning was amazingly welcome on New Years’ day, irrespective of power usage (Australians, incidentally, use the second highest volume of electricity per-capita in the world, coming in only after the US).

Ultimately climate change doesn’t mean that much. As in, it’ll all level out when it gets too hot for us to continue producing goods using carbon-based products. Sure, lots of people will die, but it’ll all be stable eventually. Cue eye-rolling. We know it does mean lots, certainly for our generation and the next several. Current efforts (in which a 3% reduction in emissions is seen as mind-boggling) strike me as being way too little, too late.

The solution? No idea. Ideas such as an vehicle emissions tax could work, along with substantialish marketing budgets (hey, this is Government we’re talking about here… if they put in substantial money to start with, at least something should trickle out the other end) to try and change attitudes… but the biggest problems are industry and power generation. And 3% sounds suspiciously close to nothing.

July 23, 2005. “Bomb suspect shot dead on Tube”.

July 24, 2005. “Police gunned down innocent man”.

Notably, police did not gun down “Bomb suspect”. Shoot first, ask questions later. Okay, whatever. They screwed up, they’re only human. So why am I jumping up and down about it (value of human life aside — because we know thousands of people in non-Western countries are being killed everyday and no-one blinks)?

If nothing else, their reasoning. The apparent lack of recourse.

“For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets,” police said, acknowledging they had shot the wrong man.

They are now trying to get the body of murdered Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, back to his home land in accordance with the wishes of his family.

“The government expects the British authorities to explain the circumstances that led to this tragedy,” a Foreign Ministry statement said.
The Brazilian was “apparently the victim of a lamentable mistake”, the statement said.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim issued a statement in which he states his expectation the British authorites explain the events that unfolded. This is important: there has been no mention from the British of any further investigation or inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

The actual nature of the killing itself, however, is also in need of explanation. Police, apparently, assessed the risk and determined the actions that would result in the murder (I use that word unflinchingly, for that is what this is) of an innocent man. Let us pause to collect what we know of the situation, from the statements of eyewitnesses.

The police were in plain clothes. Other passengers on the train had absolutely no way of knowing with any degree of certainty that the men weilding guns were, in fact, members of the London Metropolitan Police Service. Without indulging in conspiracy theory, to this day the only way the public can “know” this is by the [later, rather delayed] statements of the police force itself: the actual killers could quite easily have been a covert British force that unseen agreements neccessitated the blame being placed upon the Metropolitan Police.

The “Metropolitan Police Service”, wearing plain clothes, weilding several “heavy”-looking handguns (according to eyewitness Mark Whitby), start chasing after this man.

If we cut through the ideological obfuscation about how “terrorism has no effects on the population” whatsoever and “insert name of attacked city here will be strong!” rhetoric, just for a second, it’s pretty self-evident that terrorism does have very real effects, manifest in (amongst other things) a prevailing sense of paranoia. Terror, conceptually, is based upon the irrational. You are not statistically likely to be killed in a public place in London, but the fear is there. Similarly, a man wearing a New York tee-shirt and a coat that “looked out of place in the hot humid weather” (also Mark Whitby) would not, without the context of previous days, be considered a suspect, chased into a train carriage in a public place, and shot in the head at close range five times.

Terrorism, clearly, does have effects. Ignore the population: it has effects upon rational government. It makes our leaders pass ineffective laws that hamper the population but do little to prevent terrorism. In Sydney, about a week ago, the media started issuing demands that “radical” books in Islamic bookshops be — and I quote — “burnt”.

I’m sorry, did I miss something? Why is an increasingly “liberal” Western population reverting to burning books? Whilst we’re at it, can we burn all the works of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Marx, a host of other communist leaders, and, if we were to continue, the works of various French revolutionaries that would unequivocably be considered anti-establishment? Who cares what the establishment is — political violence is political violence, is it not?

Oh, no, apparently not. But everyone avert their heads from Vietnam and other instances of US-sanctioned political violence, just in case. That wasn’t about democracy, it was about stopping communism that had turned North Vietnam into an industrialised state with the fastest-growing economy in the region to which aid from Russia and China decreased whilst similar aid to South Vietnam increased and they became progressively more dependent upon the US.

But that was, of course, a huge digression that just threw me into a big pit full of Leftist writers. Ah, quick, let me out.

So let’s ignore the politics behind it for a second, and look at raw emotion. A man was shot in the head five times at close range on public transport. SOMEBODY, BLINK! I’m sure I’m missing something that makes all this perfectly fine — and don’t say prior acts of terrorism, because that’s been proven to be unconnected, remember? Terrorism has no effect on the population! Oh, what was that? I’m assuming imposed ideologies? Yeah, maybe.

Whilst I’m on this whole rant, I thought I’d mention tomorrow I’m going to blow up the Sydney Harbour Bridge…

…and the only reason I’m capable of doing this, is that I don’t yet have a national identity card to act as a restraining force upon me. I’m imagining they’d come out now, and the force it would have on me as I walked towards the center of the bridge wearing a large backpack… Oooh!!! It’s pulling me back!!! I can’t possibly detonate this bomb, because that would mean I’d destroy this beautiful work of holographic, biometric, forensic perfection! Oh, yeah, and they’d be able to identify me as the person who did it if it survived the blast. Because, seeing as I’m a suicide bomber, I do actually care a great deal about that.

To the Australian Government: whoever decides this is a good idea should be taken out on an excursion to Sydney’s public transport network. They should be pursued by people in plain clothes calling out to them to stop, weilding handguns. The public should obligingly step out of the way and accept this as normal. The member of the public service who is being pursued will trip, and fall to the floor in the doorway of a train carriage. They will cower, whilst three armed men come to the doorway of the train, and raise their guns in the air, pointing to the head of the person who is now powerless beneath them.

One.

Two.

Three.

Four.

Five.

The floor of the carriage is red. “Everybody, please leave the carriage. This person was a suspect.”

Twenty other — now uniformed — people come running.

Two days later, a statement is issued. But we already know the ending. It has been realised in the actions that recursively lead to the the death of this pulpy combination of blood and flesh. A death of public freedoms has been realised, and the people have calmly left their carriage of liberties without further question:– afterall, the guns are held by someone else.

The terrorists have won.

If I were to write that in my HSC exam, as a short story or a work of fiction, chances are the paper would be considered a non-serious attempt, as has happened previously in at least one widely-publicised case with ‘excessive’ violence (If memory serves me correctly, this instance detailed a school shooting, I think). This violence is not only on our streets, and in our televisions: it is so pervasive in society that the institutions once assigned the role of preventing such now facilitate it gratuitously and without need for explanation. Remember, in all this, that the British government and bodies that constitute their public service (including the police force) have not identified the need for any further investigation into the procedures that have allowed this brutal murder to take place, and neither has any further investigation into why this man in particular was shot. As of the time of writing, the most recent press release available on the Metropolitan Police website is from the previous day:

“I can say as part of operations linked to yesterday’s incidents, Met police officers have shot a man inside Stockwell Underground Station at approximately 10am this morning. London Ambulance Service and the air ambulance both attended and the man was pronounced dead at the scene. I understand Stockwell tube station remains closed.

The information I have available if [sic] that this shooting is directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation. [Emphasis mine] Any death is deeply regrettable. I understand the man was challenged and refused to obey. I can’t go any further than that at this stage…”

– Sir Ian Blair

This information has since been proven incorrect, yet there is a prevailing silence from the authorities. Democracy requires a degree of openness that has not been allowed, here. Irrespective as to any “ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation”, announcing that an investigation is proceeding into this specific event is not only of no detriment to “anti-terrorist” operations, but a requisite aspect of democracy.

BBC article
SMH article
Someone who knew Jean

A rather broad topic, perhaps, but useful, nonetheless. Warning — it’s fairly long.

Update: Now in pretty PDF form!

What is it?

The term ‘digital divide’ refers to the disparity in terms of access that has emerged following the advent of electronic information and communication mechanisms in the realm of consumer technology. Notably, this notion of ‘access’ applies to more than mere physical proximity and availability of resources — Mark Warschauer’s text, Technology and Social Inclusion¹ argues that the primary barrier to be overcome in terms of equitable access is not simply implementing the technology in the first instance, but implementing it in a way which does not simply view infrastructure as the first and only barrier to be overcome, instead heeding the issue of training and skills development as an inextricably connected aspect of the same problem.

In light of this, the ‘digital divide’ is beyond resolution through simply attaining (or donating, with regard to aid efforts) appropriate resources — ongoing, consistent efforts are required, at least for a period sufficient to rectify the situation in the medium term. That is to say, until industry and, perhaps more importantly, education, exist and are well established in whatever demographic the disparity was evident in (be that geographic, racial, or otherwise), such that this industry and education may be self-sufficient, to sustain and promote the growth of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) literacy in that region.

Having identified that need (although perhaps not having justified it), what is required? Clearly, infrastructure is. In many places, however, this need has already been fulfilled through aid donations from ‘corporate citizens’, aid organisations, and governments — note this does not necessarily mean foreign governments — it is important not to view the digital divide purely geographically, and, even if it is, the geography of an individual state may create a inequitable climate in terms of access — Australian rural areas are an example of this, as recognised in the NET*Working 2002 Vocational Education conference².

It is now commonly understood in circles where the ‘digital divide’ is of holistic concern (that is, not as much the realm of electronic content creation — which may be aware of and actively working to rectify the divide, even though they are not aware of issues associated with it which do not directly impact their activities) that training and recognition of non-physical issues as necessarily a part of any approach to overcome said concern. Understanding this, then, provides necessary grounding for understanding what the ‘digital divide’ is.

Implications for society

The digital divide, viewed at a societal level, is not without a degree of ‘prior art’ that may be applied in order for objective, contextual, examination to occur. In this instance, the ‘prior art’ is found in the Industrial Revolution which occurred globally from the eighteenth century onwards — this is still occurring in many contemporary states, such as (provinces of) China and other nations (primarily in Asia).

What, then, is the picture presented from this ‘prior art’? Is the portrait painted one of bleak defeat and growing societal and economic disparity? Or, in this real-world scenario, is a resolution of this ‘divide’ something that is attainable, and, if it proceeds along the same lines as the Industrial Revolution, the natural outcome to which events shall point?

The Industrial Revolution first occurred in any real form in Britain and the United States, and then propagated to various European nations and, to a lesser extent, colonies, in the nineteenth century. Prior to this revolution, it has been noted that China and Japan were at a similar point in societal development to that of Western nations, however industrialisation did not occur there until much later. Reasons attributed to this have ranged from proximity and capacity for communication of ideas (as opposed to the type and rate of ideas and how rapidly these were being explored) to mere geography, however this is largely irrelevant to the present discussion. Of greater consequence is the Meiji Restoration in Japan in the late twentieth century, during which they achieved in less than 40 years an industrial capacity that had taken western nations two centuries to develop. If ever there were a success story with regard to rapid industrialisation, Meiji Japan was it.

Of course, industrialisation does not occur (and has not occurred) without significant societal strain. The Meiji Restoration in Japan resulted in significant social turmoil, especially in terms of their class-structured society, but also in the sudden concentration of population in urban areas. The time period in which this occurred, in contrast with that of Western nations prior to it, accentuated the effects of this change process — whilst industrialisation enabled international competitiveness (especially in terms of high-value silk exports) and economic benefits, the speed with which this was achieved lead to societal suffering greater than that experienced in Western nations, where urban facilities could be developed in step (or at least closer) with the influx of new population from rural areas.

Today, Japan is a globally recognised force economically and industrially, and a leading innovator in the fields of electronic and information technology device manufacture and adoption. It boasts one of the highest standards of living in the world, and one would be hard-pressed to find any remaining disadvantage with which Japan is burdened as a result of its (comparatively) late industrialisation.

Clearly, late adoption is not a barrier to subsequent achievement and even restoration of status. Rudyard Kipling’s Cities and Thrones and Powers may also be cited, if poetic rather than historical-political reference is desired — the point stands. Achievement at one point does not guarantee continued status, and late adoption does not require the continuation of any detriment that may be found in that, either.

A view of the Digital Divide should, perhaps, be akin to this — but possibly not. This ‘prior art’ has shaped the direction and nature of the world, as has the technological revolution which followed it — of which debate is now held. The world, though, has not yet fully industrialised. Nations may be developing, or simply not holding either the desire or the resources to develop — several small Pacific islands are an example of this. Ironically, some of these have achieved a status of technological advancement (albeit at a nation-state level, rather than for the general populace) without ever experiencing industrialisation, as a result of exploitation on an international level of their domestic legal systems — several such islands are now used for the purposes of money laundering, etc.

Inherently, this only serves to accentuate the point that ‘first achiever’ status is non-essential. Viewed holistically, however, this renders any such prior art inconsequential — nations did not achieve an industrialised state through foreign abuse of internal policy.

The digital divide, then, may be likened to past events and linked with past policies, yet these do not clearly encompass its scope or the manner in which the world must proceed in order to achieve resolution to the present situation — partially because there is no established path to trouble-free industrialisation, and as such it is impossible to ascertain such a path for progression in terms of ICT adoption and implementation. Clearly, nations that are generally considered ‘prosperous’ and ‘developed’ are more likely to fall on the ‘developed’ side of this digital divide, and, given wise internal policy, are likely to stay there through continuing change. Having said this, however, even within nations there are factors that may affect the access of specific groups to resources, such as geography (speaking of networks, for a moment, there is a clear limitation that arises in terms of the quality of resources, more than anything, as a result of physical distance) and regional demographics.

At a societal level, then, ICT adoption in terms of the emerging divide cannot simply be likened to a past revolution of technology, even in the manner discussed above. Viewed in greater detail, the potential parallel collapses even further, as the ICT “revolution” occurring at present is in terms of access to information, restructuring society and, ultimately, creating horizontal networks, which is perhaps the reverse of the outcome of the Industrial revolution (the creation of hierarchical networks) in its consequence, and entirely different in process — the Industrial revolution being about innovations in production and industry, resulting in the creation of a new class and a restructuring of society (evident in the social turmoil during the Meiji Restoration period in Japan)? through the process of ‘deskilling’ in which the capacity for independent thought is renounced, rather than actively promoted as with the freedom of expression inherently a part of this ICT revolution.

ICT can be seen to similarly result in the restructuring of society, however in doing this, it damages or alters class structures, and create a new degree of equality in the potential it gives for use to achieve common communication. Conversely, limited adoption of ICT, as evident in the digital divide, could be seen to have another effect — the widening of divisions within society, not into class, but into a new class system of access.

A common misconception would have this new class system being labelled as binary in nature (pun unintentional, undesired, and unrelated) — that is, that it could simply be split into two categories of ‘have’ and ‘have not’. Whilst cursory examination of the matter may result in this understanding of the divide, any attempt to delve deeper will quickly result in an understanding that there are many levels within this seemingly binary divide.

Many factors combine to form this multi-faceted divide, the main aspects being:

• Physical access to technology
• Quality of technology
• Usability of technology
• Internationalisation/localisation of technology (specifically software platforms)
• Access to training
• Presence and impact of regional information technology sector facilitating further personal and professional development in terms of IT usage

Clearly, these factors cannot be condensed into simple categories of ‘have’ and ‘have not’ — representation of these in terms of the degree of access on a linear scale would likewise fail — a two-dimensional modelling of a six-dimensional issue (those six being the key factors outlined above) is overly simplistic and probably not advantageous in its modelling of the problem.

At a societal level, the problems that result from this divide are widespread and complex, and often beyond any attempts at visual representation in this regard, if not in scope alone. Analysis of the impact of the digital divide, and indeed the impact of ICT generally, at a societal level, is possible in a variety of forms focussing upon a variety of specific issues, however, for the purposes of the task to which this essay relates (namely a creative piece exploring the aforementioned issue), it appears more prudent to examine the role of ICT in relation to the individual within the construct of society, rather than the same in relation to society as a standalone issue; this lends itself to creating a deeper understanding of the requirements of characterisation within this text, rather than simply exploring environmental requirements, themselves shaped largely by the experience and interactions of the individuals which exist within them.

Implications for the Individual

The individual within this new environment brought about by the (limited) proliferation of ICT resources is simultaneously burdened and empowered. In one sense, technology inherently comes with problems, as adoption of this becomes widespread; it is a collective action problem in which, for a time, the technology offers benefit to its users — but as adoption becomes widespread, the potential negative effects of this technology or action are realised. In an article entitled “Technology Bites Back“³, Dr Rob Sparrow from Monash University’s Centre for Human Bioethics cites the example of standing on seats at a rock concert to gain a better view: “The first person who does it gets a great view, but if everybody does it, no-body sees any better than before. They’re worse off, in fact, because they’re standing rather than sitting.”

The competitive advantage offered by mobile phones ten to fifteen years ago is now neutered by widespread adoption — and now an unprecedented expectation of constant connectivity and reaction/response exists, placing a burden upon, rather than granting an advantage to, many people. A similar situation is witnessed with more conventional electronic networks — the advent of email in the context of global commerce requires rapid responses to the point that consideration of the response does, in some circumstances, require notification that the message has been received and the responder is indeed considering the issues raised; customers have been heard to express dissatisfaction with email response times of greater than a day, compared to conventional (physical) mail, with which same-day responses are not the norm in a global context, and rare outside of a corporate environment in which physical proximity renders this realistic.

The individual on the ‘have side’ of the divide (protestations regarding categorisation stand, however, this terminology is retained with the traditional semantics attached to it held in mind, for the sake of brevity), then, is seen to be burdened with a need for immediacy in response to this change beyond that to which people of previous generations were subjected. This communication is, of course, at a peer-to-peer level, as opposed to any mass dissemination, although the same technologies could (can) be applied in this way (an example of this is evident in mass emailing, solicited or unsolicited), with varied effects.
It has been argued that, with the adoption of mass marketing techniques (not limited to those technologies relevant to the present discussion, although certainly including them), corporate and government entities have adopted a new form of language, which, though saying much, communicates very little and obfuscates what is communicated through the use of language “as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th Century French court“⁴- in other words, to their audiences at least, companies sound “hollow, flat, literally inhuman.“⁵

The Cluetrain Manifesto⁶ was a work published online in 1999 in the form of 95 Theses, and, in the foreword to the published text, The Cluetrain Manifesto: The end of business as usual⁷, the writer of this foreword, Thomas Petzinger, Jr. of The Wall Street Journal claims that book is “one of the first books written as a sequel to a Web site“⁸ — a claim probably not far from the truth. This wouldn’t be of significance, but for the content of what was written in both. Just as the author of this essay may chose to use an electronic form for the extension 2 task that he writes this for but does not, due to the inappropriateness of that form for the task at hand, The Cluetrain Manifesto’s message is one which requires an electronic form (in the first instance — the published book is an extension, not a basis) — for content, for distribution, for authenticity, and, ultimately, for the preservation of the ideals presented in the work itself.

What ideals, then, are presented? Authenticity is valued, certainly. Humanity is valued. The metaphysical construct of ‘the corporation’ is valued, but shunned in its present form — it is seen to have drifted away from its constituent’s nature, and into its own egocentric entity that fails to value the consumer. Open collaboration and discourse are valued. Interesting dialogue is valued, with authenticity, disclosure, directness, and a genuine voice.

The Cluetrain Manifesto challenges the corporate mindset regarding marketing in a post-industrial society, in which companies aim to ‘create relationships’. This is perhaps best addressed in point 25 of the manifesto, which reads “Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships.” The advent of global electronic networks has simultaneously been a blessing and a curse for the individuals connected to them. In one sense, it has allowed for the creation of smarter, networked markets — in the words of manifesto, “Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy” (point 7). In another, the misunderstanding of the nature of these global networks has resulted in a curse; the burden of the faceless entity upon this new ‘market’ — notably not this new ‘community’ or ‘connected people’.

This sentiment is echoed in Meikle’s book, Future Active⁹, which models the Internet around two basic concepts, known throughout the text as version 1.0 and 2.0. Somewhat ironically, the older version (version 1.0) is perceived to be the better model, with version 2.0 misunderstanding and corrupting the former. Examples are given throughout the work, which cites the success of Amazon.com as a byproduct of its version 1.0 nature, despite it being a commercial entity. Simply, version 1.0 refers to the pre-commercialisation Internet of open military-academic communication, extending forwards to the opening of the Internet to the public, but essentially prior to any overwhelming commercialisation of the Internet; version 1.0 is about open publishing and discourse.

Version 2.0, however, is closed publishing. It’s corporate websites, flashy reports, stuff-designed-for-print-but-stuck-online-anyway, and content and websites that generally fail to recognise the collaborative potential of the medium, instead viewing it as a network that is a market, rather than a network that is a meeting place. Amazon.com is about pre-developed content with commercial presentation, but is successful (according to Meikle’s text) due to its creation of a community around its products, in the form of allowing users to comment on books/products and leave reviews — for free, in recognition of the pulling power of this open publishing that people flock to.
The Internet, for companies that don’t understand the importance of this “version 1.0″ model, is just an extension of another form of mass media — without recognising that, here at least, their ‘target market’ is free to switch to any ‘channel’ they wish — and the Internet is rich enough in content that this is of no substantial detriment to the targeted user, unlike its traditional broadcast counterparts.

The Internet, then, is another avenue for forced ‘broadcast’ (top down) communication, if this is how corporate entities perceive it. This communication is often very much in the same style, if in a different form, from more conventional broadcast communication — that is, still top down, still non-interactive, still “hollow, flat, literally inhuman”? but the Internet is more than this, and “markets” (correctly people) understand that — “hyperlinks subvert hierarchy”. With this in mind, use of the Internet as though it were simply another form of ‘mass media’ is, in most instances, misguided (exceptions being electronic presences of existing publications, specifically news sources — although these too would do well to permit a degree of interaction, a good example of this being the discussion features on CNet news.com and, to a lesser extent, some articles on the SMH.com.au website) and backwards-thinking. Meikle’s Future Active proposes that activism is “backing into the future“¹⁰, applying old techniques and mechanisms to a new environment (the web) and then subsequently changing accordingly — not the other way around. This is equally true of the majority of electronic news outlets, and, as is beginning to be realised, with corporate websites such as englishcut.com¹¹ adopting a different mindset in the nature of their electronic presence, as the significance of open publishing and ‘version 1.0′ frameworks is realised.

With the recognition of the importance of this different mode of publishing, the present (overwhelming redundant) manner that many businesses currently utilise for all electronic communiqués will be seen to subside, to be replaced by more open, honest discourse between business, employee and customer, in a way that views “the Internet” as its own medium, not simply “TV with a buy button“¹².

What does this mean in terms of the digital divide, then? Before the paradigm shift in the way corporations approached and thought about this new medium, in terms of business-to-consumer or business-to-employee communication, the “have not” group weren’t, in terms of communication, missing out on anything significant. In fact, the communication was so facile, so trite, and so backwards looking that the “have not” group would find a better experience in television, print media, or simply reality itself. The Cluetrain Manifesto book carries throughout a “market” metaphor for the Internet — it brings people together, not as a target market, or any business-based understanding of the term, but rather as with markets in the most basic sense — a gathering of people to share, to converse, to exist in a common environment where not only goods are traded, but also stories and experience.

This, it is argued, is what an open Internet looks like.

Canadian comedy group Three Dead Trolls¹³ have satirically described ‘multimedia’ as being “just like normal media, but not as good!“¹⁴. Multimedia is like “owning a TV that’s three inches wide“¹⁵. In a way, that’s how many aspects of the Internet are currently presented. Many content authors don’t appreciate or understand how “multimedia” can be appropriately applied, and the overall effect is a far cry from cohesive, consistent, or usable. And yet people use it anyway, immerse themselves in it, despite its shortcomings.

What of this divide then? If, despite the imperfections of the medium and (more significantly) its applications, people who can access this resource by their volition elect to — then these imperfections are outweighed by the perceived advantages the medium offers. Apparently.

Is the value misplaced? Is the implementation of this seemingly empowering technology such that the ‘empowering’ is lost and the ‘technology’ is a ruling influence? The timeless question resounds — is technology serving us, or is the reverse true?

Given sufficient access to technology, the answers to all these questions is no. The Internet can be used for empowerment, for collaboration, as a global ‘marketplace’ (in both a commercial and a social sense) and to serve humanity socially — it is not purely a military tool, or a commercial tool, but a tool for communication in an altruistic sense sans any ulterior motive — simply, communication for the sake of discourse, existence in a social network, connectivity within this ‘web’.

Having said that, however, the effects of the digital divide on the individual are wide-ranging, depending on the social context and the degree to which access exists. Mark Warschauer’s book, Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide¹⁶, identifies a scenario where partial ‘access’ to technology results in a worsened situation than that which existed prior to the provision of technology in the first instance. By ‘access’, it is important to remember that this term must not be solely applied to physical access to technology — training, knowledge, ability (especially motor skills and physical disabilities), usability and internationalisation all constitute ‘access’, in this context.

Warschauer presents the circumstance of a village in an Asian nation (probably India, this example is recalled from memory) where an Internet access point had been installed by some benefactor, who freely provided the necessary physical resources for this to occur. Ongoing access fees may or may not have been provided for, but that is not wholly relevant — the donation was futile because of the overwhelming technology illiteracy in the area, and the failure of this donation to encompass any degree of training. Once installed, the primary use of this newly installed technology was not communication and open discourse, but instead found local children using this resource for playing games online.

Similar situations exist closer to home — many local libraries in New South Wales now provide free Internet access to their members, often without formal training provided as well. The author has witnessed e-learning initiatives in such environments fall to similar fates as the Indian scenario above, with children finding online games more engaging than often stale ‘interactive learning material’ — as a result of the presentation, not the content itself.

Neither of these scenarios results in the breaking down of boundaries, or the opening of new and exciting discourse — instead, the technology places a burden upon the community in terms of maintenance, ongoing costs, and initial investment for little or no tangible — or intangible! — return, and the slave/master relationship between humanity and its technology turns, in this case, against humanity.

What ICT isn’t

ICT isn’t a magic pill for the problems of industrialisation. Industrialisation still has to occur; because ICT is dependant upon the infrastructure that industrialisation develops to exist (not just the technology itself in a historical framework, but the electricity to operate the technology, and the physical networks used to connect it!), and cannot come before the other.

ICT isn’t a magic pill for the problems of poverty. It creates industry, and arguably higher standards of living — but the real problems of population concentration versus arable land and other physical constraints will mean this emancipation from certain influences is not absolute in its unburdening? although, ICT in the means it provides the for expression of individual thought, feeling, and voice is such that poverty as a result of political situations may, potentially, be overcome or at least challenged in a way previously unprecedented — an example of this is the recent 2004 election in the United States, covered by ‘blogs’ (web logs, or personal journals) so extensively that, following the election, bills have been proposed¹⁷ to amend laws concerning journalism and the press to include web logs, granting similar rights — and, more importantly, censorship — as that which conventional media is subject to.

ICT isn’t a magic pill for the problems of distance. If anything, it is seen to exacerbate them, as physical locale directly influences availability and subsequent adoption of technology, ultimately resulting in inequality and the broadening of the social divide between people. ICT alters the form and style of communication used, and the early/late adoption rift results in the development of skills to manage this being fragmented between groups, influencing the way in which groups can relate to each other both in the medium used, and in the language used within the confines of that medium — that is to say, stylistically, the feel of communications and the way in which these are written, spoken or otherwise presented alter, based on the author’s experience with different modes of communication. The writing conventions of personal e-mail, for example, are substantially different from those used in the writing of most letters, in its inherently conversational tone merged with the written word and, in some instances, the alteration of language itself in terms of spelling, use of jargon (‘emoticons’ are included in this), and abbreviations not commonly used outside the context of this form of electronic communiqué — reflected, conversely, in other writing by users of said technology, in which adoption of the different language features common to electronic forms of communication are seen to transcend this, and permeate other writings — the use of emoticons and/or abbreviations such as ‘LOL’ (a commonly used abbreviation for ‘laugh out loud’, generally not used in a literal sense, but simply to denote some degree of humour) in letters, for example, or even in speech (albeit to a lesser extent, and only with some terms).

What the divide means

Such is this change in communication as a result of the common adoption of this new media form in groups of people on the ‘have’ side of the divide, that the way in which they communicate is substantially altered to the point of obfuscation of meaning and general incomprehensibility. As with generational differences in language, the digital divide has introduced (and continues to perpetrate) a further gap linguistically, as well as in terms of the mode and form of communication used, assuming resources even exist to receive information published electronically.

At an individual level, this prevents exposure to a diverse range of writing and content created and disseminated electronically — and, at the stage when this exposure and the ‘bridging of the divide’ becomes feasible at some (as yet undetermined) point in the future, there still remains a cultural and communicative gap — some would cite Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock¹⁸ to highlight the possible effects of this gap, once ‘bridged’. Notably, this ‘bridging’ is an un-real concept — whilst the circumstances surrounding the divide may be mitigated, the effects of the divide are longer lasting, at least for a generation, and potentially longer; for example, unemployment propagates through generations in a cyclic manner, as sociologists have observed is the case in certain areas — a contemporary example being parts of Macquarie Fields. The digital divide is perhaps not necessarily as extreme in consequence as the cyclic unemployment in Macquarie Fields, although, arguably, the divide may lead to unemployment as a result of the new skills it requires (perhaps reversing the trend instigated by the Industrial Revolution towards ‘deskilling’), and this unemployment may continue across generations if appropriate training is not available and/or offered to those still lacking in skills.

Of course, communication and training barriers may not necessarily be an issue — the divide holds a lesser relevance to those employed in primary industries, for example. Having said this, changes in technology (not communications-related) have also resulted in changes in requisite skills for employment in primary industry areas — perhaps requiring an understanding of technology to function in a competitive environment, for example, the use of software to determine appropriate use of chemicals, etc.

Not only this, but ICT itself is relevant to these primary industries for the purposes of receiving communications of the requirements of customers, as well as communication of changes in technology for the basic means of production — simply, ‘keeping on top of’ the latest industry developments. This is particularly relevant to the agricultural aspect of primary industry, with mining and logging often already connected to a larger parent company that is likely to already have ICT systems in place for the purposes of such communications.

At an individual level, the divide has the potential to result in communication differences greater than the generational communication gap, as language and the application of language changes, and new forms and modes of expression are adopted on a large scale. The ‘bridging’ of the divide allows this nuance to be realised, as the individual struggles to comprehend and adapt to this different means of communication — Toffler’s concept of “future shock”; an example of which has been observed at the University of Sydney’s Facilities Management department¹⁹, which has, at some point in the last several years, seen the introduction of ICT in order to audit and manage activities internally. The primary users of this ICT infrastructure are tradespeople, many of who do not use computers at home, or had not previously used them in the workplace — the workplace training co-ordinator²⁰ at Facilities Management commented on the widespread frustration and difficult transition experienced; and this, in an environment in which appropriate training is provided. “Future shock” is a reality, which, especially in light of the ICT revolution, is increasingly relevant in today’s society, both locally and on a global scale.

Entities and society as a whole faces this revolution as its constituents experience and capacity to deal with change mandates — that is to say, similar challenges are presented to society as with the individual, with cumulative effect playing a role in shaping the society into the future. Requirements for training, such that lasting change can occur, must be met for the divide to be bridged, and, to avoid the linguistic aspects of this gap broadening further, this should occur in a timely manner, before this secondary divide of consequence is permitted to take hold and instigate cyclic disadvantage. The digital divide is but a descriptor for the first effect of a circumstance with consequences far beyond this original manifestation.

References

1. Warschauer, M. Technology and Social Inclusion. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. October 2004.
2. http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/nw2002/extras/digitaldivide.pdf – references to Ngaanyatjara Lands
3. “Icon” technology section, SMH, April 9, 2005
4. The Cluetrain Manifesto, http://www.cluetrain.com/ point 15.
5. Ibid. point 14
6. http://www.cluetrain.com/, see also ref. 7, p.xi
7. Locke, C., Levine, R. et al. The Cluetrain Manifesto: The end of business as usual. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus. 2000.
8. Ibid. p. iv
9. Meikle, G. (Edited by Wark, M.) Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet.
10. Ibid. p. 14
11. Macleod, H., Mahon, T. English Cut: Bespoke Savile Row tailors. 2005. < http://www.englishcut.com/ >
12. Locke, C., Levine, R. et al. The Cluetrain Manifesto: The end of business as usual. p.15
13. http://www.deadtroll.com/
14. Ibid. “How to Buy a Computer” recording. Also http://www.ampcast.com/music/22488/artist.php
15. Ibid.
16. Warschauer, M. Technology and Social Inclusion.
17. McCullagh, D. Bloggers narrowly dodge federal crackdown. 24 Mar. 2005. CNET News.com. 14 Apr. 2005 < http://news.com.com/Bloggers+narrowly+dodge+federal+crackdown/2100-1028_3-5635724.html >
18. Toffler, A. Future Shock: A study of mass bewilderment in the face of accelerating change. London: The Bodley Head Ltd. 1970.
19. The author of this essay worked at the Facilities Management Office at the University of Sydney in an IT capacity on a work placement, for a period of time in 2004, during which employees whose profession was in their trade, rather than in management or an ICT role, expressed frustration at the technology which they were required to use for the management aspects of their job.
20. Barbara Achilles, also the work placement co-ordinator.

The globalisation juggernaut will be catastrophic for the island continent of Australia. While our eyes are turned to events in the Middle East, an even more pernicious terror has stealthily found its way into Australia. We do not see any news headlines about it, but gradually over the last three years, thousands of Australians have lost their livelihoods to the hordes from Chindia, through outsourcing services to offshore companies.

I think I re-read that paragraph three times before finally deciding that it wasn’t being farcical or satirical, and that the writer was in fact serious. I’m ethnically not part of the group that Ellett so blithely and flippantly attacks, but, as one who belongs to the population he claims to represent, I’m insulted.

Perhaps the content is valid — offshoring of jobs results in diminishing employment opportunities for Australians. Or not. Either way, the phrasing of the last sentence of that first paragraph is inappropriate at best, and overtly racist at worst; overwhelmingly reminiscent of cries against the “Yellow Peril” from earlier in our country’s history. I can’t get over the line “hordes from Chindia”, myself. Both the term “hordes” and its negative connotations (likening the population of this “Chindia” to a mob whose purpose is to overrun Australian employment), as well as the term “Chindia” — which I’d personally never heard before, but is apparently accepted terminology — still, a quick Google revealed it’s a generic noun used to describe Asiatic nations (of which, debatably, Australia should count itself one) — this isn’t shocking in itself, but viewed in the context of Ellett’s message is perhaps a little too nationalistic… one may argue to the point of racism. And I do.

The irony of all this is brought out well in another article by The Economist, in which both China and India are described as having a “tendency towards economic isolationism” and “proud […] self-sufficiency”… and yet we complain of (what is portrayed as) their active desire to steal our domestic industry away from us, when, in reality, people elect to use their services and industry as opposed to employing local sources in attempted exploitation of them (or so Ellett would have us believe in a somewhat twisted way in which racist nationalism becomes the dominant tone of the piece)… but this “exploitation” is actually to mutual benefit, as illustrated in an article linked to from the original piece (but apparently not read, or at least ignored, by Ellett).

This is, afterall, a “pernicious terror” with which our country is threatened. More so than militarism, seemingly. “While our eyes are turned to events in the Middle East, an even more pernicious terror has stealthily found its way into Australia.” Notably, not that an even more pernicious terror has developed in Australia, in the form of our own socially irresponsible management (although, to be fair, Ellett alludes to this at a later point in the piece), or that Australia is embracing globalisation in the form of its own international agenda and policies, including “free” trade agreements with other nations perhaps not so interested in “free” trade as unilateral trade with a side dish of pretenses at diplomatic niceties. But I digress.

It has the potential to see the nation evolve from its Third World poverty and skip straight into the information and technology age. It is truly one of the great achievements of history, and one from which we can all learn.

It’s just “the nation”, now: this Chindia, in the mind of Ellett, truely is the one foreign entity. From a nationalistic perspective, perhaps it is… but surely, no one in a developed, good, Western nation would seriously consider matters that way anymore — not since the early twentieth century! Everything old is new again: including, it would seem, this “truly […] great achievement” in which developing Asian nations (I refuse to use the term “Chindia”) may circumvent the process of progression from proverty to prosperity. On that note, I indicate Ellett’s choice of words — he refers to “evolution” from Third World poverty — I needn’t elaborate on possible interpretations of that.

It also disregards the need for development of infrastructure which comes as a side effect of the industrialisation process, something which some citizens of post-industrial Western society apparently take for granted. There is, and always will be, a process which needs to occur to “evolve” (cringe) from a state of poverty. Infrastructure does not instantly appear, neither does technology, and neither do adequately trained educators and users of this technology, neccessary for sustainable industry (which is itself obviously requisite for the alleviation of poverty in an urban society).

The problem with Ellett’s approach is it looks to globalisation without any real comprehension of what the “global” part of that word means. Protectionism, nationalism, and the notion of requisite self-preservation at a “national” level in this context is somewhat antiquated: globalisation is about the breaking down of barriers such that the skills and abilities of the individual may be realised regardless as to physical circumstance… even when that individual is a “Chindian”.