The myth of the internet for everyone is a fairy tale. The idea that the internet democratises information, knowledge and education, that anyone can use the internet to learn anything and then do anything is false. What is the digital divide, why is it a problem,what do we do about it, why is it important?
Technology increases the quality of life of everyone on the planet, but it doesn't do so equally. In fact, the compounding network effects of technology at scale produce vastly different outcomes for those that have more to play with than those who have less. The poor become a little better off, the rich become hugely better off. Technology scales inequality. 'The digital divide' is how we describe and understand the use of technology . It might also offer
We can describe the digital divide at operating at three levels (Wei et al, 2010):
These three levels build on each other. Outcomes can't be achieved without capability, which can't be achieved without access.
Warschauer (2002) critiques the notion of a divide and prefers the promotion of access and social inclusion with digital technology as a means of achieving it. He provides a number of examples where the introduction of digital devices without any
"the notion of a digital divide - even in its broadest sense - implies a chain of causality, i.e., that lack of access (however defined) to computers and the Internet harms life chances. While this point is undoubtedly true, the reverse is equally true; those who are already marginalized will have fewer opportunities to access and use computers and the Internet. In fact, technology and society are intertwined and co-constitutive, and this complex interrelationship makes any assumption of causality problematic."
Rob Kling, director of the Center for Social Informatics at Indiana University, explains well this shortcoming [8]:
"[The] big problem with "the digital divide " framing is that it tends to connote "digital solutions, " i.e., computers and telecommunications, without engaging the important set of complementary resources and complex interventions to support social inclusion, of which informational technology applications may be enabling elements, but are certainly insufficient when simply added to the status quo mix of resources and relationships."
The bottom line is that there is no binary divide, and no single overriding factor for determining such a divide. ICT does not exist as an external variable to be injected from the outside to bring about certain results. Rather, it is woven in a complex manner in social systems and processes. And, from a policy standpoint, the goal of using ICT with marginalized groups is not to overcome a digital divide, but rather to further a process of social inclusion. To accomplish this, it is necessary to "focus on the transformation, not the technology" [9]. For all these reasons, I join with others (e.g., DiMaggio and Hargittai, 2001; Jarboe, 2001) in recognizing the historical value of the digital divide concept (i.e., that it helped focus attention on an important social issue) while preferring to embrace alternate concepts and terminology that more accurately portray the issues at stake and the social challenges ahead.