Wired World Paper
Though we have sunk our teeth really deep into the debilitating impacts of the digital divide problem – not only in Third-World countries, but also in the world at large – it is, however, still an inexhaustible topic. In the course of my research, I identified a couple articles which expounded on the aforementioned problem and how, in some cases, its presence could be indicative of acute negligence on the path of the leadership of some developing societies. The subsequent paragraphs, therefore, delve deep into the distinct, interesting perspectives from the articles gathered from my research.
The first article covers Google’s attempt to bridge the digital divide, particularly in the United States. They also intend to work their way up to the other countries, such as Uganda, where the digital divide problem is supremely exacerbated by misappropriation of national resources and other social issues too. According to Brick, author of ‘Is Google Making the Digital Divide Worse?’, “… [Google] plans to spend $1.5 million this year to support computer science education around the world.” Therefore, it stands to reason that Google is heavily invested in tackling the digital divide problems. As a matter of fact, they envision a future in which “internet access will be a basic human right” (Brick). Thus, the end goal is to provide free WI-FI to developing societies, in Africa, plagued with the digital divide issue. This noble yet arduous undertaking has stirred controversies from citizens of the United States. As stated in the article, “15 percent of American adults have no access to the Internet. Thirty percent lack broadband access at home, with rates lowest among the poor, the elderly and racial minorities.” Hence, these proportions of Americans that are burdened with the digital divide problem are supportive of Google’s initiative but do not approve of its execution. They complain and question why they have to pay for Google’s intervention in this problem, while African countries will receive free WI-FI at no charge. In my own opinion, this is a highly unfair comparison. As we have learned from this week’s lecture and discussions, many of the African countries fraught with the digital divide problem are also characterized by other pressing social problems. This, therefore, makes their inaccessibility to the information grid seem not so urgent, in comparison to the other societal problems such as lack of food, acute poverty and so on. This is why it is an unfair comparison, as said societal problems – that put the lives of citizens in developing countries in jeopardy – do not abound in United States, or are at least at a solid minimum. I do understand that it may seem unfair, as it seem as though Google is giving preferential treatment to such African countries. But Americans, who see Google’s endeavor as unfair, have to understand that such African societies are more in need of help, as they are battling other urgent social issues that put their lives at stake.
The second article I found, in the course of my research, discussed the digital divide problem since the 1990s. It, specifically, highlights the way the definition of the ‘Digital Divide’ has transformed over the years. The definition of the digital divide now stretches beyond ‘who can easily access information?’ to include ‘who creates information?’ The latter, is arguably the more important of the-above-stated questions, and is also at the core of the new definition of the digital divide problem since the early 2000s. I, for one, concur that the question of ‘who creates information’ is an inalienable part of the digital divide problem and is equally as important as furnishing developing societies with ICTs needed for quick access to the GIS. To be candid, many developing nations are more focused on providing internet and other technologies, that the notion of who creates the information that is accessed seems secondary, and perhaps trivial. If you really think about it, the type of information created is directly dictated by the person who is creating said information. A vivid example of this was highlighted in this week’s lecture: “approximately 85% of the web pages on the Internet are in English while one in ten people worldwide understand the English language.” It seems to tally that the predominant language on the net is English, because such web pages were developed by speakers of English for speakers of English. And though it might seem selfish, but it makes sense as the invention of computers, and consequently the internet were first witnessed in an English-speaking country. Therefore, if the digital divide problem was to be completely tackled from all angles, the governments of (severely) affected societies should ensure that the development of web content in the local dialects is encouraged. Plans should be put in place to train local citizens to develop web pages and apps that are more pertinent to the local end-users, as opposed to foreign content. This is a plus for the economy of said developing countries, as it allows for the creation of jobs—and by extension creation of revenue.
The last article, garnered from my research, talks about the diffusion of the internet and the countries that have been left behind, owing to the digital divide problem. According Qureshi, “there is growth by a factor of 3.4 between businesses in a typical developing country which uses ICT and those that do not.” This basically shows how supremely important it is for any country to invest heavily in augmenting its internet and technological facilities. Many third-world countries are behind in terms of ICT facilities in comparison to the first-world counterparts. And thus, they seem incredibly behind and left out of the technological race.

Works Cited
Brick, M. (2014). IS GOOGLE MAKING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE WORSE?. Newsweek Global, 162(8), 28-39.
Modarres, A. (2011). Beyond the digital divide. National Civic Review, 100(3), 4-7. doi:10.1002/ncr.20069.
Qureshi, S. (2012). As the global digital divide narrows, who is being left behind?. Information Technology For Development,18(4), 277-280. doi:10.1080/02681102.2012.730656.
TeKippe S. Wired World.