Surrending to foster the Information Society: cyberskeptics, cyberoptimists, swindlers and cyberblinds

In a recent event where I was invited to debate about the need whether to foster the Information Society, I was shocked about some positions from both some of the speakers on the round table I participated in and the audience.

The starting point was: is there a need to foster the Information Society, or the Web 2.0 is a sufficient empowerer so there’s no reason to set up centralized strategies and policies?

One of the first arguments to come to debate can be summed up by “if people find no interest on the Internet, they will not use it, even if the infrastructures are ready and affordability is good enough”.Which I absolutely share: people like Lenhart (2000), Compaine (2001) or Parks Associates (2007) have already given evidence about this fact — this is, of course, especially relevant in developed countries, but it is also true in the poorest parts of them, so extrapolation to developing ones could be possible.

The next argument comes straightforward: we cannot force anyone to enter the Information Age. Again, I agree.

Disagreement comes with the next statement, primarily defended by the political representatives in the room: neither should we force anyone to enter the Information Age nor should we try to convince them to. Otherwise, we would be patronizing them, being paternalistic and acting like enlightened elites, and so on. We have to stop being cyberoptimists: people know better than anyone what their needs are, if people just want to share their photos, the only thing we [the government] have to do is to offer [subsidized] Flickr courses for anyone.

The argument is: don’t trust the doctor, because he’s being an enlightened elite prescribing antibiotics for your infection (not trying to save your life); don’t trust anyone that tells you to fix your roof, because he’s being paternalistic and patronizing (not just giving advice against it collapsing with the next rain).

The evidence of the economic impact of ICTs is great and growing. And there is plenty of people out there doing research about the issue. Elites? Not at all: people (scholars, politicians and experts in general) whose job (they are paid for it) is to give advice i.e. on the consequences on the job market of being digitally literate… or illiterate. You can disagree on interpretations, but not on data.

Honestly, I think that, these days, the difference between cyberoptimists and cyberskeptics is tiny:

  • Cyberoptimists will tell you that there’s plenty of evidence of the coming of age of the Information Society and that the potential possibilities are many
  • Cyberskeptics will tell you that there’s no evidence of huge benefits of entering the Information Society, but will agree that there are huge losses of not doing it (i.e. you might not increase your productivity being digitally literate, but you’ll surely loose it if you’re not)

The rest of the story is about swindlers and cyberblind. Yours to choose.

If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:

Peña-López, I. (2008) “Surrending to foster the Information Society: cyberskeptics, cyberoptimists, swindlers and cyberblinds” In ICTlogy, #54, March 2008. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from http://ictlogy.net/review/?p=695

Previous post: e-Stas 2008: symposium on technologies for social action

Next post: e-Readiness: how aggregates forget inequality

3 Comments to “Surrending to foster the Information Society: cyberskeptics, cyberoptimists, swindlers and cyberblinds” »

  1. Is it possible to be both a cyberoptimist AND a cyberskeptic… I think I sit on the fence these days…

    While I do believe in the *potential* of the technology, I fear that the potential can only be actualized with a cybersociety of ‘smart users’… that is, those who use the technology purposefully, rather than those who allow the technology to use them.

    And regarding the issue of access and use (which happens to be my thesis topic)… if the access is there, it seems people (well youth) will use it… but what they are using it for is a whole different issue.

    I interviewed the CEO of InNovaCorp about this issue… this is the company given the contract by the NS Government to achieve 100% high-speed access to every home in NS (currently there is about 65% coverage. lots of rural communities do not yet have the option of high-speed) and he seemed to think that high-speed access was very important… especially to elementary school kids who like using the “Webkins” site… I took him to task on that… “is that why we are so concerned about high-speed access? to facilitate access to consumer driven sites like Webkins?”

  2. I still believe you’re a cyberoptimist, which does not mean that you cannot see the difficulties and the barriers in the path – i.e. being a cyberswindler.

    About broadband and use… I have a pending post about this ;)

RSS feed RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Your comment: