It was New Years Eve, 1997, when my Dad announced to the family, huddled behind the bars at Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, that we would be getting the internet installed at home. There was certainly a feeling of excitement, but for what? I was 12 years old and didn’t really know what was on the internet. It wasn’t the place to be, but a thing to own. In those days, it wasn’t even a ‘place’ as much as it was an ‘access point.’ People my age were only online for the time they required information, chatting was minimal, and Encarta on CD was still a better source of knowledge than anything we could’ve found ourselves online. But still, we knew we just had to have it. Beyond 2000 had been showing us (between the hovercraft segments) the chatroom medium and as overanxious social tweens we couldn’t wait to become nameless avatars.
This week, we celebrate 20 years of the Internet. The appeal has changed greately over that time. What used to be ‘^a|S|m^’ is now ‘Samuel Webster.’ What was e-mail is now Facebook. Wikipedia has all but replaced the CD-Rom encyclopaedia.
Back then, we were breathtaken. Today we are consumed.
Facebook and the New Social Philistines
It seems that these days everyone is on Facebook. It’s no longer a necessity to swap numbers if you want to get in touch, ‘Facebook me’ is the new ‘keep in touch.’ And for good reason. We spend most of our time online; 74% of North Americans use the Internet, with Australia/Oceania only just behind at 60%. Given that 19.6% of the Australian population is too young to use Facebook (under 13), and 12.9% are out of the standard online demographic (over 65), Facebook is pretty much the most pervading network there is. If you ever wanted an example on how culture, upbringing and peer pressure has an influence on the person that you become, the exclusive social sphere that Facebook has created is it. If you are not on Facebook, there’s a great chance that you will be left behind in the social scene.
It used to be that those involved with computers were stereotypically seen as socially inept. The people dubbed ‘computer nerds’ for taking an interest (way ahead of their time) in an expanding technological invention. They were shunned from the ‘popular’ circles at High School for their knowledge of programming language, Dungeons and Dragons and Sim City 3000. They were seen as socially inept for the time they spent alone, for the way their niche interests secluded them from the world. Perhaps, as comedian Keith Malley says, we are making up for the ‘Nerd Holocaust’ (his term), that period of life all nerds went through, being bullied by their less geeky counterparts. We are now left to glorify them in the new world. It used to be that those who shunned the online sphere were judged ‘most likely to succeed’, or Homecoming King and Queen in a farcical beauty contest. These days it’s not so easy to avoid. Here are some of the downsides to enjoying a life free of Facebook.
- No event invitations. Like it or not, these days events are planned entirely on Facebook, the ease of the online RSVP is unrivalled. However, that means that if you are not on Facebook, sometimes you just won’t get invited. Sure, friends might let you know what was going on in person, but how often have you found out your favourite band was playing and everyone just ‘assumed’ you got the invite? It’s much better to be part of a faceless thousand, all invited to an event you probably wouldn’t be missed at anyway.
- No birthday wishes. Regrettably, Facebook has also become the way to wish someone happy birthday. There is a downside for everyone though. Try and wish someone Happy Birthday in real life, on your own merits, because you remembered it was their birthday. The joy is diminished because of the assumption that you, like everyone else, only remembered because it was displayed on your Facebook page. If you are not on Facebook, only those who actually remembered your birthday will call you. That’s actually not such a bad thing, knowing who your real friends are. But what if the people who know your birthday still rely on Facebook to remind them?
- No photos of yourself. Enter the narcissism. Because of online media, digital cameras have skyrocketed in popularity. Everybody needs to see 1500 pictures of themselves drunk at the local bar, don’t they? If you’re not on Facebook, you may actually never see your friends wedding photos, or their new baby, or that picture where your hair looks just perfect, and your smile is just so, and would make a wonderful profile picture. Nope… Goodbye narcissism….
- No telling everyone what you are thinking all day. How will Auntie Fay cope without knowing that your breakfast was a little too cold this morning? How will your friends respect you if they don’t see your wit shining through every second of their workday? How will you express your love for Bob Dylan without quoting lines from ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’ nonsensically?
Actually, now that I think about it… Maybe it’s not such a bad thing.
But WAIT A SECOND…. this is an extremely typical first world view, the narcissistic concept of how it affects us. The truth is, we are far better off with Facebook’s pitfalls than we are without access at all.
The Information Divide
Researchers coined the term ‘The Information Divide’ after modern technology began to pervade first world societies at a greater rate than their third world equivalents. The problem is not that access to the internet is a bad thing, but that the disparity between those with and those without is increasing. The rate at which world education and prosperity has grown because of internet access is astounding, and leaves those without information access at a loss. About a decade after the Internet was invented, the term ‘Information Superhighway’ became the most popular way to promote the (relatively new) technology to adolescents. It wasn’t a communication medium, but a way for school students to gain knowledge and it worked.
How many times have you said, “I’m not sure. Google it!” or “Let me just check Wikipedia.”
Looking at the Internet penetration rate above proves two things. In North America, Oceania and Europe, our access to an abundance of information is almost guaranteed. In Africa, Asia and the Middle East however, the outlook is not so good.
This is not a case for the New Social Philistine, who avoids Facebook out of a choice for a more physical interaction. The people who do not have access in these countries do not have the choice. They do not need the internet to find out what the Jonas Brothers are doing, but to find out new research in agriculture and politics. They do not need to find out what their neighbor had for breakfast, but to find out how American foreign policy, and financial aid will affect them. Students growing up on the other end of the Information Divide do not have access to modern education materials, as the environmental implications cause them to shift from print to online.
Luckily, I am not alone in this thought. There are ways to help out. Please visit the links below and donate to the cause. If none of them strike you as special, seek out your favourite charities who are doing similar work, encourage the ones you donate to, to expand their efforts into bridging the divide and solving information poverty.
They do not need Perez Hilton. They do not need IMDB. They do not need Trespass Magazine.
They need access to knowledge, the greatest gift in the world.
Charities involved in Information Access
One Laptop Per Child: Give a laptop, change the world.
“To create educational opportunities for the world’s poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning. When children have access to this type of tool they get engaged in their own education. They learn, share, create, and collaborate. They become connected to each other, to the world and to a brighter future.”
“Camara is a volunteer organisation that empowers communities in Africa by using technology in education. Specifically we do this by providing computers, promoting eLearning through training, certification and content development and ensuring that our products and services are affordable and relevant to the local communities to whom they are delivered.”
World Computer Exchange: Expand minds, not landfills
“World Computer Exchange is a global education & environment nonprofit that helps connect youth in 67 developing countries to the skills, opportunities & understanding of the Internet while keeping working computers out of landfills.”
Pedantic Point One: ‘Nameless avatar’ is a contradiction in terms. Digital identities may or may not be faceless, but without a name, the identity doesn’t exist.
Pedantic Point Two: ‘Social Philistines’ isn’t exactly incorrect, but given that we’re talking about technology, ‘Luddites’ seems more apt as a designator.
Pedantic Point Three: ‘Information superhighway’ was never a cool term for teens. It was what adults called Teh Internets when they wanted to sound hip with their kids, but weren’t. As is ever the case.
Pedantic Point Four: Speaking as one of the geeks at school, I cannot think of a single person I knew who played SimCity 3000. It was a primary school game. Also, playing D&D is not the same as being technologically literate. Nor are all geeks bullied.
Pedantic Point Five: Kids in disadvantaged countries don’t need the internet as much as they need clean drinking water, food, an end to the trade in conflict diamonds, basic sex ed and for the local dictators to stop financing aggro militia. Unless you mean disadvantaged kids in wealthy nations, in which case, yes, seeing as how school is now geared towards digital learning. But there’s a big difference.
So, yeah. That was a lot of pedantry. But relevant pedantry. I know you’re trying to cover a big subject area in a comparatively small wordage, but using stereotypes as touchstones for complex concepts downplays your good points. Still, an interesting article!
Agreed on all counts. Particularly the disadvantaged kids needing internet point – are we in an episode of Gossip Girl?
Pedantic reply #1: perhaps an edit I will make to the piece. I was wishing to convey the difference between avatars an the more honest facebook system of using real names.
Pedantic reply #2: philistines is used as opposed to Luddites because I am talking specifically in relation to the social scene, whether the excommunication occurs through technology or otherwise. You are correct on the Luddite being the correct term for the interaction, but didn’t seem quite right for the social side.
Pedantic reply #3: no not a cool term for kids, but the tool of choice for adults marketing to kids.
Pedantic reply #4: I was referring to my primary school nerdery, thus the SimCity reference. D&D is not akin to the technologically literate, but another stereotype which has been used to bully. Not all nerds were bullied, no. Not all the cool kids played football. Stereotypes indeed, but the same stereotypes as were used to seperate the social circles and thus why I rehashed them.
Pedantic reply #5:
true. However,
1) where the infrastructure can support a greater access to information, it should be viewed as a basic need. Education online can contribute to Sex Education for one… Who knows whether civil political situations could be ease with an expanded world view.
2) I don’t mean to play down the necessity for food and water and those other basic needs you mentioned. But an article about sending food to poorer nations would fall in the category of “same old same old” and thus is likely to fall on deaf ears (deafened by saturation of an issue and a lack of resolution/change.) Championing one cause doesn’t negate the existence or validity of another.
Thank you greatly for your pedantry, Foz… Always appreciated.
All the best.
Liv – I see your point but I don’t believe it’s a matter of ignorance to the needs of developing nations as it is a matter of looking at one specific area.
Should these charities give up and take food instead? Recycling computers is not only better for the environment but is a way to give something back, whether it be a basic need or another method of social improvement.
Are the children who get these computers getting less food as a result? Are they the ones responsible for the militia or political unrest? That’s like saying we shouldn’t send food to Iraq when we invade, it lumps civilians in with defense forces. Innocents in with terrorists. There are many children who may not have everything they need and have no way to better their situation. Should they go without education purely because the food supplies are insufficient?
I’m in no way saying that these programs should be the top of the list, above basic food and health. But I have no doubt that every reader of trespass knows of the food shortage worldwide and writing a piece on that topic would do little more than any other World Vision Appeal.
My aim is that people who read Trespass, an online magazine, can relate to their own technological proficiency and see why these causes, as an alternative or secondary form of charity, might be worth a contribution. That doesn’t negate the issue of world hunger.
I don’t think anyone is saying championing one cause negates the validity of another. That’s a ridiculous statement to make.
I fail to see your point here Sam.
It is clumsy and lacks a direction.
I agree with Foz and her points above, especially point 5. I would imagine, given the choice between a lap top and a years worth of food…the choice is obvious. For those kids that take the lap top – be sure they will sell it for food later on.
Anon – I agree with Foz too… I’m not sure why it seems like I’m arguing computers versus laptops. You should read my comment above, and Liv’s response to me. If they are given the choice, yes food is more important. I have said so…
“Are the children who get these computers getting less food as a result?…Should they go without education purely because the food supplies are insufficient?…I’m in no way saying that these programs should be the top of the list, above basic food and health.
There are charities for a lot of things. Why should Australians donate money to the Salvation Army who run rehab centres and get people off the streets, when there are people dying in Africa? Because it’s not an ‘either/or’ situation.
Re: the disadvantaged kids and the internet, my boyfriend does work for the One Laptop Per Child organisation here in France and my son Julian actually owns one. They are amazing!
These are bought mostly by governments or private organisations for the children because in the Third World NOTHING in the long term is more empowering than education and access to information for these children. Often with corruption that exists in the Third World, especially in Africa and South East Asia, the money donated is not used on the children.
For more on One Laptop Per Child watch this TED Talk by Nicholas Negroponte
http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_negroponte_on_one_laptop_per_child.html
When you put it like that, Antonia, it makes a lot of sense.