Yet Another Kind of Digital Divide

We have often talked about the digital divide as being those who have access to technology versus those who don’t, but lately a new concept is beginning to emerge involving access and digital literacy. While much of the Internet is free, the truth is that it takes time, energy, instruction, and prolonged access to develop the skills and habits to successfully navigate and derive value from today’s media. Figuring out what is a trusted source versus just someone spouting off about an issue, understanding a meme, cross checking articles or sources against each other, and even posting a comment to disagree with something are skills that require some time and access to master.

Something we need to recognize is that not everyone has extensive Internet time every day. In fact, many people have jobs that forbid them from even peeking at what’s online during the day, with bosses who will write them up if caught checking their phone. These people–we often refer to them (derisively) as “average Americans”–are removed from the lightning-fast online media cycle for hours at a time and, often, for the entire day. It means then that they end up getting their news from Facebook or from the stories that are making the rounds on the Internet – or in other words, a very filtered reality. This also means that the new digital divide is between those who have the time and access to learn how to navigate and filter the misinformation and egomania that dominates the social networks and the news platforms and those that don’t. This is scary, since we are a country ruled by public opinion and it’s the media that frames those opinions.

Teen Use Of Digital Research is Subject of Teacher Survey

The Pew Internet & American Life folks recently surveyed teachers who teach Advanced Placement courses, and who voiced some serious doubts about the benefits of teens doing digital research. While some 77% of teachers surveyed say that the Internet and digital search tools have had a “mostly positive” impact on their students’ research work, a full 87% say these technologies are creating an “easily distracted generation with short attention spans,” with 64% saying today’s digital technologies “do more to distract students than to help them academically.”

What was their biggest complaint?  -- That students’ digital literacy skills have not caught up with the capabilities of the technology. Large majorities agreed with the notion that the amount of information available online today is overwhelming to most students (83%) and that today’s digital technologies discourage students from using a wide range of sources when conducting research (71%). Fewer teachers, but still a majority of this sample (60%), agree with the assertion that today’s technologies make it harder for students to find credible sources of information

Looking for ways to help your children with these issues? Check the resources in the Computers & Homework section (including the archives) and the Internet Smarts case study on Misinformation.

Facebook a Place for Terrorists Looking for Friends, UN Reports

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime recently issued a report that social networks are increasingly being used by terrorists to recruit sympathizers, spread propaganda, and plan potential attacks, according to the United Nations. The UN report, funded by the U.K. government, said that the “unprecedented amount of sensitive information” published over online social networks “may be misappropriated and used for the benefit of criminal activity.”

Newspapers Cutting the Number of Free Articles Before Paying

It looks like online versions of newspapers are going to be limiting the number of articles available before paying even more strictly than before. Right now, the average is 11 free articles per month, but that average is going down according to a new report. With the volume of news sources online, this should be no impediment to school reports, but using more vetted news sources for school reports may become an issue. Most schools or school districts do pay for subscriptions to the more reliable news sources, but you may need to remind your kids to take advantage of that if they are planning a report that uses newspaper sources.

An Update on Wikipedia

While many schools still ban the use of Wikipedia as a source for research projects, the latest Pew Internet research shows that percentage of all American adults who use Wikipedia to look for information has increased from 25% in February 2007 to 42% in May 2010. This translates to 53% of adult Internet users. The sometimes-suspect, collaborative encyclopedia is also most popular with those who have at least a college degree. By the way, Wikipedia just had its tenth birthday.

An Update on Wikipedia

While many schools still ban the use of Wikipedia as a source for research projects, the latest Pew Internet research shows that percentage of all American adults who use Wikipedia to look for information has increased from 25% in February 2007 to 42% in May 2010. This translates to 53% of adult Internet users. The sometimes-suspect collaborative encyclopedia is also most popular with those who have at least a college degree. An interesting paradox. By the way, Wikipedia just had its tenth birthday.

Obama Cautions Grads About Technology

It was very disappointing to read that President Obama recently told the graduates of Hampton University to watch out for becoming entangled in technology devices and then thought it was a joke to tell them that he doesn’t know how to work them. "And with iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said. "So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."

After years of urging parents to become acquainted with technology so that they can have open conversations with their children about the danger of the distractions and misinformation versus the empowerment that technology provides, I felt his comments seemed like a giant step in the wrong direction. The only way kids are going to understand the dangers of misinformation are for parents and teachers to have open, informed and honest discussions with kids about it. It doesn’t help for any parent to belittle technology these days or tell kids not to use it, especially if you admit that you have no idea how any of it works. The problems that technology create are not going to be solved by telling kids not to get involved in it, but rather by having open and clear discussions about it, figuring out how to focus on the fact that it binds us all much closer than ever before, and to set expectations about how our children should use it to explore and define their world, never accepting just one viewpoint or expecting that there is the only one viewpoint, teaching them to read, analyze and think as never before.

Australia Tries to Censor the Web

The Australian government is intending to propose legislation that would block the access of certain Web sites. The blacklist includes sites thought to carry content like child pornography, bestiality, rape and other sexual violence, or detailed instructions on how to commit certain crimes. Critics say it will not prevent determined users from sharing such content, and could lead to unwarranted censorship by overzealous officials. They are also concerned that the reasons for blacklisting sites would be kept secret, opening the possibility that legitimate sites might be censored.

What are some other outlooks on this issue? Countries such as Egypt and Iran impose strict Internet controls, and bloggers have been imprisoned. China has a pervasive filtering system. Canada, Sweden and Britain have filters, but they are voluntary. In the United States, Pennsylvania briefly imposed requirements for service providers to block child pornography sites, but a federal court struck down the law because the filters also blocked legitimate sites.

Texting at Work: Policy Change in the Wind?

The US Supreme Court is going to hear a case that could change text message policies in companies around the country. The case, City of Ontario v. Quon, revolves around the question of whether the Ontario, Calif., police force had the right to read text messages sent by its employees, including sexually explicit messages that were clearly not part of police business -- and whether Arch Wireless, then the city's telco provider, violated the employees' rights by revealing their messages. The case made its way to the 9th Circuit, which held that the police department violated one employee’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Beware of Googlebombs

So what is a Googlebomb? Well the most immediate example is an unflattering image of Michele Obama, distorted to show make her face appear ape-like, that was the first result users got when performing an image search for her on Google Images. The image was finally removed by its original host, a rather cryptic blog called “Hot Girls” and replaced with an apology in Chinese. An accompanying (and literal) English-language translation seems to indicate remorse that Google's indexing technologies ended up ranking the picture high on its results list: "I am very sorry for this article, and that this is the program automatically issued a document from the article. Do not the subject of race and politics make the discussion too radical and sincere hope that the world is very peaceful."

Until it was removed Google posted a disclaimer link with the image reading "Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google. Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet." In short Google maintains that it is not compelled to act as a censor simply because a piece of content is offensive and disturbing. They will remove child porn or other illegal material that attacks someone on the basis of their membership in a religion, race or ethnic group, but not if an item is critical of a religion, for example. Of course no one person or group decides what image is going to come up first in a search. Mathematical equations or algorithms do it all. Perhaps just another argument that you need to dig a bit when doing any kind of search online as the first result may not always be the best.