Réflexion et propositions
English versionThe digital divide : changing the focus
Imprimer la pageOrientation of proposal
The digital divide must :
go beyond the issue of connectivity without neglecting it ;
be integrated in a global vision and not solely from the angle of developing countries, since it reproduces the timeworn patterns of assistance given to them ;
raise the question of uses : systems of consumption that obey the rules of capitalistic globalisation versus open systems that incorporate co-production in content and tools
be treated not simply from its commercial angle but as public property and thus be dealt with on a political level by all the actors concerned among which governments play a central role. Partnership between governments, companies and the non-profit sector, however positive such joint work is, must not be used as an excuse for withdrawal from public commitment ;
use the initiatives and orientations for proposals made by community networks in the same way as "the world partnership of community networks".
Context
Many bodies now exist, such as the G8 Dot force, the UN Task Force, the World Summit on the Information Society of the IUT, UNDP, etc. that all focus on the stakes involved by the digital divide. This approach raises several problems :
the dispersion of efforts between the different bodies ;
the concentration of reflection on connectivity rather than on content, training and cooperative practices of participation ;
the forever present commercial approach to solve the question ;
The reproduction of a traditional North-South vision. Indeed, the digital divide affects both North and South when examining further than the simple question of connectivity, although the latter obviously remains essential. When developing new uses for the Internet, the developing countries are just as inventive as the industrialised countries, once the question is not confined solely to equipment. This is a major breakthrough in itself, a North that no longer aids the South and a South that can aid the North : an opportunity that cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, the digital divide must be considered in its widest meaning as the difference that exists between users in their twofold capacity to access and contribute to the knowledge and meaning diffused on the Internet. Access to knowledge means drawing full benefit from the information diffused on the Internet and using it in line with one’s culture, capacities, needs, interests and hopes. Contributing to knowledge means fully participating in sharing information by dialogue, and producing and diffusing one’s own information and be capable of full participation in public debate.
Filling in this divide demands that policies and programmes must consider that technical access (infrastructures, private and community access points, hardware, software, basic user technical skills) is necessary but not enough. They must take into account the many economic, social, educational, linguistic, physical, cultural, religious, generational and gender barriers that prevent the user from accessing and contributing to the content conveyed and to their appropriate use. Programmes for generalised access must combine technical connectivity, basic technical training, vocational training and education, as well as the development of diverse, pertinent and enriching contents adapted to the interests and needs of varied audiences and publics. Access policies must avoid aiming only at individual access and privilege collective access at public places ; they must also avoid encouraging the passive consumption of commercial and public information. On the contrary, they must enhance and promote both individual and community participation and creativity in order to use the interactive potential provided by ICT as dynamically as possible in social, economic and cultural areas and democratic life as a whole.
The basic criteria of such an approach are to ensure that public access points are as diverse as possible, and encourage setting-up local and theme networks, adapted training courses, and varied contents.
Access programmes must be considered for the long term and be revised regularly by taking into account changes in technology and observing social and economic pertinence, needs, appropriate training and the costs required to make them endure in different socio-economic, geographic (urban/rural), generational and cultural contexts.
©© Vecam, article sous licence creative common
warning : This is an automatic translation, see the French original
One exploits a little the words and one remains fuzzy as well as possible on the problems of the physical access to the network of (télé)communication. It is thus necessary more clearly to announce your position : does the access have or not to be the basic element - i.e. sine qua not on which one conceives then carries out the contents according to your ideas ? They seem to me for the majority relevant.
In other words do you accept a common approach in two shutters particular - accesses and contained -, each one having its own problems but which cannot be disjoined in the implementation of "networks citizens" ?
In addition, your analysis of the "context" is in extreme cases of the lawsuit of intention by affirming that one of the problems is "the concentration of the reflexion on connectivity WITH the DEPENS of the questions of contents..." The position of CSDPTT which I represent in process SMSI is not exclusive "questions of contents" ; that did not prevent the Collective and Plenary ONG to pass to the trap door my proposals as regards topics in their "official" documents.
Exclusive focusing on the Internet - instrumentalized as only vector of the communication is at the same time partial and partial. Must I recall you that the audio-visual media are as "citizens" compared to the applications as the Internet, and their reception infinitely more flexible, economic and is spatially distributed ! In the same way, do you know really what one can do with a simple access to the switched network ? With you to read there are doubts, and one is dismayed of your reducing approach.
This reducing approach prevents you moreover from taking into account other problems in the immediate field and conditioning the applications which retain the essence of your reflexions and proposals. I take only one example : energy ! With you to read there is no problem to connect terminal Internet ; it is enough to connect it... One can dream, but not in a process where one engages seriously.
In the state, I am not ready to sign such a fuzzy and incomplete document. Then, if we have the chance to be in Bucharest (eternal problem of financing when one is "a small" ONG) one will make hear our voice again : it is also that of our African partners with whom we realize certainly modestly, but effectively the access of their fellow-citizens to the network AND A ITS CONTENTS. And in more with and thanks to their PARTICIPATION.
Allow me finally a regret : that to see French ONG more "embarked" in the transoceanic adventures WITH the real DEPENS of a hexagonal coaventure, i.e. of a coordination between French ONG sharing the same values. VECAM at the head.
Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT
Warning, this is an automatic translation, see the orginal version
Dear Jean-Louis,
I reacted here on a purely personal basis with your message, I leave to the other joint authors the care to decide. I can only be in complete agreement with your the first two paragraphs : access and contents are two distinct problems but which interact.
On your third paragragraphe, we did not aim obviously CSDPTT despite everything the importance which we attach to work of this association, but all national and international public institutions and the companies which seized the topic of the numerical fracture during last years.
Concerning focusing on the Internet, it leaves me perplexed. Indeed a whole paragraph of these proposals relate to the mixed media, the multi-media one with the direction first. moreover in Montreal we devoted various working sessions to this topic. As I believe as we are in phase, and the topic deserves to be still thorough.
Overall I am sorry than these "reducing" tracks of reflexion "dismay you". I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding between us on the statute of these tracks of proposals. They do not invite to thus in no case your signature do not take the trouble not to sign. They are there only to create debate, to exchange, make progress the ideas and to help us the ones the others to sensitize us with the problems which we carry, sometimes in an isolated way.
On the other hand I would be delighted that you can write a proposal on the questions of the energy which we would add in this site (or on any other topic of your choice). For the moment the function of inscription on line is not available because all the site of VEcam is in building site, while waiting I would be made a pleasure of poster any propsition.
Last point : it seems to to me difficle to show VECAM to neglect the French territory, knowing that this association is founder member of the networks VIlles Internet and I3C. It is within the latter network that we carry out a collective debate for the world top of the company of information. In any event, on problems such as those which occupy us, I do not see how we can think them only within the national framework. We should articulate the room permanently, the national and the international one, this was always the concern for VECAM.
Valérie Peugeot, VECAM
