According to the stats provided by Andy Carvin in “New Govt Report Exposes the School-Home Digital Divide” there is a digital divide. This is something we all know. However, he presents some data that most kids in school have internet access, no matter what their background is (race, parents’ education, gender). He also presents data that as soon as these kids go home, many of them no longer have access. But if the same kids have access in school, does that still mean that they are on the “wrong” side of the digital divide? Isn’t the point of the digital divide to separate the people with internet access with those without? And if they do have access somewhere, then shouldn’t they really should considered on the “right” side? And this brings me to another point… everyone (at least in the U.S.) is able to go to a public library. After all, it’s public. My guess is that a very big majority of libraries have internet access these days, so you could argue that basically everyone in the U.S. is on the right side of the divide.
So the question really isn’t whether we should do something about the digital divide, but whether we should get more people internet access at home. Or at least, that’s my interpretation of it. But why would we put so much effort in achieving this? There are plenty of people out there who don’t own a DVD player, or a simple coffee maker. Should we, then, also do something about the entertainment or caffeine divide?
