Annotated Bibliography

1.
AnJuan. "Bridging the Digital Divide in Africa." Black Web 2.0. 3 Nov. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. .
This article mainly focuses on the ways in which Africa is attempting to bride the digital divide. It states that they plan on expanding broadband penetration along with creating services that support the African people in becoming more connected. It also explains how the African government is going to accomplish these tasks.

2.
Mutume, Gumisai. "Africa Takes on the Digital Divide: New Information Technologies Change the Lives of Those in Reach." Africa Renewal. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. .

In this article, it gives you a sense of where Africa stands with the rest of the world. Explaining that Africa "has the fewest telephone lines, radios, televisions, computers, and internet users of any part of the world." Also, it explains that the digital divide is primarily due to Africa's extensive countryside. Additionally, it discussed a different way of bridging the digital divide. This mechanism of bridging the digital divide is the "digital solidarity" program. Advances that are enabled through new technologies and internet access are also discussed. For example, a South-African group of academics produced an online dictionary.

3.
Shiner, Cindy. "AllAfrica.com: Africa: Closing the Digital Divide." AllAfrica.com: Home. 16 Feb. 2009. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. .

This article covers the challenges Africa faces when developing information and communication technology (ICT). Some challenges include poor connectivity and congested lines. There is a huge pile up in the "provision of broadband internet." This also discusses how Africa is prevailing in it's efforts to bridge the digital divide. One other topic is the things that the usage technology in Africa is helping with. For example, it helped create a CD-ROM in which provided a truing course for HIV/Aids health care providers.

4.
Kent, Daniel. "Daniel Kent: The National Digital Literacy Corps." The Huffington Post. 26 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .

This article main;y discusses a way of bridging the digital divide in America. It states how "seniors, minorities, low-income and rural Americans" do not have as many resources or opportunities to become "digitally literate." It then discusses the "Connect to Compete" program, which helps "promote and teach digital literacy.

5.
Dyson, Lauren. "How Will Gov 2.0 Address the Digital Divide? | Code for America." Code for America | A New Kind of Public Service. 15 Feb. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .

What the digital divide is, is described in the beginning of this article. It states that "the digital divide refers to the gap between those with access to information technology, and those with ineffective or no access." It also explains how "access" does not just pertain to those are unable to utilize the internet physically, but also to those who do not have the "skills and knowledge" required to use technology effectively. Common factors that attribute to the lack of internet usage are also discussed. Examples are income and education, along withe race. One other point is the advantage that urban residents have over rural residents. Finally it discusses the mission of "Code for America", which is to improve citizen access.

6.
Hertz, Mary Beth. "A New Understanding of the Digital Divide | Edutopia." Edutopia. 24 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .

The beginning of this article explains what the digit divide is, and how it has expanded. It touches on other groups affected by the digital divide, like the Americans that have disabilities. Also, it explains a solution that has been provided, which is Comcast launching Internet Essentials. Internet essentials is a "low cost internet service provided for families" that receive a free school lunch.


Each of these articles listed connect to my initial proposal in basically the same way. In my digital story, I question "what is social justice and digital media"? My conclusion was when people of the world do not have the same opportunities to access the digital media tools, such as the internet, or as stated in several of the articles, information and communication technology (ICT), as other people. Mostly in my initial proposal I discussed it was mainly because these foreign countries do not have access to ICT, but upon further research I learned it also has to do with having access, but not knowing how to use such things like computers, smart phones and the internet. Both of these types of social justice and digital media are discussed throughout the articles I have found.

WebLog 10

Is Facebook a superorganism?

First, what is a superorganism? "A superorganism is a group of individual organisms or cells that functions as an integral social or biological unit" (http://www.bugsinthenews.com/Definition%20of%20Superorganism.htm). In a superorganism, each individual unit involved does not have to work with the other to contrive the superorganism. In this sense, yes, Facebook is very much a superorganism. Millions of people, each day, make Facebook what it is today. Each user individually contributes its own to Facebook, but it doesn't necessarily effect every other user on Facebook. Each user has their own individual goals, and through that, make Facebook a superorganism. It is not entirely like a superorganism in the sense that, the components of a superorganism are unable survive without their superorganism for very long. It is evident that people are able to live without Facebook, therefore, it is not a true superorganism.

WebLog 9

“Describe an example of Emergent Behavior that you participated in or that you witnessed”
Justify why your example constitutes Emergence, describe the scenario from both your individual perspective and a global perspective (outside observer)

Before I could accurately describe and example of Emergent Behavior, I had to first do research and figure out what exactly Emergent Behavior is. Through my research I found that Emergent Behavior is "behavior of a system that is not explicitly described by the behavior of the components of the system, and is therefore unexpected to a designer or observer" (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EmergentBehavior). To explain that definition, I interpreted Emergent Behavior as when you have a bunch of parts, like in a bike. And each part has its own set of properties, like the bell, chain, and wheels. When you put all of the parts together they make something completely different, in the case a bicycle that is used for transpiration or a sport. Another example of Emergent Behavior would be something I participated in during class Wednesday. Everyone who participated had on colored shirts with letters on the back and numbers on the front. The group as a whole was asked to do different tasks. The one task that sticks out the most was when the group as a whole had to create a letter. Half of the room started forming an M, then it turned into a W, and then without knowledge of everyone participating it turned into the letter e. Only part of the group was affected by turning into the e, and the rest was pretty much clueless that they were in an e. Another form could be traffic jams. Each individual is contributing by either slowing down, stopping or speeding up, yet half of the time none of them know how exactly they are contributing.

WebLog 7 & 8

Question 1: The US government should institute formal policy that bars overseas sales of systems that provide targeted Internet surveillance if such systems are used to violate human rights or freedom of speech (such as the current internet censorship in China).

Google, an American based company, is known for helping Internet users find websites and general information. If there is something one is unsure of, we can use the phrase, “just Google it”! Is it right for an American based company to “violate human rights or freedom of speech”? To continue my example, Google is expanding oversees to China and they are agreeing to comply with Chinas censorship, even though that is against our rights as Americans. After looking at the history of Google on the Google website I found the Google mission statement, which is “Google’s mission is to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful”(Google). After reading their statement it sure doesn’t seem like they would branch to China and then censor their products. To answer the original question, I do believe that the US Government should be able to keep businesses like Google from selling their products to other countries if it means violating human rights. We as Americans are one hundred percent about freedom of speech and human rights, and if American companies are then agreeing to censor material in other countries we are no better than them. I believe that this is going against everything we stand for and isn’t right.
Yet, in Google’s argument is they are reportedly “the second-most widely used information-gathering service in China after that of Baidu, a Chinese company, and is the least censored, according to one study”(Figliola 7). After reading an excerpt from “U.S. Initiatives to Promote Global Internet Freedom: Issues, Policy, and Technology”, I also learned that when searching on Google in China and a page is blocked, it doesn’t just say error, it just says that by the Chinese laws one is unable to view this web page, so the searcher knows there is more information, but the Chinese government is just not allowing it. I personally think that shows that Google obviously does not agree with the laws in China. They also claim in a congressional committee that working with China isn’t easy for them. They feel as though the censorship in going against their beliefs. In this case, I still question, why do it then? Overall, I can’t really try to defend Google, because I personally do not agree what they are doing is right, and clearly neither do they. I feel like it is going against the basic nature of us as Americans.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148797.pdf
This pdf has a lot of information not only on Googles relations with China, but Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft.

Question 2: The evolving capabilities to speak out and criticize the Chinese government using microblogs and other Internet social media will lead to more and greater freedoms for the Chinese people.


I was discussing China’s censorship with a friend of mine who is from China, and it helped me form the opinion that in the long run the Chinese people will not gain more freedom from microblogs and other Internet sites. As my Chinese friend, Kahim, put it, with Internet or no Internet, you can’t stop freedom of speech. They still have the capabilities to say way they want, no matter what, they just have to be careful what they say and how they say it, so they do not offend the government in a way that could get them in trouble. Using the social media in a way to criticize the government, I feel, will only lead to less freedom because they will just censor more and more material. After watching a YouTube video provided in class called “Great Firewall of China (Hungry Beast),” it is clear that no matter what new media the Chinese receive they are still significantly held back. For example, if they even upload something to the Internet that the Chinese government doesn’t agree with, their whole computer gets blocked. In this case they are banned in the way in which if they wanted to use certain pictures to put in their microblog that the government felt was offensive they would not be able to do so. Therefore, in this sense they cannot gain more freedoms, they are still just held back. After reading an article on a website titled ChinaVeiw, I almost changed my opinion. In this article it talks about how a man named Ai Weiwei, had an essay he had written censored. It was published in a magazine, and it stated a lot about the government that the government did not approve of. It was then ripped out of the magazines so the Chinese people were unable to view it. Even though the Chinese have the great firewall the article still circulated around online, so people were able to view it. This backs up what I stated earlier, the people are still able to say what they want, the government can only try to stop them to an extent. I am confused on why the government did not censor that article online though. This also proves that the use of the Internet does not necessarily give the Chinese people more freedom, just another way of expressing their opinion.
Overall I feel as though the Internet and microblogs do not give the Chinese people more freedoms. Their rights have not changed at all. They still are not allowed to do certain things on the Internet and if they choose to, they risk the chance of getting censored or what ever else the Chinese government may do. Yes, their horizons have broadened in the way in which they can now express themselves in multiple different ways, but they still have the same laws to abide by, and certain rules to follow. If people continue to ignore these laws and rules, it will only get them in trouble and possibly lead to more laws and more censorship.