I know about this, a little. My wonderful mum (71) is one of the disenfranchised.  She has had potential access to the Internet for years, but she doesn’t use it for banking, shopping, entertainment, information, communication or news. Largely, she uses it because other people (me and my sister) want her to. I recall her telling me last year:

I go on the Internet once a week, just so I can remember how to do it. But once I’m there, I’ve no idea what I might want to do.

When it comes to the ‘fear factor’, she’s definitely worried about what it might do to her phone bill*. It took her 10 years to use an ATM, so I can’t see Internet banking on the cards in the near future. But more pertinently, she hasn’t really seen the point. She gets online; gets to MSN or whatever it is and there’s nothing there for her. I get that.

More recently, she’s joined a local library programme to learn more about computers and the Internet. She’s actually a lot happier about using their computers than the one she’s got at home: she can’t break anything and she can’t run-up a massive phone bill. The lessons have been a bit disappointing, though: apparently, copy-and-paste has been on the agenda three weeks running, without any indication why anyone would want to copy and paste anything. No one did that before, you see.

She sends me an email once a week on Wednesdays at 10am. I love that and always reply immediately, but by that point her allotted hour is finished.

And I’m sorry, but I do wonder what’s the point?

No shiny media campaign will make people like mum love the Web. Oh, I know there’s a gazillion silver surfers and online communities for the elderly and bingo and everything. But she’s happier with what she’s got and has always had. Our society is utterly selfish, self-serving and hateful to try to make her feel inadequate for not using the Web. Even more so when it makes it harder for her to access information and services because she doesn’t.

* she still says thing like ‘I know this is running up your bill, so I won’t be long’.

image credit: Ricky

The Digital Economy Bill – a noxious concoction of entertainment industry fear and our government’s desire to license and monitor everything – is likely to be passed imminently.

Under the guise of protecting copyright holders, the Bill seeks to monitor your internet use, close down your ability to use popular services and restrict access. Your internet connection will be cut off if you are suspected to have repeatedly infringed others’ copyright. Your ISP will be required to track your download habits and share their records with copyright holders. It could see the death of open wifi in public spaces. The bill is opposed by ISPs, internet experts and web giants like Google and Yahoo.

Fortunately, even slackers like you and I can help prevent this happening. There’s a clever, automated find-and-email-your-MP site that takes just two minutes to complete. If you go with the pre-written text, it looks like this:

I’m writing to you today because I’m very worried that the Government is planning to rush the Digital Economy Bill into law without a full Parliamentary debate.

The law is controversial and contains many measures that concern me. The controversial Bill deserves proper scrutiny so please don’t let the government rush it through. Many people think it will damage schools and businesses as well as innocent people who rely on the internet because it will allow the Government to disconnect people it suspects of copyright infringement.

Industry experts, internet service providers (like Talk Talk and BT) and huge internet companies like Google and Yahoo are all opposing the bill – yet the Government seems intent on forcing it through without a real debate.

As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you to do all you can to ensure the Government doesn’t just rush the bill through and deny us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate.

If you have a few more moments, then write to your local paper.

picture credit: nolifebeforecoffee

My estwhile colleague, the excellent David Gauntlett, has posted a new video about the work towards his next book Making is Connecting:

The video argues that certain forms of digital/social media practise offer the hope of personal and communal redemption. When we publish stuff or make things online or get together with others in a common cause online to do practical things, then the value of that activity goes beyond the intrinsic value of whatever artefact is produced: we’re connecting with other people and increasing our social capital. We’re making ourselves happier as a consequence and establishing or reinforcing communities that might do social good. Becoming a member of wikipedia or getting together with others to do some guerilla gardening are new opportunities that help us get over the cultural, spiritual and social slump that constituted C20th mass media. That era is characterised as one of consumption rather than creation, the renewed promise of the C21st through the magic of digital.

I love all this and a big part of me would like to leave this post here. But then I’d have to rename this blog twopointhappyclappy. This is terribly unfair, I know, given that Gauntlett’s book is only half-finished. but meh.

My main issue is that I’m tempted to say ‘so what?’

So what if some people become more happy, productive, social as a consequence of this? That’s all lovely but there’s no challenge to power in any of this. There’s no real change to the world. The mandarins at Whitehall aren’t going to be shaking in their boots. I imagine the scene:

Bernard (rushes in breathless): Sir Humphrey!?

Sir Humphrey (for it is he): Yes, Bernard (arches a brow)

Bernard: It’s the internet people, sir. They’re making things!

Sir Hunphrey: What’s this? Barricades across the Mall? Million man marches into Parliament Square?

Bernard: No, sir. It’s something different.. It’s…

Sir Humphrey (exasperated): Spit it out, Bernard.

Bernard: They’re making community gardens on disused land and infographics about motorway jams.

Sir Humphrey (sighs): Oh, Bernard. Why on earth do you think we spent all that money on data.gov.uk?

Getting people involved in creative community and personal projects is clearly a good thing. I have no argument with that. I agree that this change will probably make things better. And happier. But I want more better. An intelligent networked commons has the opportunity to make government, parliament, business and international affairs work differently: to be more accountable, changeable and responsive; to empower people to do as much as they can, and find other people so they can do more; possibly wreak radical change to the whole system*. I feel a little short-changed by Gauntlett’s account, in short. I think our expectations can and ought to be higher.

picture credit: Kelly Sue

*(I remain vague on this – sorry)

The BBC quotes Fred Tipson, MS’ senior policy counsel, who says:

“Things are getting bad… and perhaps we have to look again at our presence there,” he told a conference in Athens.

“We have to decide if the persecuting of bloggers reaches a point that it’s unacceptable to do business there.”

“We try to define those levels and the trends are not good there at the moment. It’s a moving target.”

I’m interested in this, of course, because Google and Yahoo! have previously defended their decision to remain in China on the grounds that their presence is more likely to precipitate change and improvements than staying away. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft do indeed act against China, and if this propels action from other companies.

So sad, though, that it’s left to major corporations to take the moral stands our governments should be taking.

Here’s what a company spokesperson told me:

“Yahoo! opposes the punishment of any person on the grounds of what may be called free speech. We firmly oppose that. However, we have to abide by the local laws of whatever country we operate in. If we did not, it could lead to the imprisonment of our own employees. These are legal demands. We don’t give out any information except to accredited legal authorities. Also, they don’t typically tell us what the information is for. They have a warrant and we have to comply.”

So why operate in China, then, if it might lead to morally precarious actions?

“We believe that Chinese people are better off with Yahoo! than they would be otherwise. The benefits of having better access to the internet and the spread of knowledge that implies outweigh these concerns. But we have to obey the laws of the countries that we operate in.”

So what legal obligations are you under in China?

“You’d have to ask Alibaba about that. They have operated Yahoo! China since 2005. We have policies about what we will do, but we don’t know the exact restrictions.”

Satisfied? Sure you are…