Cyber-optimists,+Cyber-skeptics+and+Cyber-pessimists

toc There are three thoughts on digital divide: **
 * **Cyber-optimism**
 * **Cyber-skepticism**
 * **Cyber-pessimism**
 * **Cyber-pessimism**

The debate among those thoughts extends to all three aspects of the digital divide (the global divide, the social divide, and the democratic divide).

=**Global Divide**=

On global divide, i.e. the difference of digital technologies (e.g. internet access) between developed and developing societies,
 * **Cyber-optimists** think that the internet plays a positive role for transforming poverty in developing societies;
 * **Cyber-skeptics** believe that new technologies alone will not make any difference;
 * **Cyber-pessimists** emphasize that digital technologies will exacerbate the current global divide.

=Social Divide=

On social divide, i.e. the gap between information rich and poor in each nation,
 * **Cyber-optimists** think that the digital divide will be eased by the combined forces of technological innovations, markets and the state in affluent postindustrial societies;
 * **Cyber-skeptics** believe that technologies adapt to society, not vice versa;
 * **Cyber-pessimists** emphasize social stratification and the growth of an unskilled underclass in technological access.

=Democratic Divide=

On democratic divide, i.e. the difference between those who do, and do not, use digital resources to engage, mobilize and participate in public life,
 * **Cyber-optimists** (for example, George Gilder) Believe that ordinary citizens are able to become involved in direct democracy by using Internet. Unknown individuals and groups from around the world, will be able to reach out and be heard within the public sphere. Finally, cyber optimists believe that political communication online is fast, easy and cheap (Manuel, 283). For example, Single-issue, grass-roots organizations and protest politics (such as petitions, demonstrations and consumer boycotts) are able to organize, proselytize and communicate at low cost thanks to internet. This is essential to boost such groups;
 * **Cyber-skeptics** believe that the Internet does not have a dramatic impact on the reality of ‘politics as usual.' Skeptics propose the idea that technology is never fixedand will adapt to compensate for existing models and systems (Manuel, 280). Political parties and candidates have set up websites and sent voters e-mails. But studies show that internet campaigns cover the same voters who are also reached through regular mails and door-to-door visits;
 * **Cyber-pessimists** think that digital technology unleashes new inequalities of power and wealth, reinforces deeper divisions between the information rich and poor, the tuned-in and the tuned-out, the activists and the disengaged. The Internet will hold a negative effect in society that will in the end benefit only the elite (Manuel, 279). David Broder, a veteran political reporter and columnist on the Washington Post, believed that direct electronic ballots were too vulnerable to manipulate by powerful moneyed interests.

=Conclusion=

So far, none of these thoughts can completely explains the impact of digital divide. However, it seems that some thought is reasonable in some aspects. In a word, it is not a black-and-white situation.



=**Works Cited**=

Norris, Pippa. __Digital Divide : Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide__. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Castells, Manuel. "An Introduction to the Information Age." The Information Society Reader. Ed. Frank Webster, Raimo Blom, Erkki Karvonen, Harri Melin, Kaarle Nordenstreng, and Ensio Puoskari. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. 273- 283.

Manasian, David. “Power to the people.” __The Economist__ Vol 366 (2003): pp. Survey17, Survey22-Survey23.