It appears that there will be the development of at least two, perhaps
more, networked universes, that for the "poor" -- which by my definition,
includes every individual without institutional ties -- and commercial
institutions. In some cases, technical elements of the former piggyback
on the latter, but the actual exchange of information between them is
strictly forbidden.
It remains to be seen if the quality of information circulating on these
dichotomous networks is equal to the tasks imposed by their respective
users. Certainly, network technological capabilities in the largest sense
will be determined by commercial institutions, who control the
pursestrings and consequently most policy councils. But can "the other
Internet" develop guerrilla methods for camping upon these
accomplishments? This will be the ultimate test of the cliche' that
"technology is neutral."
This mailing list provides reasons to believe that the alternative net can
succeed in serving the interests of the poor. The question remains,
however, whether this service will match up to the services provided to
the commercial institutions. For example, a system to encourage
indigenous care for forest resources may have a romantic appeal, but if
the larger purpose of the underlying network is to coordinate systematic
plundering of rainforests, the result remains: unbalanced development.
It's a good thing to develop alternative uses of the net. Nevertheless,
it remains important -- perhaps more now than ever -- to identify and
attack uses of the net that continue to imbalance access to, and care for,
the world's resources. This task remains largely undone.
Bob Jacobson
SRI Consulting
Menlo Park, California USA
[These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.]
