Hi everyone,
Due to reasons beyond our control, Hotmail is blocking most emails from Nexopia. If you have an email address that ends in @live, @hotmail or @msn THIS AFFECTS YOU.
How does it affect you?
It means you won’t get:
Here’s what we can tell you:
We hope to have things back to normal very soon. If you have any more questions, feel free to post them as a comment and we'll answer them as fast as we can.
Due to reasons beyond our control, Hotmail is blocking most emails from Nexopia. If you have an email address that ends in @live, @hotmail or @msn THIS AFFECTS YOU.
How does it affect you?
It means you won’t get:
- account activations/password change emails
- messages forwarded to email
- invitations/updates
- answers from staff (if you emailed us)
Here’s what we can tell you:
- If you know someone that is having trouble signing up, tell them that using a different email provider (like Yahoo or Gmail) should help them get their activation emails.
- We know there are people who spam on Nexopia. We hate them too. To report them, use the report abuse button on their profile. That’ll show us where the problem is so we can eliminate them. If you click the “report as spam” button when you’re looking at emails, that doesn’t fix the problem at all.
- If you don’t want to get your Nexopia messages/updates sent to your email address, click preferences, then under the general tab, find the private messaging section. Uncheck “forward private messages to email” and “forward site messages to email”, click update preferences and presto—no more emails from Nexopia.
- If you have questions that you’ve emailed us, try emailing from a non-Hotmail address, or just contact NexopiaHelp for now.
We hope to have things back to normal very soon. If you have any more questions, feel free to post them as a comment and we'll answer them as fast as we can.
Humans are social creatures. Our social groups have ranged from small hunter-gatherer societies to the giant metropolises that are becoming more and more numerous as humans flourish. With this societal expansion, comes the expansion of infrastructure, of relationships, of technology and of communication. One of the greatest inventions of the 20th century was the internet. It was a new form of communication that was fast and easy, and it has subsequently become one of the most widely used forms of communication on the planet. However, it is still not readily available to everyone, nor does it at all guarantee the democracy of communication and information to whom it is available. Subsequently, the lack of democratic access to the internet makes it difficult for significant groups of people to participate in this increasingly important method of communication, and thus it disempowers them through removing them from this sphere of influence. They are being forgotten.
It is the case that many cultural groups in developing nations are being left out of the important communicative sphere that is the internet. Gill Kirkup argues that the internet is the play space of white, high- income and mainly English speaking men (2001:45). While Kirkup made his assertion 7 years ago, and the internet and globalization has seen rapid expansion very quickly in recent years, information from the World Bank's World Development Indicators showed that in 2006 while internationally, only 21 out of every 100 people were internet users, 59 out of every 100 people in high income nations used the internet, while only two out of every 100 in the least developed nations (by UN classification) used the internet. This is a very unfortunate fact, and supports Gill Kirkup's assertion, because it shows that less affluent nations use the internet much less than those that are affluent. In addition, the numbers of users in the affluent nations are high enough that they show that the privileged members of those societies are able to have access to the internet, but still leave room in the non-internet users category to account for those who live in the developed nation, that are poor and thus would not have easy access. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, if we are concerned with assuring the continuing growth of developing nations and the growth, modernization and improved quality of life for all nations.
In October of 1972, Bob Kahn organized a very large and successful demonstration of what was known as the ARPANET, the direct precursor the internet as we know it today (Leiner et al. 1999). Since the invention of the internet in the late 60s and early 70s, its development and proliferation has been rapid. According to the World Bank's World Development Indicators, there were less than 0 users per 100 people of the internet in the world in 1990, which rose to three per 100 in 1998, and then very quickly to 23 per 100 in 2006. In high income countries, at the same time span, it began at zero, rose to 17 in 1998, and then 59 in 2006. It is extremely apparent that the internet is expanding rapidly, but clearly to a much lesser degree in developing nations than developed nations. This will have a significant effect on these countries' ability to partake in the global public sphere, due to their demonstrated lack of ability to remain informed on the global economy, and in the skills needed to subsequently be successful.
According to Peter Dahlgren, an operational public sphere is a network of communicative spaces, which allow for the distribution of ideas, of information and of debate, and allows for the formation of political will. In addition, the spaces serve as a forum for the public to communicate with the power holders (2005:148). As Aristotle said, "Man is by nature a political animal", or rendered more appropriate in translation by contemporary scholars, "Man is an animal whose nature it is to live in a polis". Thus, it is important for cultural groups to have access to the internet, because it is important to the public sphere, the polis, and thus to humanity. Communication is the facilitator in power relationships, especially in democracies. The power holder is the person who was able to influence the voters through their communication of ideas. Their ideas had the vast majority of influence, but if they are not able to communicate these ideas effectively, their points would be rendered moot.
The internet has crucial implications for international communication. Dahlgren proposes that the internet has become not only relevant in the public sphere of communication, but also that it is central (2005:155). The internet provides this miraculous new medium that gives those who do have access an equal opportunity to participate and discuss these issues and have access to knowledge. The organizational code of the internet is that there is no organization; censorship is insufferable, and the very principle of the internet is to work around that fact (Rafaeli 1996:5). This makes it unique in that for those who do have access, it is entirely free. There does not need to be editors as there are in newspapers, there is relatively easy access to information about any side of a particular debate, and it offers the internet users the opportunity to participate in discussion with other people, and subsequently learn important facts and knowledge that could significantly improve or alter their lives and their ability to create or to find a livelihood.
The importance of human communication, and the fact that we can transfer knowledge through communication, is a basic foundation of human culture. While traditionally, psychology theory has emphasized how humans learn through trial-and-error, Albert Bandura emphasizes that if this were to be the only way that humans learned, our human knowledge and development would be greatly encumbered. It is a great benefit to humans that we are not forced to re-learn every cultural detail of our lives and society individually, and that rather we are able to begin with an established value-set learned from our parents and our culture, and then develop from there (2001:270). Historically, theory about methods of communication, specifically symbolic communication were confined to the experiences a person encounters in their everyday life, whereas in contemporary society, there is a much larger range of models to which people are exposed (Bandura 2001:271). Symbolic communication is the exchange of ideas which changes the expectation of events before it happens; it provides information about an event prior to its occurrence. Symbolic communication is one of the most important forms of communication that one can encounter on the internet, because it is directly applicable to life. It is and has always been important for human survival. It would be especially important for less affluent people to learn this information because it could drastically affect their ability and capacity to participate in the global economy.
The importance of the internet is that it expands the aptitude for the exchange of knowledge across boundaries that are perhaps difficult to pass otherwise. Lincoln Dahlberg describes this as "the two-way, decentralized and time/distance-defying communication of cyberspace" (2005:93). The fact that the internet does this provides humans with the capacity to further inform each other in a symbolic communication capacity, which is incredibly important for the advancement and development of all nations and cultures.
Beth Conklin says that in the 1990s, there was a major turning point for global society, in that the new ability of ideas, vocabularies, symbols and transnational organizational networks created an opportunity for society to reevaluate the position of indigenous groups in modern society, thanks to new options of mass media, particularly the new proliferation of internet technologies (2006:161). "New indigenism", as Conklin describes it, is concerned with assuring that native peoples are full citizens in the global community, for reasons beyond basic human rights; indigenous peoples do not belong in the community in spite of their differences, but because of them (2006:162). The internet is important in this capacity because it is able to proliferate knowledge and information about these differences. It can teach other people in the world about these practices, and spread the symbolic communications about them. Prejudice is born out of ignorance, and the internet provides a medium for indigenous peoples to try and solve and lift the ignorance of many people in the world.
It is not only indigenous cultures however, who have to worry about social marginalization in this time of rapidly advancing internet technology. The poor citizens of developed nations also have issues in this area. John McNutt argues that the Information Technology Age will change the face of poverty in America; that "physical, mental and geographic challenges will become less important [in terms of overcoming poverty], while education, computer and information literacy and access to communication networks and information technology" will become crucial to the inclusion of oneself in the economy of the nation (1998:35). Sufficient access to information technology is a commonsensical condition to participation in the information economy, and while the more affluent members of society are able to purchase the items needed for this, the poor are not and while some may have access to these at their school or work, this is not always the case. Accordingly African-Americans, low-income people, Native Americans, Hispanics and other habitually subjugated groups have far less opportunities to access information technology, as is often the case in the United States (McNutt 1998:37). It is important for the United States to consider these issues because a democratic country is only as powerful as its citizens allow it to be. By propagating the social marginalization of an entire group of people, the poor, the United States is limiting the power it can have. In 2006, the World Development Indicators showed that 69 out of every 100 people in the United States are internet users. That is a very high number when compared relatively to the world on average, and especially to developing nations, but for a country that is supposedly so affluent and powerful, the number could be higher, especially considering how pervasive the internet is in everyday life.
Helen Johnson says that technology and government policies that frame its use have social effects (2003:62). Socioeconomic marginalization, arising from the undemocratic access to the internet and information technology, "will affect the poor, particularly those without access to technology, information and knowledge" (Phang as cited in Johnson, 2003:62). She raises the issue of mainstream technology paradigms representing the issue as purely technological, versus the social problem that it is. Johnson in her survey found that technology does in fact have social consequences, and can amplify social marginalization by way of gender, religious and cultural differences, as was exemplified by the Malaysian subjects she studied (2003:74). These results are not surprising, because these are universal problems that transcend the advent of information technology. All society has splits along social status lines, in terms of class divisions, of labour divisions, of gender and sex, and of ethnic background. The problem now becomes why it is important for focus to be immediately and strongly placed on ensuring the inclusion of these oftentimes marginalized groups into these new arenas of communication, power and influence.
Gili S. Drori says that it is obvious that not only is there a significant difference in access to the internet and technology among varying states and cultural groups, but these differences tend to fall along the already preset contours of social status criteria (2006:71). Thus, internet and information technology falls under the numerous social inequalities that exist in our world. The digital divide however is an inequality that seems to have attracted an inordinate amount of attention, when compared to other inequalities. Drori believes that the attention placed on the inequality of internet access and access to information technology is because of its implications for globalization (2006:72). Because the internet is rapidly become the primary form of communication and information dissemination among the developed world, it is important that the developing nations also have access to the internet because as underprivileged as they are in terms of state capital, they are important for industry and trade for developing nations. If they were to be left out of this, it would spell disaster for the developed countries.
Drori asserts that because the digital divide is in contrast with the norms of "progress" and "justice", it is seen as something that needs to be solved rapidly. Progress is defined as "the collective development or accumulation of resources measured mainly in economic terms" and justice is defined as "fairness and equality in terms of access to or outcome from social resources" (2007:72). The digital divide contrasts these ideals because, as aforementioned, the internet is fast becoming the dominant mode of communication in the new globalized world, and not having access to the internet can do nothing but infringe on the ability of people to participate.
By being removed from this source of influence, these peoples are disempowered. If they do not have the ability to access the internet, and thus acquire power through the dissemination and acquiring of knowledge outside of their typical every-day encounters, it affects their ability to learn. Bandura described how if humans were forced to learn through trial- and-error individually, without being able to reference the past ways of living, learned through communication, society would be functionally retarded (2007:270). The internet is important, because it provides more ways for humans to learn about the other trial-and-errors of other people, in spheres outside their own, which then expands their human knowledge and thus their capacity to learn even more. When a significant portion of people are unable to participate in this forum of communication, it disallows them from learning, and thus puts them at a significant disadvantage to the rest of the world, who does have access, and who can subsequently learn more, and thus create and innovate more.
The digital divide is clearly a very large gap, and the solution to bridging the gap is neither simple, nor easy, nor singular. The onus, however, does as almost always it does, fall in the hands of policymakers (Drori 2006:139). One of the major issues Drori addresses was previously mentioned by John McNutt, and that is the fact that technological literacy is fast becoming a key skill necessary for succeeding in the global economy. The problem is this, is that it propagates a vicious cycle of technological illiteracy in the less affluent members of society and the globe at large (2006: 140). Those who are poor are already less likely to be technologically literate, because they do not possess the resources to become such; they cannot afford a computer, and likely live in an area where free or easy access to a computer, with internet access, is not readily available. Thus they cannot become technologically literate, and subsequently are not able to become more involved in the global economy.
The result is for policymakers to make concerted efforts to lessen this gap. It is necessary for those who have the power, to create access points for people to become technologically literate. Although it may cost money for the government or otherwise on some level immediately, it would be economically ideal because it would increase the labour base of the country, and give more people more opportunities to find jobs, which lowers the unemployment rate, and helps the economy of the country over all.
Social and cultural groups have been marginalized in the information age, because of their lack of access to the internet. This is a fact. However, it is also a fact that if developed and affluent nations were to work together to solve this problem, it would be beneficial for the entire globe. Particularly on an economic scale, because it further educates and expands the international work force. But it also is important on a social scale, because the dissemination of information and of knowledge between people is and has always been important to the further development and evolution of society. Thus it is important for anthropologists, sociologists, and other social scientists to bring these issues to the attention of policymakers. There are practical applications for the theoretical discussions addressed by social scientists, and it is their duty to bring these issues to the foreground, and to do what they can to ensure that solutions are proposed and found for these problems. If non- politicians were not so often quick to dismiss politics as petty and useless, perhaps the digital divide and other social inequalities would be quicker solved, because, as the proverb says, two heads are better than one. And there are certainly more than two heads in the anthropological world.
It is the case that many cultural groups in developing nations are being left out of the important communicative sphere that is the internet. Gill Kirkup argues that the internet is the play space of white, high- income and mainly English speaking men (2001:45). While Kirkup made his assertion 7 years ago, and the internet and globalization has seen rapid expansion very quickly in recent years, information from the World Bank's World Development Indicators showed that in 2006 while internationally, only 21 out of every 100 people were internet users, 59 out of every 100 people in high income nations used the internet, while only two out of every 100 in the least developed nations (by UN classification) used the internet. This is a very unfortunate fact, and supports Gill Kirkup's assertion, because it shows that less affluent nations use the internet much less than those that are affluent. In addition, the numbers of users in the affluent nations are high enough that they show that the privileged members of those societies are able to have access to the internet, but still leave room in the non-internet users category to account for those who live in the developed nation, that are poor and thus would not have easy access. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, if we are concerned with assuring the continuing growth of developing nations and the growth, modernization and improved quality of life for all nations.
In October of 1972, Bob Kahn organized a very large and successful demonstration of what was known as the ARPANET, the direct precursor the internet as we know it today (Leiner et al. 1999). Since the invention of the internet in the late 60s and early 70s, its development and proliferation has been rapid. According to the World Bank's World Development Indicators, there were less than 0 users per 100 people of the internet in the world in 1990, which rose to three per 100 in 1998, and then very quickly to 23 per 100 in 2006. In high income countries, at the same time span, it began at zero, rose to 17 in 1998, and then 59 in 2006. It is extremely apparent that the internet is expanding rapidly, but clearly to a much lesser degree in developing nations than developed nations. This will have a significant effect on these countries' ability to partake in the global public sphere, due to their demonstrated lack of ability to remain informed on the global economy, and in the skills needed to subsequently be successful.
According to Peter Dahlgren, an operational public sphere is a network of communicative spaces, which allow for the distribution of ideas, of information and of debate, and allows for the formation of political will. In addition, the spaces serve as a forum for the public to communicate with the power holders (2005:148). As Aristotle said, "Man is by nature a political animal", or rendered more appropriate in translation by contemporary scholars, "Man is an animal whose nature it is to live in a polis". Thus, it is important for cultural groups to have access to the internet, because it is important to the public sphere, the polis, and thus to humanity. Communication is the facilitator in power relationships, especially in democracies. The power holder is the person who was able to influence the voters through their communication of ideas. Their ideas had the vast majority of influence, but if they are not able to communicate these ideas effectively, their points would be rendered moot.
The internet has crucial implications for international communication. Dahlgren proposes that the internet has become not only relevant in the public sphere of communication, but also that it is central (2005:155). The internet provides this miraculous new medium that gives those who do have access an equal opportunity to participate and discuss these issues and have access to knowledge. The organizational code of the internet is that there is no organization; censorship is insufferable, and the very principle of the internet is to work around that fact (Rafaeli 1996:5). This makes it unique in that for those who do have access, it is entirely free. There does not need to be editors as there are in newspapers, there is relatively easy access to information about any side of a particular debate, and it offers the internet users the opportunity to participate in discussion with other people, and subsequently learn important facts and knowledge that could significantly improve or alter their lives and their ability to create or to find a livelihood.
The importance of human communication, and the fact that we can transfer knowledge through communication, is a basic foundation of human culture. While traditionally, psychology theory has emphasized how humans learn through trial-and-error, Albert Bandura emphasizes that if this were to be the only way that humans learned, our human knowledge and development would be greatly encumbered. It is a great benefit to humans that we are not forced to re-learn every cultural detail of our lives and society individually, and that rather we are able to begin with an established value-set learned from our parents and our culture, and then develop from there (2001:270). Historically, theory about methods of communication, specifically symbolic communication were confined to the experiences a person encounters in their everyday life, whereas in contemporary society, there is a much larger range of models to which people are exposed (Bandura 2001:271). Symbolic communication is the exchange of ideas which changes the expectation of events before it happens; it provides information about an event prior to its occurrence. Symbolic communication is one of the most important forms of communication that one can encounter on the internet, because it is directly applicable to life. It is and has always been important for human survival. It would be especially important for less affluent people to learn this information because it could drastically affect their ability and capacity to participate in the global economy.
The importance of the internet is that it expands the aptitude for the exchange of knowledge across boundaries that are perhaps difficult to pass otherwise. Lincoln Dahlberg describes this as "the two-way, decentralized and time/distance-defying communication of cyberspace" (2005:93). The fact that the internet does this provides humans with the capacity to further inform each other in a symbolic communication capacity, which is incredibly important for the advancement and development of all nations and cultures.
Beth Conklin says that in the 1990s, there was a major turning point for global society, in that the new ability of ideas, vocabularies, symbols and transnational organizational networks created an opportunity for society to reevaluate the position of indigenous groups in modern society, thanks to new options of mass media, particularly the new proliferation of internet technologies (2006:161). "New indigenism", as Conklin describes it, is concerned with assuring that native peoples are full citizens in the global community, for reasons beyond basic human rights; indigenous peoples do not belong in the community in spite of their differences, but because of them (2006:162). The internet is important in this capacity because it is able to proliferate knowledge and information about these differences. It can teach other people in the world about these practices, and spread the symbolic communications about them. Prejudice is born out of ignorance, and the internet provides a medium for indigenous peoples to try and solve and lift the ignorance of many people in the world.
It is not only indigenous cultures however, who have to worry about social marginalization in this time of rapidly advancing internet technology. The poor citizens of developed nations also have issues in this area. John McNutt argues that the Information Technology Age will change the face of poverty in America; that "physical, mental and geographic challenges will become less important [in terms of overcoming poverty], while education, computer and information literacy and access to communication networks and information technology" will become crucial to the inclusion of oneself in the economy of the nation (1998:35). Sufficient access to information technology is a commonsensical condition to participation in the information economy, and while the more affluent members of society are able to purchase the items needed for this, the poor are not and while some may have access to these at their school or work, this is not always the case. Accordingly African-Americans, low-income people, Native Americans, Hispanics and other habitually subjugated groups have far less opportunities to access information technology, as is often the case in the United States (McNutt 1998:37). It is important for the United States to consider these issues because a democratic country is only as powerful as its citizens allow it to be. By propagating the social marginalization of an entire group of people, the poor, the United States is limiting the power it can have. In 2006, the World Development Indicators showed that 69 out of every 100 people in the United States are internet users. That is a very high number when compared relatively to the world on average, and especially to developing nations, but for a country that is supposedly so affluent and powerful, the number could be higher, especially considering how pervasive the internet is in everyday life.
Helen Johnson says that technology and government policies that frame its use have social effects (2003:62). Socioeconomic marginalization, arising from the undemocratic access to the internet and information technology, "will affect the poor, particularly those without access to technology, information and knowledge" (Phang as cited in Johnson, 2003:62). She raises the issue of mainstream technology paradigms representing the issue as purely technological, versus the social problem that it is. Johnson in her survey found that technology does in fact have social consequences, and can amplify social marginalization by way of gender, religious and cultural differences, as was exemplified by the Malaysian subjects she studied (2003:74). These results are not surprising, because these are universal problems that transcend the advent of information technology. All society has splits along social status lines, in terms of class divisions, of labour divisions, of gender and sex, and of ethnic background. The problem now becomes why it is important for focus to be immediately and strongly placed on ensuring the inclusion of these oftentimes marginalized groups into these new arenas of communication, power and influence.
Gili S. Drori says that it is obvious that not only is there a significant difference in access to the internet and technology among varying states and cultural groups, but these differences tend to fall along the already preset contours of social status criteria (2006:71). Thus, internet and information technology falls under the numerous social inequalities that exist in our world. The digital divide however is an inequality that seems to have attracted an inordinate amount of attention, when compared to other inequalities. Drori believes that the attention placed on the inequality of internet access and access to information technology is because of its implications for globalization (2006:72). Because the internet is rapidly become the primary form of communication and information dissemination among the developed world, it is important that the developing nations also have access to the internet because as underprivileged as they are in terms of state capital, they are important for industry and trade for developing nations. If they were to be left out of this, it would spell disaster for the developed countries.
Drori asserts that because the digital divide is in contrast with the norms of "progress" and "justice", it is seen as something that needs to be solved rapidly. Progress is defined as "the collective development or accumulation of resources measured mainly in economic terms" and justice is defined as "fairness and equality in terms of access to or outcome from social resources" (2007:72). The digital divide contrasts these ideals because, as aforementioned, the internet is fast becoming the dominant mode of communication in the new globalized world, and not having access to the internet can do nothing but infringe on the ability of people to participate.
By being removed from this source of influence, these peoples are disempowered. If they do not have the ability to access the internet, and thus acquire power through the dissemination and acquiring of knowledge outside of their typical every-day encounters, it affects their ability to learn. Bandura described how if humans were forced to learn through trial- and-error individually, without being able to reference the past ways of living, learned through communication, society would be functionally retarded (2007:270). The internet is important, because it provides more ways for humans to learn about the other trial-and-errors of other people, in spheres outside their own, which then expands their human knowledge and thus their capacity to learn even more. When a significant portion of people are unable to participate in this forum of communication, it disallows them from learning, and thus puts them at a significant disadvantage to the rest of the world, who does have access, and who can subsequently learn more, and thus create and innovate more.
The digital divide is clearly a very large gap, and the solution to bridging the gap is neither simple, nor easy, nor singular. The onus, however, does as almost always it does, fall in the hands of policymakers (Drori 2006:139). One of the major issues Drori addresses was previously mentioned by John McNutt, and that is the fact that technological literacy is fast becoming a key skill necessary for succeeding in the global economy. The problem is this, is that it propagates a vicious cycle of technological illiteracy in the less affluent members of society and the globe at large (2006: 140). Those who are poor are already less likely to be technologically literate, because they do not possess the resources to become such; they cannot afford a computer, and likely live in an area where free or easy access to a computer, with internet access, is not readily available. Thus they cannot become technologically literate, and subsequently are not able to become more involved in the global economy.
The result is for policymakers to make concerted efforts to lessen this gap. It is necessary for those who have the power, to create access points for people to become technologically literate. Although it may cost money for the government or otherwise on some level immediately, it would be economically ideal because it would increase the labour base of the country, and give more people more opportunities to find jobs, which lowers the unemployment rate, and helps the economy of the country over all.
Social and cultural groups have been marginalized in the information age, because of their lack of access to the internet. This is a fact. However, it is also a fact that if developed and affluent nations were to work together to solve this problem, it would be beneficial for the entire globe. Particularly on an economic scale, because it further educates and expands the international work force. But it also is important on a social scale, because the dissemination of information and of knowledge between people is and has always been important to the further development and evolution of society. Thus it is important for anthropologists, sociologists, and other social scientists to bring these issues to the attention of policymakers. There are practical applications for the theoretical discussions addressed by social scientists, and it is their duty to bring these issues to the foreground, and to do what they can to ensure that solutions are proposed and found for these problems. If non- politicians were not so often quick to dismiss politics as petty and useless, perhaps the digital divide and other social inequalities would be quicker solved, because, as the proverb says, two heads are better than one. And there are certainly more than two heads in the anthropological world.