\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
The term \u201cdigital divide\u201d entered the public discourse in the 1990s as a way of describing disparities in access to Internet connectivity and computer power within the U.S. population. Several years after the High Performance Computing Act \u2014 a U.S. bill that aimed to boost Internet infrastructure and scale up connectivity \u2014 passed in 1991, the \u201cdigital divide\u201d term started to appear in news outlets and politician speeches. As millions of people, particularly those with better socioeconomic status living in urban areas, started to have Internet connectivity at their homes, schools, and libraries, differences in access to computer and Internet were highly noticeable between regions and population groups.<\/p>\n
The \u201cdivide,\u201d at this moment of time, was used for describing the unevenness of technology access \u2014 the split between the \u201chaves\u201d and \u201chave-nots.\u201d Articles in the New York Times such as \u201cA Nation Ponders Its Growing Digital Divide<\/a>\u201d and \u201cA New Gulf in American Education, the Digital Divide<\/a>,\u201d for instance, raised concerns about the disparities in access to computers and Internet among schools. Meanwhile, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a report in July 1995 called \u201cFalling Through the Net: a Survey of the \u201cHave Nots\u201d in Rural and Urban America<\/a>,\u201d that identified the \u201cinformation disadvantaged\u201d as the ones without access to computers and the Internet, mainly the poor and minorities in central cities and rural areas.<\/p>\n Along with a narrative of empowerment and development that highlighted \u201caccess to knowledge,\u201d and \u201centering the information highway,\u201d in the 2000s, bridging the \u201cdigital divide\u201d became a global imperative. The Declaration of Principles of the World Summit on the Information Society<\/a> (2003), for instance, set up bridging the \u201cdigital divide\u201d as a developmental goal for all nations. Governments around the world designed policies for connecting people to the Internet and building digital infrastructure that would allow individuals to join the \u201cinformation society\u201d and avoid being \u201cleft behind.\u201d Benefits of this \u201cinformation society\u201d included the possibility of accessing knowledge and education, economic growth, foster democracy, and participation.<\/p>\n The focus on technology access and infrastructure made the \u201cdigital divide\u201d easy to understand, measure, and quantify. It helped governments, policy makers, and researchers understand the diffusion of Internet across entire populations with the idea of universal access that was used for previous technologies, such as the telephone. However, such approach made some stakeholders, particularly policy makers, overlook other dimensions of society that were also important for the adoption and use of technology such as social stratification, and education.<\/p>\n Researchers from different disciplines started to study how disparities in Internet connectivity and computer ownership created a split both at the global scale (e.g., Norris, 2001<\/a>) and within nations. In North America, Europe, and Australia, for instance, social scientists found that disparities in access were correlated with age, race\/ethnicity, gender, education, and income (e.g., DiMaggio et al. 2004<\/a> in the U.S; De Haan, 2003<\/a> in the Netherlands; \u00a0and McLaren and Zappala, 2002<\/a> in Australia).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In Latin America, researchers focused their efforts in measuring Internet penetration (CEPAL<\/a>, 2003), \u00a0discussing the meaning of the \u201cknowledge society\u201d (Sociedade da Informa\u00e7\u00e3o no Brasil Livro Verde<\/a> in Brazil, 2000), and analyzing the social and cultural uses of ICT (Funredes <\/a>in the Caribbean, 1995; Le\u00f3n, Burch, & Tamayo, 2001 in Argentina; Hopenhayn, 2003 in Chile). However, as Trejo<\/a> (2004) pointed out, research on the digital divide in the Latin American region was dispersed and lacked a common methodology. According to him, there was a \u201cdivide\u201d in terms of the study and theorization of the Internet that Latin American researchers didn\u2019t bridge.<\/p>\n From one Digital Divide to Multiple Ones<\/b><\/p>\n As access to Internet and computers spread throughout entire populations within a country and regions, it became clearer that the \u201cdigital divide\u201d was not only related to technology access. \u00a0Researchers transitioned from analyzing who has access to the technology, to investigating other dimensions of access such as skills and competences, motivations, usage patterns, and tried to understand how the Internet was being used in more advantageous or disadvantageous ways by different populations. Moreover, in an effort to update the terminology around the \u201cdigital divide,\u201d scholars proposed alternative concepts, such as \u201cdigital inequality\u201d (DiMaggio et al., 2004), \u201cdigital\/technology for social inclusion\u201d (e.g. Warschauer, 2002<\/a>; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007), and \u201cparticipation gap\u201d (Jenkins et al. 2006). At the core of such development was an interdisciplinary effort to understand how the rapid diffusion of digital technologies across national and global contexts was reproducing and amplifying existing social inequalities, and how societies could foster the inclusion of all populations groups as they embraced the digital transformation.<\/p>\n Theorization of the \u201cdigital divide,\u201d therefore, has become more nuanced and complex. A number of \u00a0studies have found that there are gradients not only in the quality of access to technology, but also in the sociocultural practices and skills that people develop (Hargittai, 2011; Jenkins et al., 2006; Van Dijk, 2005; Watkins, 2012), the information they consume and produce (Robinson, 2009; Schradie, 2011), and the outcomes of their usage (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2013; van Deursen & Helsper, 2015).<\/p>\n Instead of one digital divide, researchers have identified multiple ones. Although the divide in access to material technology is still important (referred to as the \u201cfirst-level divide\u201d), other digital gaps are now widely recognized. The \u201csecond-level digital divide,\u201d for instance, indicates the gap in terms of online skills and practices (e.g., Hargittai, 2002<\/a>; Jenkins et al. 2006). More recently, scholars have also discussed the existence of a \u201cthird-level divide\u201d that consists in the differential tangible outcomes that come from technology usage. For instance, the differences in people’s use of the Internet for improving their socioeconomic status, and earning different forms of capital (e.g., van Deursen & Helsper, 2015<\/a>).<\/p>\n AI: A New Digital Divide? <\/b><\/p>\n One of the latest developments in the evolution of information and communication technologies is the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) at scale. As AI technologies have started to be embedded in culture (e.g. Facebook feed algorithm), education (e.g. automated tutors in MOOCs), health (e.g. treatment of cancer), the economy (e.g. self-driving cars), and other social domains, its development affects the three digital divides that researchers have identified thus far. Given the reliance of AI in big data and computer power, its\u00a0 diffusion is more likely to amplify existing inequalities, increasing disparities in access to technology, skills, and tangible outcomes of usage. Notably, AI might accelerate the deepening of second-level and third-level digital divides.<\/p>\n Some commentators have pointed out that the diffusion of AI can create a new digital divide (e.g., Dans, 2016<\/a>). This perspective assumes that access to AI technologies \u2014 machine vision, machine learning, natural language processing, and sophisticated algorithms \u00a0\u2014 \u00a0offers an advantage to the companies and firms that are able to deploy them. The AI \u201chaves\u201d can optimize their operations, automate processes, and innovate, while the \u201chave-nots\u201d are being left behind in world\u2019s digital evolution.<\/p>\n The notion of AI as a new digital divide, however, is problematic, since it forces us to focus on the latest technological advances while ignoring their relationship with other digital gaps previously theorized. Moreover, this notion of a new divide focuses only on the disparities among companies and firms, ignoring the role of governments, population groups, and users. They are also important actors in the diffusion of AI that would be affected by automated decision-making processes. They would play important roles generating and curating data for feeding AI systems, and could shape technological transformation with policies, practices, and institutions.<\/p>\n Global Disparities<\/b><\/p>\n So far, AI technologies are being developed and deployed faster in the global north, enhancing inequalities among regions. As a recent PwC report shared by the World Economic Forum<\/a> showed, the regions that would gain the most from AI are China, and the United States. According to the report, AI could boost China\u2019s productivity by 27% by 2035, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, retail, and ICT. \u00a0Regions in the global south like Latin America, in contrast, would only increase 5.4% of GDP.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Countries who have not bridged the technology, skills, and usage gaps would likely confront the expansion of those splits as AI diffuses around the world. Particularly, it is highly possible that the second and third level digital divides would deepen as the skills necessary to deploy AI technologies are of higher level than the ones needed for previous ICT. Countries without capacity to develop AI technologies would likely have to deploy AI systems developed abroad that perhaps do not adapt that well to their cultural and social contexts, making more more elusive the tangible outcomes of their use. These nations would be in fragile positions to negotiate issues of data ownership with transnational corporations, and would have to fight for a more culturally sensitive building of databases, and algorithms that take into account the characteristics of their populations and geographies.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n As AI reshapes the contours of the existing digital divides at the national, regional, and global scales, we should think critically about how these technologies operate across the multiple dimensions of access (technology, skills, and usage). We should also put attention to the transformations that cultural, human, and social systems need to have in order to successfully \u00a0and fairly deploy AI technologies. Moreover, it is necessary to discuss how AI technologies would be regulated locally and globally, within a framework of human values and rights that not only respects the diversity of cultures, genders, and races\/ethnicities, but also fosters their inclusion.<\/p>\n References<\/b><\/p>\n CEPAL (Comisi\u00f3n Econ\u00f3mica para Am\u00e9rica Latina) (2003) Los caminos hacia una sociedad de la informaci\u00f3n en Am\u00e9rica Latina y el Caribe, Conferencia Ministerial Regional Preparatoria para la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Informaci\u00f3n: B\u00e1varo, Punta Cana, Rep\u00fablica Dominicana.<\/p>\n De Haan, J. (2003) IT and social inequality in the Netherlands, IT & Society 1(4) (2003), 27-45.<\/p>\n DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C. & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital Inequality: From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use. In Social Inequality. Edited by Kathryn Neckerman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 355-400.<\/p>\n Hargittai, E. (2011). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the \u2018Net Generation.\u2019 Sociological Inquiry, 80(1).<\/p>\n Hopenhayn, M. (2003) \u00abConjeturas sobre cultura virtual. Una perspectiva general y algunas consideraciones desde Am\u00e9rica Latina\u00bb, en Calderon, F. (coord.): \u00bfEs sostenible la globalizaci\u00f3n en Am\u00e9rica Latina? Debates con Manuel Castells, Vol. II, PNUD Bolivia \/ FCE, Santiago de Chile.<\/p>\n Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Puruhotma, Robison, A.R., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge: MIT Press.<\/p>\n Le\u00f3n, O., Burch, S., & Tamayo, E. (2001) Movimientos sociales en la Red, Agencia Latinoamericana de Informaci\u00f3n: Quito.<\/p>\n Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9 (4). pp. 671-696.<\/p>\n McConnaughey et al. (1995) Falling through the net: A survey of the ‘have nots’ in rural and urban America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications. \u00a0Accessed September 1, 2017. https:\/\/www.ntia.doc.gov\/ntiahome\/fallingthru.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n McLaren, Jennifer and Gianni Zappala\u0300. 2002. \u201cThe ‘Digital Divide’ Among Financially<\/p>\n Disadvantaged Families in Australia.\u201d First Monday 7, 11. http:\/\/firstmonday.org\/issues\/- issue7_11\/mclaren\/index.html. Accessed Sept. 1, 2003.<\/p>\n Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet in Democratic Societies. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.<\/p>\n Robinson, L. (2009). A taste for the necessary. A Bourdieuian approach to digital inequality. Information, Communication and Society 12 (4), 488.<\/p>\n Schradie, J. (2011). The Digital Production Gap: the Digital Divide and Web 2.0 Collide. Poetics. 39 (2).<\/p>\n Trejo, R. (2004)”La investigaci\u00f3n latinoamericana sobre Internet”. Telos, num 61, octubre-diciembre 2004.<\/p>\n van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.<\/p>\n van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2012) The Evolution of the Digital Divide: The Digital Divide turns to Inequality of Skills and Usage. In J. Bus et al. (Eds.) Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2012. IOS Press, 2012<\/p>\n Watkins, S. C. (2009). The young and the digital: what the migration to social-network sites, games, and anytime, anywhere media means for our future. Boston: Beacon Press.<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/geography.oii.ox.ac.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/internet_penetration_2008.png?resize=700%2C495\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/andreslombana.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/Screen-Shot-2017-08-06-at-9.39.08-PM.png?resize=700%2C394&ssl=1\")