Despite the presence of cybercafes, access is predominantly determined by wealth, gender and of course personal inclination. Rather than try to take on society's inequalities at base level in the real world (somewhat outside the scope of this essay), I would like to turn to a suggestion made by Nicholas Negroponte, head of the Media Lab at MIT, in the UK edition of Wired (July/August 1995):

"Why not ... build a general-purpose - but stripped-down
- machine, with Netscape or Mosaic built in, that everyone
can afford? Governments worry about the information-rich
versus the information-poor, but most politicians probably
don't realise that computers cost less than bicycles."

(for further US political background click here)

(.....)

"Manufacturers need to be pushed... so that every school and
low-income household can own a computer. This can be achieved
by trimming the fat from today's PCs and making some bare-
bones engines that word process, telecommunicate and
provide access to online services."

His proposal for enabling the provision of very cheap computers without public subsidy involves viewing each network connected screen as potential user-targeted advertising space. Relative to the present cost of untargeted promotion Negroponte suggests that it would very much be worthwhile for advertisers' to subsidise computer purchases.

His argument is very persuasive because it suggests a practical method of achieving greater egalitarian access to virtual communities. It also has two particular precedents:

Firstly, 'Habitat' is/was an avatar-based interactive community accessed via the telephone network which came on line in 1989. Apart from its vanguard nature, its example is relevant because it was successfully designed to run on a Commodore 64 computer: this computer costs $100 at such outlets as Toys R Us, thus being available to almost anyone unless, as one participant stated, "they don't already happen to have one sitting around being used as a doorstop."

Secondly, in 1982 Apple Computer made an agreement with the US government to give away computers to public schools in lieu of paying a substantial part of its federal taxes. This strategy has resulted in Apple's domination of the educational market.

And if a greater degree of equality in terms of race and gender could be achieved in virtual space there is always the hope that it might feed back into the corporeal world.....



The foregoing is a neat way of concluding things and I'm loath to add anything further, but.....

"there will likely be myriad places in, and many regions of
cyberspace - each with its own character, rules, and
function - in due time there may also be a number of
different kinds of cyberspaces, each with its own overall
culture, appearance, lore, and law. Someday, these
cyberspaces and cyberspatial "domains" may well compete
with each other just as information services and telephone
companies do now. Some will thrive and some will not.

('Cyberspace: Some Proposals', Michael Benedikt, 1991, MIT Press, p122)

I have to confess that upon reading the above my reaction was one of dismay - no shared, unifying space where all races/creeds/genders might interact meaningfully and freely? A degree of liberation through technology is possible, but from the beginning there have been local networks such as the Well originating in San Francisco, and the various projects (Habitat, Crossings, AlphaWorld) discussed here which have not been available to all.


multiple networks...

nation states...

competition...

viral warfare...


why should the colonisation of cyberspace differ from historical precedent?