#digital inequality

[triumphias]

Digital Divide and Unequal Access to Social Change | Triumph IAS 2026-27 | UPSC Sociology Optional

Explore the sociological dimensions of the digital divide and its impact on social change in India. A must-read for UPSC Sociology optional

[triumphias]

Is Sociology Still Relevant in the Age of AI and Big Data? | Sociology Optional Coaching | Vikash Ranjan Classes | Triumph IAS 2026-27 | UPS

Is sociology still relevant in the era of AI and Big Data? Explore how sociological perspectives help understand algorithms, inequality, sur

[firstoccupier]

Centralized Power, Distributed Harm

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — June 3, 2026 Large platforms often claim that central control is needed for efficiency and safety. In practice, that control can shift risk away from owners and onto users. On X, decisions are centralized, but the harm caused by those decisions is spread across millions of people — including many in the…

Centralized Power, Distributed Harm

[bookpiofficial]

Functional Assessment of Currently Employed Technology Scale (FACETS) | Chapter  05 | New Horizons in Medicine and Medical Research Vol. 7

Introduction: In the absence of statistics demonstrating that patients, particularly older persons, use information technology, insurers, institutional, and independent health-care providers have increased their use of websites for patient communication (IT). The FACETS (Functional Assessment of Currently Employed Technology Scale) was created to measure the frequency of internet and IT use among patients of various ages. FACETS is a 10-item questionnaire that evaluates five functional domains and has excellent internal consistency reliability, great general factor validity, and strong domain factor validity. According to FACETS research, IT usage decreases considerably as people get older than 60. The findings also show that when it comes to IT use, those over 65 are not a homogeneous group, nor is IT use a homogeneous category. FACETS illustrates that using websites to communicate with older adults may constitute a barrier to health care access. It is proposed that internet and IT usage be included as a specialised area of assessment or therapy in health care guidelines for working with older individuals. Author(S) Details Charles M. Lepkowsky Independent Practice, 1143 Deer Trail Lane, Solvang, CA 93463-9519, United States. View Book:- https://stm.bookpi.org/NHMMR-V7/article/view/6663

[newzzhub]

Funds Raised For Girls Photographed Using Restaurant WiFi To Do Homework Two schoolgirls were seen in a Taco Bell parking lot to use free WiFi. An online fundraiser has managed to raise more than $1,40,000 for two schoolgirls in the US who were photographed using a fast food restaurant's free WiFi to do their homework.

[todaysamlearned]

Research Shows Students Falling Months Behind During Virus Disruptions

The abrupt switch to remote learning wiped out academic gains for many students in America, and widened racial and economic gaps. Catching u

Today I learned how we’re failing students.

[marthakramirez]

Inequality in the digital sphere

Inequality: The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines this as social disparity or the disparity of distribution or opportunity. This week’s readings revolve around inequality and gaps found throughout the digital spheres. The readings presented several ways of studying inequality in digital media, from the digital divide to the digital participation and production gap, along with the factors that cause these inequalities.  

One of the most common topics when it comes to digital inequality is the digital divide. However, Hargittai argued that the digital divide is becoming less prominent. Instead, he believes the more pertinent issue is the inaccurate assumption that those who have grown up with technology are naturally tech-savvy and digitally knowledgeable. He argues that internet skills vary across the “digital native” generation, depending on various factors like socioeconomic status. I find it probabilistic and premature to assume that the digital divide is not as big of a concern. 

So far, research points to the fact that the digital divide is still very much prevalent today. Some scholars even argue that the digital divide has become so deep that there are two Americas: one connected and one not. Though I agree with Hargittai’s argument that internet skills vary across digital natives, he makes this argument by downplaying the digital divide. At one point, he mentions how “once people cross the initial connectivity divide,” they still have issues with their internet skills. Hargittai makes his point at the expense of the gravity of the digital divide. He makes it seem like people can simply choose to “cross” over to technology instead of mentioning the systematic and challenging obstacles that prevent them from obtaining access. 

Many of the other readings focused on the most common denominator when it comes to inequality: socioeconomic status. 

Robinson et al. discuss how gender, race, ethnicity and economic status contribute to and reinforce digital inequalities. They discussed how these digital inequalities have grown so prevalent that they are spilling into other alarming areas like healthcare, where users miss out on crucial healthcare information and participation due to digital inequalities. Similarly, Schradie found that there is a significant production gap in content because of socioeconomic factors. Schradie’s findings mirror the persisting issue in society that those on the higher end of the ladder hold power. In this case, the poor and the working class’ voices are missing from the digital production sphere.

Other scholars looked at digital inequalities beyond the traditional socioeconomic and digital divide scope. Reisdorf and Groselj went past the traditional binary focus of internet users and non-internet users. Instead, they looked at a spectrum of non-users, regular users and broad users. They found that education was a strong factor in digital inequalities and that attitudes towards the internet heavily influence participation. Sasaki also found that education, as well as self-efficacy, are important factors in the power imbalance of the digital divide. This type of work is crucial because it pushes other scholars to look beyond socioeconomic factors and consider other alternatives.

Scheerder et al. also rejected the previous binary focus. They took it a step further from education in their concept of a “third-level digital divide” that examines the outcomes of the internet and digital inequalities. They also pointed out inconsistent terminology across digital inequality research. There seems to be an ongoing trend of lack of consistency in terminology across areas of digital media research, considering last week’s discussion on inconsistent terminology on problematic internet use. On a more positive note, Hoffman et al. applied social cognitive theory to examine how socioeconomic factors affect the participation divide. This use of a theoretical framework is a step in the right direction for the digital media research field, which often lacks theory.

It is quite apparent that digital inequality is deeply entangled with today’s technological landscape. I’ve worked for a nonprofit organization for the last five years that works with under-represented children in foster care. Most will tell you that all teenagers in America glue themselves to their digital devices. However, there were countless instances of teenagers at the age of 18 who did not own a phone or a laptop and had little digital literacy. I am interested in lobbying or working for a nonprofit, and these readings resonated with many of the issues that these organizations aim to tackle. I echo the sentiments of many of these scholars who called for more research on digital inequalities. As Robertson et al. stated, “digital inequalities can reinforce existing social inequalities and even exacerbate them because they carry over preexisting differences in human capital into online settings” (p.570). This is an evolving problem that requires much more attention and discussion. I am hopeful for more research on this area that can be used to pass policies or to take action to find a solution.

[lmspulse]

LWMN011: Digital Inequality, Martin Dougiamas on the Future of Moodle, Curriculum Theory | Week of October 7th, 2017

LWMN011: Digital Inequality, Martin Dougiamas on the Future of #Moodle, Curriculum Theory | Week of October 7th, 2017

[smart_track_player url=”http://traffic.libsyn.com/moodlenews/LWMN011-09OCT17.mp3″ title=”LWMN011: Digital Inequality, Martin Dougiamas on the Future of Moodle, Curriculum Theory | Week of October 7th, 2017″ social_linkedin=”true” social_email=”true” hashtag=”moodlenews, #moodle, #lms, #edtech, #elearning” twitter_username=”moodlenews” ] Hey everyone – welcome to the Last Week in MoodleNews, I’m…

View On WordPress