DigitizationA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWinternet users in his book, written with Gigi
Vorgan, entitled iBrain: Surviving the Techno-
logical Alteration of the Modern Mind (Harp-
erCollins, 2008). Digital natives have inhabited
the terrain of the Internet from childhood;
they are those who have never known a world
without e-mail, mobile phones and texting. Th ey
tend to be impressive multi-taskers, jugglers of
information in all forms and from all sources. In
contrast, digital immigrants came lately to Net
communication, their hard-wiring having taken
place in an age dominated by single, one-at-a-
time source materials such as books.
Small and Vorgan argue that digital immigrants
are better at reading facial expression and bodily
gesture, that is real-life interactive situations (see
non-verbal communication). Instead of the
digital native’s multi-tasking approach to knowl-
edge and information, the digital immigrant is
more likely to take things step by step, address-
ing one thing at a time. Th e authors believe that
this approach makes for deeper thinking and
more reliable decision-making. See plasticity:
neuroplasticity and the internet.
▶Nicholas Carr, Th e Shallows: How the Internet is
Changing the Way We Th ink (Atlantic Books, 2010).
Digital optimism Takes the view that online
interactive exchange typifi ed by the growth of
blogging, social networking (see facebook;
myspace; networking: social networking;
youtube) and the rise of citizen journalism (see
journalism: citizen journalism) has had
a profound and positive impact on traditional
mass-media dominance and practices. Some
commentators argue that celebration is ahead
of the evidence. As Graeme Turner warns in
Ordinary People and the Media: Th e Demotic
Turn (Sage, 2010), ‘Often without the support of
empirical data or accounting for historical trends
in the relevant locations, digital optimists move
into futurological mode at the drop of a hat.’
▶Matthew Hindman, Th e Myth of Digital Democracy
(Princeton University Press, 2009).
Digitization The computer works digitally:
information is broken down into a code of zeros
and ones (bits). Today, all forms of electronic
communication are converging through digital
formats, and computer-mediated communica-
tion now applies to newspapers, telephone
systems, broadcasting, film production as
well as the internet. Digitization makes for
profusion – of television and radio channels
and, in terms of use and reception, fragmenta-
tion.
Such are the possibilities in the ‘Digital Age’
that each viewer or listener ceases to be, as in thelenged in court by major broadband providers,
the Act empowers companies to pursue illegal
users of their product; those deemed to have
made available to others, for copying, songs,
TV programmes, movies, computer games,
etc. Where there is proven evidence of piracy,
companies can demand of Internet Providers
(IPs) the e-mail addresses of users. Responsibility
for monitoring and reporting on the operation
of the Act is that of ofcom in accord with an
Initial Obligations Code and a Technical Obliga-
tions Code. Th e Act has forty-two sections and
two schedules, the most contentious of which
concern online breaches of copyright.
The Act aims to protect the UK’s creative
industries from piracy and the fi nancial losses
which result. Claims have been made that in
2008 alone, companies lost 1.2 billion to piracy.
In brief, the Act empowers the industry to track
down wrongdoers by making it a legal require-
ment that where there is evidence of breaches
of copyright by individuals or groups, IPs must
release details of e-mail addresses. Many fear
that they are being cast in the role of online
police.
Pursuit of wrongdoers is complex, gradual
and with a number of safeguards, but as the
process becomes routine the Act promises to
be dynamic and ruthless: it begins with identi-
fi cation followed by warning, then legal action
which may result in disconnection.
Dan Sabbagh in a Guardian online article,
‘Digital Economy Act likely to increase house-
holds targeted for piracy’ (12 April 2010) writes,
‘Th e worry has to be that those keenest to use
the Act to threaten people with disconnection
will be ruthless operators who act for owners of
content that nobody would describe as main-
stream. If past experience is anything to go by,
the number of complaints will rise, and miscar-
riages of justice will increase too.’
In a follow-up posting to Sabbagh’s article,
Cyberdoyle puts the issue more dramatically,
declaring that ‘the ambulance chasers have
been given a golden goose with this stupid bill,
but they will only persecute the innocent’. It is
a genuine worry that the innocent will suff er as
much as the intentionally guilty. For example,
an illegal download in an Internet café by a
passing stranger could make the café proprietor
liable; equally, libraries, colleges and universities
become legally responsible for the activities of
users. See censorship; surveillance soci-
ety.
Digital natives, digital immigrants Neuro-
scientist Gary Small off ers these defi nitions of