Just 30% of women in general and 17% in the technology sector, and (respectively) of 2% and 1% for African-Americans, 3% and 2% for Hispanics. This is the actual picture of the global labor force Google, of course, than the vast majority of white men. This confirms the wide gap of gender and race still dominant in company of Mountain View (similar to the trend in the entire high-tech industry). A ‘lack of diversity that is even more pronounced in the global leadership of Big G: 21% of women, compared with 79% of men, holds some executive officer, and compared to the U.S. this concerns only 1, 5% African-American and 1% Hispanic.
The unexpected revelation of these data, which took place last Wednesday during the evening news PBS , the U.S. public television network, was preceded by heated internal discussions, said Laszlo Bock , executive of Google, and finally, “knowing that I’m not sure edifying figures nor that we make a good impression … we decided to do the right thing: make them public . ” Hoping to push at the same pace other companies in the sector, adding conductors TV, and bring to general attention these imbalances employment and entrepreneurial trying to remedy the situation as soon as possible. 
Although, unfortunately, similar disparities are certainly not new in the industrial sector, are even more discriminatory and heavy in one area, that of ‘hi Tech and the Internet, which by definition was intended to level out the differences in a positive and create equal opportunities for all. Moreover, the diversity (also) strengthens democracy at work, insist the experts. And what better vehicle network – according to many pseudo-prophets of digital and social, as now – to ensure democracy and prosperity to the entire planet?
Instead what emerges with ever greater clarity, 25 years after the arrival of the Web to the masses, is that the “revolution” digital triggers social inequalities typical real world , even increases them – as confirmed by the figures released by Google and the various studies that, for example, bind to 20% share of bloggers Scientific cared for by women, and also at the college level Use the gender gap is evident, not to mention the minimal presence online class women or high-income.A worrying picture that is finally coming to light with power, thanks to new public actions of insiders of made in the USA women in the first place. Nothing to do with the Neo-Luddites of the late ’90s or the barricades anti-technology, but justified criticism from within and that do not fail to take the approach of the so-called ‘Net critique’ and the skepticism of careful ‘media critic ‘, albeit with different nuances, including Morozov, Lovink, Keen. In this new wave, do not miss such lucid analysis of Astra Taylor, filmmaker and media activist based in New York, from the long piece appeared last April TomDispatch and then taken up by Mother Jones.
Explicitly titled “Why the transparency of the Internet promotes misogyny,” the article says, among other things:
“While creating space for a multiplicity of voices, the Internet also tends to reflect and amplify often in surprising ways the injustices of the real world. “
” Sailing on the Web today while keeping an eye to gender discrimination, we derive a concrete impression of where the Internet is going, and it is certainly not towards equality or democracy. “
Other examples: Instagram was born in 2010, but only the ‘ Last year, he hired the first female engineer, while in the U.S. the proportion of women graduates in computer science in 2008 had fallen to 18%, after a brief surge from 14% to 37% recorded in the years 1970-85. (Comes to mind the ostracism suffered at the waist by Ada Lovelace in the early 1800s, although now recognized as the first computer programmer at all).
Despite the beautiful appearances today, Taylor insists, “the philosophy of transparency of the Internet ends up rationalize their failures , underlining the inability of people to attend as it was their choice, and raising the myth of meritocracy accusarne to the lack of expertise or willingness as a direct cause the gap in the online presence. “things worse, focusing on social media and young neo-millionaires who will maneuver, the book of the end of 2013 Status Update , in which Alice Marwick describes in detail the scene of Web 2.0 emerged in San Francisco and Silicon Valley between 2007 and 2010. mention just a joke: “Platforms such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook promised a new culture-based online on the participation … but instead have turned users into s / objects of marketing and self-promotion, and also allowing the hi-tech companies of violating individual privacy, and give priority to gain than participation. “
Of course, things have not improved in the few years since this survey sociological field itself is not terribly negative but accurate and acute, from which emerges a future of social media decided to follow in the footsteps of that Web 2.0 that “… instead of bringing the Cultural Revolution, has done nothing but reinforce inequality and social stratification approaches based on the differences of race, class and gender.”
Equally obvious is that, while being open to all (and rightly so), the Net today is far from Eden non-commercial and community that certain cyber-utopians of the first hour promised. This path, the avoidance of doubt, common to every modern technological development, the locomotive to the telegraph: once the first phase of idealism and enthusiasm, “the revolution of the masses” is included in the ranks and have only a few sharks to divide the cake of power and Finance in the name of liberalism rampant – in our case, leaving it to the “people” the illusion of a “reputation” online to conquer and maintain his teeth for life.
These themes that are further expanded in volume just published by the same Astra Taylor, The People’s Platform , whose basic message is even more crystal clear: “With today’s reassessment of the roles of power online, anything but a revolution, … you can do better. By itself, technology will never be able to give life to the democratic culture capable of supporting a diversity of voices and works of lasting value. If we want that the Internet is really the platform of the people, it is up to us to make sure that happens. “
Ultimately, it is true that these are structural issues and not just economic, complex issues (here only mentioned) and not easily solved, nor can delineate a picture that is unique to the billions of users with different cultures and backgrounds also very far between. The fact is, however, that digital is not a planet distinct from “real life”, nor should it be portrayed as such, where social problems (and marginalization) can be separated and / or ignored. The network was built and is managed by humans , and then “we are faced with a fundamental challenge to implement this democratizing force, far beyond any rhetoric of sharing “, as Taylor concludes an extensive interview on Salon.com .Especially in our Western context, it is therefore important to regain the lost serendipity browsing online for that fosters cosmopolitanism concrete, and not just an illusion, as is personally engaged in the protection of privacy and against the widespread surveillance inside and outside the Internet.
But to ensure that it develops in a truly equal and shared , is equally crucial work hard to expose and become aware of these gaps in gender, race and class Social carried by today’s digital. Necessary step to reclaim popular culture, human relations and public goods that the old and new elites would rather grab and fence. For the umpteenth time.
Bernardo ParrellaJune 6, 2014
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
No comments:
Post a Comment