Chapter 10 Quiz
Chapter 10 – Quiz 10
(a) Do we, as a society, have a special obligation to disabled persons to ensure that they have full Internet access? (b) Is the argument that by providing improved access and services for disabled persons, non disabled users will benefit as well, a reasonable argument? Consider that it can be dangerous to reason along this line; for example, suppose that non disabled persons did not benefit from software applications designed for the disabled. (c) Would that be a reason for not investing in software for disabled people?
The director of the world wide web claims that the web should be available to everyone that includes those with disabilities. I am not sure that society owes the obligation to the disabled. I think morally and ethically; it would be the right thing to do.
I do not believe that providing improved access to the disabled would give benefits to the non-disabled. I do not think that the non disabled would want to use special software, screen magnifiers and speech synthesizer for use as I do not think this would make use easier.
I do not think that there would be a large population that would benefit from improved access software other than the disabled. So, I do not think that this is a valid reason for not investing in software for disabled people. Those who are disabled still are under the belief that the internet does not provide sufficient access.
References
Rust, Elizabeth. How the internet still fails disabled people. 29 June 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/29/disabled-people-internet-extra-costs-commission-scope>.
Theismeyer described racist/hate Web sites in this chapter. (a) Should Web sites that promote racist speech be allowed to thrive on the Internet? (b) Has the proliferation of these sites increased the incidence of racism on a global scale? Or is the Internet, as some have suggested, a force that can help to reduce racism?
Websites that promote racist speech should be allowed on the Internet as it is a form of free speech.
I do not believe that speech promotes racism so these sites have not provided for an increase in racism. Racism is expressed through speech, it does not originate from speech. In order to prevent racism, core values and morals must be addressed. I do believe that the internet can be used to either promote or reduce racism. In Japan, hate and racist speech on the interest is banned by the government.
References
KYODO. Websites delete hate speech videos at gov't request. 14 February 2016. <http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/websites-delete-hate-speech-videos-at-govt-request>.
(a) What obligations does the United States have, as a democratic nation concerned with guaranteeing equal opportunities for all its citizens, to ensure that all its citizens have full access to the Internet? (b) Does the United States also have obligations to developing countries to ensure that they have global access to the Internet? If so, (c) What is the extent of those obligations? If not, (d) Why? For example, (e) Should engineers working in the United States and other developed countries design applications to ensure that people living in remote areas with low connectivity and poor bandwidth have reasonable Internet access? If so, (f) Who should pay for the development of these software applications? If not, (g) Why?
Although our democratic values include openness, empowerment, choice and access to information, I do not believe that our democratic nation has an obligation to provide citizens with internet access. Internet access is not a freedom or a right that exists anywhere. Internet access is a product, in my opinion.
The United States does not have an obligation to developing countries to ensure they have global access to the Internet. Countries have different cultures, different values and different means of access to everything, including the internet, it is not the position of the United States to assist other countries. There are other countries with faster internet speed that may want to extend the obligation.
There is no obligations by the United States to other countries to ensure they have internet access.
The United States have no obligation to provide internet access to other countries for the same reason there is no obligation to provide it to American citizens. Internet access is a product that is a privilege not a right.
Engineers working in the U.S. can design applications at the expense of the other countries but not at the expense of the United States.
The country wanting the applications should pay for the applications.
Software applications are products that are available to those who can afford it. The United States has not obligation to pay for products for other countries. For example, should we buy everyone in Liberia cars or air conditioning? No!
References
Dellinger, AJ. The U.S. is lagging behind other countries in rolling out high-speed wireless Internet. 24 September 2015. <http://www.dailydot.com/technology/us-lte-4g-speeds-global-survey/>.
