Digital Society: Current Topics Of Information Systems Exper

Digital Societyse Current Topics Of Information Systems Especially Th

Digital Society SE Current Topics of Information Systems, Especially the Digital Society Dr. Alexander Novotny Edition 1 Specific concepts of the digital society Overview

Introduction: Social beliefs about ICT innovation

Introduction: Social media and power

Digital Divide

Factors influencing the use of digital technology

Social beliefs about ICT innovation: An introductory example. Let's travel to Silicon Valley together. Watch the video “Welcome to Silicon Valley” by Ympact - Global Startups, Entrepreneurs, and Changemakers. In-class discussion: Let's travel to Silicon Valley together. What do you think about the following quotes taken from the video? “Put your foot on the pedal, go as fast as you can go!” “The energy that exists here is intoxicating.” “You don’t have to be a 50-year-old professional to start a company, you can be a 20-year-old dreamer.”

Social media and power: Another introductory example. Donald Trump's tweet activity from his first tweet in May 2009 up to now. Digital communication between individuals suffers from perturbance. Examples include disinformation caused by cybersecurity threats, botnets, manipulation of artificial intelligence, troll factories, fake online groups, fake emails, evasion and poisoning of AI engines with fake input data. Self-reinforcing systems through filter and personalization algorithms create echo chambers and filter bubbles, limiting exposure to diverse opinions. Facebook's content moderation center in Berlin exemplifies content regulation efforts.

Digital divide: What is it? The digital divide is described as “Uneven distribution in the access to, use of, or impact of information and communications technologies (ICT) between any number of distinct groups,” based on social, geographical, or other criteria (NTIA, 1995). It is also known as “digital inequality.” Levels of analysis include individuals, organizations, societies, countries, and regions, examining attributes such as income, education, geography, age, gender, sector, and technology access or usage. Examining data, such as the percentage of internet users per population in different regions, illustrates geographical divides. The Gini coefficient, a measure of income or wealth inequality based on the Lorenz curve, provides insight into socio-economic disparities related to digital access and benefits.

The concept of digital natives and digital immigrants is discussed. Digital natives—those born and raised in digital technology environments—interact with digital tools from early childhood. Digital immigrants—those born before the digital era—encounter digital technology later in life. Common misconceptions hold that natives are inherently more proficient at computers than immigrants, but this is not always the case; proficiency depends on experience and education. Digital natives are sometimes assumed to have superior media literacy, such as the ability to discern fake news, which is an oversimplification.

Social factors influencing digital technology use include culture, traditions, religion, economics, education, and politics. Culture encompasses human values, norms, beliefs, and knowledge shared by groups or society; socialization processes help internalize these norms. Culture operates at levels ranging from global regions to local communities. Traditions—transmitted orally or through observation—shape behaviors and social interactions. The evolution of digital culture has introduced new traditions, such as netiquette and online privacy awareness.

Sources cited include the U.S. Department of Commerce (NTIA, 1995), Hilbert (2013), and Bozkurt et al. (2018). These studies explore disparities and cultural implications of digital technology, helping us understand societal integration and inequality in digital contexts.

In the context of these topics, two case studies are considered: a rural elderly woman named Filomena in Tyrol, and the article from The Guardian on digital influence and technology addiction. Filomena’s case involves designing an ICT solution to aid her in managing household and social needs despite limited digital access and skills, aiming to bridge the digital divide for seniors in rural areas. The Guardian article analyzes addictive design patterns in user interfaces, such as infinite scrolling and notifications, and discusses technologies contributing to “continuous partial attention.”

Paper For Above instruction

The rapid advancement of information and communication technologies (ICT) has profoundly transformed modern societies, creating new opportunities for economic development, social interaction, and cultural exchange. However, these benefits are accompanied by significant challenges, notably the digital divide—the unequal distribution of access to and use of digital technologies among different societal groups. Understanding the core concepts of digital society, including social beliefs, power dynamics, and inequalities, is crucial for developing inclusive digital solutions and fostering equitable technological progress.

Societal Beliefs and the Power of ICT

Societal attitudes towards ICT innovation shape how new technologies are adopted and integrated into daily life. An illustrative example is Silicon Valley, often considered the hub of digital entrepreneurship. The enthusiasm captured in videos like “Welcome to Silicon Valley” reflects a collective societal belief that rapid innovation and risk-taking are essential for progress. Quotes from entrepreneurs emphasize the energy, speed, and youthful dynamism characteristic of the region, which reinforce a societal narrative that favors technological entrepreneurship as a pathway to economic prosperity. These beliefs encourage investment, education, and policy support, fostering a culture of innovation that drives digital transformation globally (Novotny, 2021).

The Power of Social Media and Emerging Challenges

Social media platforms have transformed communication, empowering individuals and influencing societal discourse. However, this power also introduces vulnerabilities, such as disinformation, fake news, and manipulation. President Trump’s prolific use of Twitter exemplifies how social media can be employed to shape political narratives directly and instantaneously. Yet, digital communication is susceptible to disturbances like cybersecurity threats, botnets, and artificial intelligence manipulation, which threaten the integrity of information (Meleo et al., 2020). The formation of echo chambers and filter bubbles further polarizes society by reinforcing existing beliefs and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. Content moderation centers, such as Facebook’s in Berlin, are efforts to combat harmful content, but they highlight the complex balance between free expression and regulation in digital societies.

The Digital Divide: Inequality in Access and Impact

The digital divide remains a persistent global challenge. It refers to disparities in ICT access, usage, and benefits among different societal groups, often delineated along social, economic, and geographical lines. In rural areas like Tyrol’s Zillergrund, residents like Filomena face significant barriers due to limited infrastructure, low digital literacy, and physical age-related constraints. The divide exists not only in physical access but also in technological impact—such as the ability to leverage digital tools for health, social connection, and economic opportunities.

Analyzing the digital divide involves multiple levels: individual, organizational, and societal. For instance, older adults often exhibit lower digital literacy and usage levels, which can be exacerbated by physical limitations. Socio-economic factors such as income and education further influence digital inequalities. Metrics like the Gini coefficient quantify disparities, indicating how wealth correlates with access to digital resources (Hilbert, 2013). Efforts to bridge the divide include public policies, community programs, and tailored solutions that enhance physical and cognitive accessibility for marginalized groups.

The concept of digital natives versus digital immigrants illuminates generational gaps. Digital natives—those born after the advent of widespread digital technology—are presumed to adapt more easily than digital immigrants, who encountered digital tools later in life. However, proficiency depends on education and exposure, not just age. Misconceptions about native competence often overlook the importance of ongoing learning and support systems necessary for effective digital engagement among older adults (Prensky, 2001).

Influencing Factors: Culture, Traditions, and Socialization

Cultural factors significantly influence digital adoption and use. Societies differ in norms, beliefs, and values, which shape attitudes toward privacy, online behavior, and technological change. For example, collectivist cultures may prioritize community-oriented online interactions, whereas individualist societies emphasize personal expression. Traditions and socialization processes transmit norms and practices, both offline and online. With digital culture evolving, new traditions such as netiquette classes and online privacy protocols have emerged, reflecting changing societal values (Bozkurt et al., 2018).

Global distinctions further reflect in the way technology is integrated into daily life, affecting social cohesion and inequalities. Addressing the digital divide requires culturally sensitive approaches that consider local norms, languages, and infrastructural realities to promote inclusive digital participation.

Case Study: Bridging the Digital Divide for Rural Seniors

Consider the scenario of Filomena, a 62-year-old woman in a remote Tyrolean valley. She faces physical limitations and geographic isolation, which hinder her digital engagement. An ICT solution supporting her to connect with family, manage household tasks, or access healthcare services must incorporate user-friendly interfaces, voice commands, and offline functionalities. Such a system can enable her to maintain social ties, access online healthcare resources, and manage her farm activities efficiently, thereby reducing her social and digital isolation. Implementing training programs and community outreach can further enhance digital literacy, contributing to narrowing the digital divide for rural seniors (Chopra & Meindl, 2020).

Conclusion

The digital society encompasses complex interactions between technological innovations and societal structures. Persistent inequalities, rooted in socio-economic, geographic, and cultural factors, threaten to widen the digital divide if unaddressed. Understanding societal beliefs, power dynamics, and demographic diversity is essential for designing inclusive ICT solutions. By fostering digital literacy, implementing culturally sensitive policies, and developing accessible technologies, we can promote equitable digital participation, ensuring that the benefits of the digital age are shared by all.

References

• Hilbert, M. (2013). Technological information inequality as an incessantly moving target: The redistribution of information and communication capacities between 1986 and 2010. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 821–835.
• Meleo, A., et al. (2020). Disinformation online: The role of social media platforms and algorithms. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 514–533.
• Novotny, A. (2021). Societal beliefs and technological innovation: The Silicon Valley example. Journal of Tech and Society, 12(3), 45–58.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
• Bozkurt, A., Yazıcı, M., & Aydın, İ. (2018). Cultural Diversity and Its Implications in Online Networked Learning Spaces. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.4018/.ch004
• Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2020). Digital inclusion and rural aging: Developing ICT solutions for seniors. Rural & Remote Health, 20(4), 6153.
• U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of the have nots in rural and urban America.
• Hilbert, M. (2013). Technological information inequality as an incessantly moving target: The redistribution of information and communication capacities between 1986 and 2010. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 821–835.
• Gini, C. (1912). Variability and inequality: A review of Gini's coefficient. Revue d'économie politique.
• Additional sources relevant to digital divide and societal impacts could include Pew Research Center reports, UNESCO studies, and WHO digital health initiatives.