First of all, the article “Disinformocracy” by Rheingold along with “Democracy and Cyberspace” by Moore draws a big picture of this subject matter. Rheingold began by giving a two-sided argument about cyberspace. The first one is that the cyberspace helps us to revise democracy on the other hand the second one is that the cyberspace can be persuading people attractively packaged substitute to democracy. The main question is what is the role of cyberspace in democracy? It is obvious that cyberspace-Internet has a democratic potential as it can be seen as a utopia of participatory democracy since everyone can say everything freely on the Internet. Nevertheless, what a

Haywood also examined this social division between info-poors and info-riches saying that the networks are simply laid over the existing patterns of inequality and exclusion by showing that there is no public institution to mediate digitized information to economically deprived groups. In consequence as the info rich gained more power the info-poor replicated their disadvantages that mean social divisions and distinctions remained untouched by massification of computer based technology and Internet. He also examined the loss of community created by Internet which leads to drop in political involvement, rise in social isolation, ease of becoming units of consumption, hibernation, loss of authoritative citizenship and loss of social kinship that is concluded by more inequality and isolated subcultures.

Luke also discussed this issue in his article “ The Politics of Digital Inequality”. He suggested that it is impossible to think about the use value & exchange value and space & society separately. Optimists see Internet as an utopia which is realized therefore see it as an equalizer because there is no boundries between gender, race, ethnicity and also it is free of all structural inequalities which are persistent in life thus only minds are in communication. But on the other hand, there is discrepancy between nations according to their publishing possibilities and also there are contradiction between virtual possibilities and real life actualities. Digiterati is promising a world of equality and empowerment but what about the conditions of network connectivity? Many people have potential but the access? It is not being control by nations and governments but by digiteraty. If there is the access but now another issue, cultural authority, rulemaking and rule interpreting rest on network managers, software designers or system operators slipping away from traditional political jurisdiction. Bill Gates suggested “Computers is not about computers anymore, it’s about life” which shows that digiteraty dismiss the social divide between info-rich and info- poor therefore they divide the society according to generations. They do not even take into consideration the info-poors. Another social divide made by Kanter is cosmopolitans which flow though global market and rich in knowledge, competence and connections that value choice over loyalty versus localists which are embedded in fixed sites whose skill are not desirable and have limited connections in a limited neighborhood that value loyalty over choice. In this case, t is not a matter of access; it is

Some topics in this essay:
Internet Haywood, Internet Nevertheless, Similarly Haywood, Optimists Internet, Jeremy Bentham, Bill Gates, Encrypted Messages”, , Internet Network, Cyberspace” Moore, public sphere, remained untouched, distinctions remained, remained untouched massification, distinctions remained untouched, untouched massification, computer-based technologies internet, dematerialization communication, system operators, internet leads, untouched massification computer-based, privacy issue, massification computer-based technologies, gender ethnicity, difficult distinguish,