It was two days social sciences based Internet research immersion, and a very tight schedule of presentations by most of the attendees. The opening speech by Arthur Lupia introduced one of the main topics of the event; using the Internet to politically engage citizens. His main point was that “we”, the already politically engaged, want “them” to politically engage similarly, but that we forget that they might not want to do so. Thus, we have to improve our methods and develop a manner in which we indeed can persuade others.

Those who are interested in a more elaborated description of the many presentations on e-campaigning, e-elections and e-governments I have to refer to the conference’s papers, as I skipped most of the presentations on this topic. As the menu included a large variety of topics, I instead was more curious about online activism, virtual goods and the digital divide, my presentation being part of the latter.

Overall, not many new things were discussed and this made me realise how our New Media program in Amsterdam has a rather different and very new view on what is going on in the world. Most stick to rather dated research methods that might not apply to these new media (note, however, that the primary medium discussed was the Internet as the conference was specifically on the Internet, and little attention was there for other digital media or concepts that are related to digital technologies such as piracy, software, networks, etc.). In one presentation was brought to the fore, for instance, that all the data produced that is produced until two years ago (and thereby I mean ever and by everybody) is now produced online each two days. How do we deal with this amount of information? How do we research? One critical question indeed was whether we generalise a case study on 200 Facebook groups over the 600 million Facebook groups existent..

However, several presentations gave interesting insights, and the papers can be accessed online. Maura Conway, for instance, spoke about online terrorism and looked at the radicalisation of Youtube movies, in which she found that the most influential users of the network in fact were women. Others used DMI methods in order to trace issue networks. Keren Sereno used the issue crawler in order to map the protest network of NGOs in Israel. She found that the smaller NGOs that had a narrow focus, or aim, remained more isolated than the bigger organisations that had a broader variety of aims (human rights, gender equality, etc.). Also, many spoke about the use of Internet in non-democratic regimes or during elections. James Gomez, for instance, presented his research on opposition parties and elections and the use of new media in Singapore and Malaysia.

In my panel called digital divide, my presentation was rather different. Speaking about my fieldwork – particular examples of what people do, anecdotes of what I have seen and people have told me – was not very much like the other presentations that demonstrated digital divide statistics. For instance, one of the panel speakers presented digital inclusion rates in Chelsey (minority groups – Afro-American and Latinos – face more difficulty accessing the internet than whites and seem to have different reasons for not accessing; lack of interest, financial reasons, or lack of skills). Another presentation shed light on the relation between the digital inclusion rate in a country and the amount of political parties that have websites and use the Internet to engage with the citizens (online political parties are also unequally distributed depending on the country). Instead of critically discussing what the digital divide means and includes today, they rather dichotomously mapped access to the Internet in terms of the haves and have-nots.

After all, I met plenty of interesting people at this conference. It was a very international setting, with attendees from all over the world. Even though some research didn’t look too interesting or relevant at first sight, talking with people from all over the world that have the same interest – but, very importantly, different backgrounds and experiences – is always very fruitful. I believe that is called networking?

sluis_thesis_digitalinclusion_250810

The catalyst behind all this is Casa Puraqué. The Puraqué is a fish that lives in the Amazon Rivers and causes an electric shock when you touch it. They adopted this name, since they want to wake up people through a shock of knowledge.

Their main goal is social transformation through the appropriation of alternative technology. About eight years ago, when they started their project, they were the first who brought FLOSS to the city. For them, the profound and meta-knowledge on technology enables the new users to actually do something with technology.

“We want to contaminate the people with the ‘Digital Culture virus’ and with the philosophy of FLOSS, because during the knowledge revolution, the computer has become the central tool that centralizes all means of multi-media production. Also, the computer is an incredibly powerful tool for learning, communication, exchanging ideas, and to store information. People need to understand that, otherwise our society will never evolve the way we want. That is what we most accentuate here, since these days we are subject to predatory processes (mining, deforestation, soy), that will bring more and more misery to our region”1.

They are tired of being exploited for the resources the area contains, and they want knowledge to become the main characteristic of the region. Knowledge on technology, but also on the philosophy of FLOSS in a capitalist society and consciousness on electronic waste and the environmental damage it causes. Thus, through contaminating and educating others, knowledge will exponentially increase throughout the region.

On of the things I find particularly interesting is how they maintain themselves without any significant income. That is, they all work voluntary and depend on donations of used technology by companies or the state to continue their projects. That means that a lack of resources would hamper their activities. Therefore, they (often voluntarily) offer workshops and courses on FLOSS and the application of their methodology to public schools with computer labs (not all schools have such labs) and the Infocentros (computer centers implemented and financed by Navegapará, a project by the state government Pará). Thus, they seek top-down projects that are sustainable (especially the public schools, as the elections might jeopardize these existing programs), and hack them to make them adopt their methodology and ideology, thus passing it to their students.

That explains why the Infocentros in Santarém work differently than those in, for instance, the capital Belém. The Puraqueanos assured me that they have already trained over three thousand people over the last eight years. Over the last couple of years the team consisted of about fifty people. Lately, the core group of Casa Puraqué found jobs in the field of ICT for all of them, most of them as monitors in the Infocentros. Obviously, these people have a profound knowledge on technology, as they have learned the principles of programming through using FLOSS, done a lot of MetaReciclagem and have gone through an intensive learning process. Different than the monitors in Belém, they teach the users of the Infocentros the basic principles of open source technology through a course on the basics of informatics. Today, they are planning on giving an advanced course as well. That means that there is little time left for free usage of the Internet, and thus digital inclusion goes beyond using Orkut and MSN.

Instead of visiting the Infocentros to use ICTs, it rather becomes a professional course. During a couple of classes on of the basics and ICT in general for kids and elderly I experienced myself how important it is to have a little knowledge on how to use ICTs, how it works, and what to use it for. Particularly for those that are shy, insecure, and afraid of technology. That is, often in the case of (older) women, people remain staring at their screens without doing anything, as they oftentimes are used to not touch or do anything without permission. They are afraid to do things wrong, or to damage the equipment. Or they are afraid of technology in general, as they don’t know how to cope with it. That means, that without a course, they would not enter an Infocentro or cybercafé, because first, they don’t know how to use the technology, and second, they don’t know what to use it for. Something that seems so natural for us, for example, Google Talk, they have no idea what do with it. They ask me when I showed them how to use it: ‘But what am I supposed to say?’ or ‘Should I be formal, or rather informal?’, even when they chat with their classmates.

Furthermore, most of the teachers in other local digital inclusion initiatives, like Casa Brasil and Pontão de Cultura Digital Tapajós—projects by the Ministry of Culture that have bases in various cities throughout the country—have joined and are trained by Casa Puraqué. Thus, Casa Puraqué both assures these people a job and an income and the expansion of their ideology and methodology throughout the region. Every time a new course starts, the first class will extensively explain why and how to use FLOSS. Only after the first couple of classes introducing the philosophy of FLOSS, they will actually start to learn how to use it. Those that are not interested in this story and just want to use the Internet won´t continue the courses. That means that those that eventually stay and graduate actually embrace the philosophy, and therefore they will most likely spread it. Thus, what is sustainable is not so much the actual project, but their methodology.

Concluding: what struck me most until now is that these people actually undergo a social transformation. Not because they experience access to ICTs, but because learning about and using technology stimulates them to pursue their dreams, or simply to have dreams. As they focus mainly on marginalized groups, most of the children live in very simple and poor circumstances. They are not encouraged to continue studying after high school, and tough physical work is oftentimes (still) valued more than a career in ICTs. Girls are expected to marry soon and have a family. Many don’t finish high school because they get pregnant, and many guys end up in gangs and drugs traffic. Of course they don´t chose such a life, and the courses at Casa Puraqué allows them to realize that they actually can do something, that they have talents, that knowledge is valuable, and that they can use technology in a professional manner. This results in many of the new Puraquéanos studying at the state and federal university, most of the times in an area related to IT. However, the best proof of the effect of this knowledge and consciousness is the difference I perceive in self-esteem between people that have been involved in these projects and people that have not, especially when talking to several Santarenhos about their experiences. One ex-Puraqueana told me that she wouldn´t be talking to me like that before she started to frequent Puraqué, as she would have felt a very big distance between her and me, therefore being too shy. Whereas those without such an experience remain living in ignorance and ‘accept’ social inequality because they don’t have the means to resist, (ex)-Puraqueanos now are (sometimes very young) people who know what they want, who are self-confident, and eager to learn more. They actually realize that they have potential.

1 Interview with Dennie Fabrizio in aRede 08/02/2010. Viewed:12/05/2010

Besides that, Brazilians are also very much concerned with alternative approaches to digital inclusion, which include horizontal collaborative networks using alternative technologies to provide and increase (meaningful) access to marginalized groups. This social activism results in many attempts to digitally include those that lack access to ICTs. Besides the many telecentros (initiatives by NGOs, state governments or private investments) that offer (payable or free) access to computers and the Internet, other initiatives maintain a rather artistic and cultural approach, whereby digital inclusion goes beyond having access to a PC and simply use it. Instead, they aim at the appropriation of technology in a creative manner by each specific person.

A specific ‘methodology’ for the appropriation of technology is developed by an activist network called MetaReciclagem. They learn those that have poor or no access to ICTs to deconstruct existing (used) hardware, and subsequently train them to use this electronic waste to reconstruct a new pc.

As I will conduct my research on the appropriation of technology in one of the MetaReciclagem spores in the North of Brazil, I talked to several people involved in the network. They say that the capacity to creatively appropriate technology is a cultural characteristic, something they call ‘o jeitinho brasileiro’ (the Brazilian way). It’s has its roots long ago, in a cannibalistic habit described by the Brazilian Anthropologist Oswald de Andrade in 1928 called ‘Manifesto Antropófago’; when the indigenous, once a battle was finished, ate the flesh of the Portuguese (their enemies), in order to conquer their strengths1. Based on this cultural history, Digitofagia refers to a new current where the Brazilians not eat their enemies, but ‘eat’, or rather digest, western digital technology and mix it with their own knowledge, cultural values and characteristics, to create something different and better (Brunet:2005).

Another cultural characteristic that explains the Brazilian creativity is gambiarra. Gambiarra is the inventiveness to use a certain object in a different manner, and thus achieve a certain goal alternatively (often due to a lack of money or means). In relation to digital inclusion and the appropriation of technology this means that the process of digital inclusion occurs in a different manner than ‘usually’. That is, when I asked around how the people involved conceive of MetaReciclagem as a methodology for digital inclusion, one of them explained that the appropriation of technology in this manner doesn’t aim at meaningful usage of the technology, but at an understanding of how it functions. Thus, a user more likely becomes a producer, instead of becoming a passive consumer of technology.

Furthermore, recycling technology and thus creating your own also offers an alternative to a consumer society that produces more and more products of less quality. They claim that Gambiarra is a political practice that, in a tactical manner, can circumvent or contradict the productive capitalist logic. Moreover, using garbage and e-waste in a creative manner not only provides a solution to a world full of electronic waste. In a city with high unemployment it also learns people to develop a way of living that is self-sufficient.

Although Brazilians are critical against the current government; they complain about violence, corruption and inequality, at the same time they are optimistic. This optimism makes them believe in initiatives such as MetaReciclagem, and they put a lot of energy in it. I think this is wonderful, but at the same time I wonder, for instance, to what extent the usage of e-waste offers an alternative to a consumer society, as these alternative technologies equally serve to include these new users in a consumer society, through access to and usage of the Internet. Or, to what extent these new users, after knowing what is inside the black box and how to reconstruct a computer, use the technologies differently than those that have simply use the Internet to access social networks and MSN. How does such a methodology respond to the social needs of the excluded? That is, how does such a free, collaborative and anti-capitalist ideology correspond with the local reality? Do the new users experience any difference when using FLOSS instead of Windows? Does the reconstruction of technology go beyond digital inclusion? What does it mean to be digitally included, what are the benefits for a particular user? What effect has meta-knowledge on and the appropriation of technology on the lives of community members, and how do they use the technology for personal ends, that truly benefit or satisfy them?

We have to be critical, though I think it’s important to rethink what is relevant and what is important in the particular case of the digitally excluded. For instance, meta-knowledge on technologies not necessarily changes the way in which they use technology, but it might help the new user to develop new career opportunities. And instead of criticizing the initiatives for leading to inclusion in a consumer society eventually, we must investigate how they can be self-sufficient and autonomous within a consumer society. Finally,is the aim of these initiatives a higher digital inclusion rate, social transformation of the social user or spreading the free-software anti-capitalist ideology?

These are so far my thoughts on MetaReciclagem, digital inclusion, creative and collaborative culture in Brazil. Being here inspires me and gives me a lot of energy. Every day new information raises new questions. Only a few days left to see these ideas and ideologies being applied in practice, allowing me to reconsider the relevance of the above critique and thoughts.

10 tactics is an interesting website highlighting 10 tactics for information activism! This is the trailer, introducing the role of digital media in activism. The 10 tactics include a.o. mobilise people, amplify personal stories, add humor, and use collective intelligence. Watch the videos from the ’10 tactics box’ to learn more about them.

10 tactics for turning information into action (Trailer) from Tactical Technology Collective on Vimeo.

Projeto Alavanca, where I have worked for several months, is an organization based in São Paulo, a in low-income community (favela) called São Remo. The organization strives to community development and social inclusion by offering several (free) educational activities, thus reducing the illiteracy level within the community.

What I particularly liked about the organization is their focus on (new) media activities, by offering courses in graphic design, arts, journalism and communication theories. They stress the importance of using ICT for educational purposes to make the children familiar with new technologies, aiming to bridge this digital gap, and argue that nowadays a person cannot be considered as literate unless he is digitally literate as well. A person who doesn’t know the basics of ICT will have difficulties to function in today’s society.

The collaborators within the organization are encouraged to actively participate in the organizational processes (many of the employees are members of the community, but also foreign volunteers), as since 2006 they started to use diverse open source applications in the daily project work, as wikis, groupware, trac, content management system, moodle and php-list.

Although this is a very interesting step forward – many NGOs still maintain a very traditional, vertical structure, not willing to adapt to new technologies, the implementation of these alternative applications also made them face the deficits and restrictions of the existing solutions. They argue that there is a lack of software or web-based applications (online platforms, social networks, etc.) that seriously allow or promote online collaboration, information sharing or distribution among NGOs. Also, commercial software is very expensive and many organizations admit the lack of competences to adopt existing open source solutions. Open source software is not always very user-friendly. Furthermore, NGOs often lack ICTs of good quality. On average, NGOs suffer data loss due to computer breakdowns five times a year[1]!

Such problems are mainly an effect of inefficiency within the organizational structures of NGOs; they fail to recognize new possibilities, or lack a proper working space, financial resources, employees/volunteers and technologies. According to some research they conducted among local NGOs, they usually don’t have a space (online) to share information or present their results, establish partnerships and get volunteers and donors involved. Moreover, the rare use of ICTs in the non-profit sector creates a lot of inefficiency.

Projeto Alavanca recognizes the need of better alternatives that enhances internal organizational structures of NGOs. As NGOs usually depend and involve diverse interest groups, a highly efficient information architecture is essential. Existing alternatives, such as Ammado, Better Place or Blackbaud are either paid (very expensive) or have a very restricted diverity of system functions.

Therefore, they are now developing open source software (NPOffice) that offers a basic information architecture that fits such organizations; supporting the whole third sector from fundraising to project implementation and evaluation in an efficient manner. It is a web-based software, which offers multi-platforms and integrates several other applications. For instance, it allows them to compare results with other organizations in order to encourage mutual learning and they can share and distribute information and knowledge available at the project; such as educating materials and course descriptions, but also business plans. This allows other organizations to easily access and use this information for their own (educational and organizational) purposes.

Eventually they want to donate NPOffice to all their assisted NGOs to set the software as a standard for all the organizations and foundations, and thus generate a basis for quality, exchange and comparison.

The software can also be used for instituations of development and donors; it facilitates finding NGOs they would like to support and/or evaluate their efficiency. They argue that these institutions play a role to establish the software at the market. Furthermore, donors can find NGOs they would like to support as they can easily compare several NGOs, and thus make sure that an organization is very efficient. Finally, volunteers (local or foreign) can find NGOs that fit their interests and they can easily contact the organizations. Also, they not necessarily have to work at the organization’s office, but can easily work from their homes.

They are aware of sceptics, people that don’t see the advantages or stick to familiar software and applications. Furthermore, we might argue whether NGOs would be willig to openly share their information, knowledge and administration. Allthough they don’t have commerical/competitive purposes, they might be afraid of abuse. However promising, I think, is their initiative to set up a website that helps the São Paulo NGOs to discuss software needs and vote upon priorities. They provide questionnaires for organizations to describe their current use of ICTs and the possible deficits. Parallel to the website development they will approach other NGOs via mail, forums and on-site-visits in order to encourage them to take part in the discussion. Finally, the website will show investors the importance of financing the future software development. A huge number of organizations that discusses their ICT needs gives a strong argument to invest in NPOffice.

Their intention to serve the whole non-profit sector, first in São Paulo and on a broader scale eventually, with an informational system that allows NGOs to enhance their organizational structures, to me sounds like a very interesting initiative. As they say, they want to improve non-profit results with business intelligence, and I think such a horizontal and networked, open structure can be very fruitful. Read their business plan presentation for a more extensive description of their ideas.

‘Problems are not a monopoly of the South and solutions are not a monopoly of the North’^[1]. Particularly the latter part of this quote struck me, since within many studies on developmental aid and ICT4D (Information and Communication Technology for Development) prevails the idea that the solutions will come from the north, that is, from the developed countries. However, the (technological) inequality, often called the digital divide, is a consequence of the increasing (digital) technologies in developed countries. Ironically we are now trying to solve this problem with the same technology that has caused the inequality in the first place, upholding the idea that ‘our’ western solutions are the most appropriate.

The problem is that the digital divide is not only a matter of unequal distribution of technology; it is a complicated economic, social and political issue, whereof the rules need to be changed before actual development and the fight against inequality can be accomplished. ICTs do not play a determining role in this process. To my opinion we should move beyond the idea to use ICTs for societal and economical development and first start to focus on its potential to locally improve the lives of excluded and on how it can bring about social transformation for a particular user. Thereby we should rethink questions such as ‘what does it mean to be digitally included and what are the advantages for the to be included?’ or ‘to what state of being should we strive in the process of digital inclusion?’ and it is of great importance and interest to observe how cultural and social values and characteristics are reflected in the local appropriation and use of technology, instead of simply overloading the excluded with the newest (western) ICTs.

In Brazil, a country that has embraced FLOSS and adapted government policy on copyrights (see RIP, a Remix Manifesto), many projects and initiatives (governmental and non-governmental) aim at digitally and socially including marginalized groups by offering them access to digital technologies, e.g. cybercafés, school labs offering free computer access, etc. Several projects based on the same principle, which are widely spread throughout the country, use alternative technology to achieve social transformation for marginalized groups and minorities whereby digital inclusion goes beyond simply providing access to excluded groups, but tends to ‘improve’ the quality of their lives.

Those initiatives work from a bottom-up process, encouraging the excluded to develop their own ICTs independently from western interests. An example is the project called MetaReciclagem, which teaches and stimulate users to remanufacture hardware and garbage to create appropriate technology that runs free and open source software, pursuing a participative methodology for education, social engagement and innovation[2]. They argue that digital inclusion does not consist of simply providing access to the Internet and it, in that manner, will certainly not enhance social engagement and innovation; neither does it close the digital divide.

Instead of teaching a user how to co-op with basic ICTs, they rather stimulate the formation of people who can create technologies that are appropriate to their values, norms and cultural beliefs, and which improve the quality of their lives and the life within the local communities eventually[3].

One of the basic principles of the initiative is the stimulation of entrepreneurship, self-management and the creation of mini-companies and corporations, thus encouraging autonomic communities. The use of alternative appropriated technology and FLOSS should encourage and complete this process. They learn how to create something they actually ‘need’, something that fulfils their needs, based on the philosophy of the ‘free movement’; creating free technologies and software, independent from western hard and software companies and their licenses on intellectual property and in a sense circumventing the capitalist logic of the Internet. Therefore, the (re)use of garbage and hardware and FLOSS play an essential role within this project and thus distinguishes the initiative from many other attempts to achieve digital inclusion.

The project is broadly applied in Brazil for over five years now, and I think it is time to answer the above questions in order to move on within the general debate on digital inclusion, which has, to my opinion, come to and ever repeating ‘everybody needs to be connected’, and for those who claim that digital inclusion is nothing more then ‘digital capitalism looking South’ the main argument remains that ‘FLOSS is the solution’. However, there is a lack of case studies done on the appropriation of alternative technologies and the way in which social transformation and self-autonomy is achieved within the process of digital inclusion. It is, therefore, of great importance that we reconsider the above questions, locally, instead of speculating how to bring those excluded into ‘our space’, that is, the space of the included. A case study on one of the bases of the MetaReciclagem project, called Projeto Puraqué, located in the south of the Amazon, will hopefully bring me new perspectives on the digital inclusion debate.

[2] Felipe Fonseca and Bronac Ferran – Sica – Mapping e-culture in Brazil (2008)

[3] Interview with co-founder Felipe Fonseca

Also, your typing is accompanied by relaxing sounds (sound of the sea, birds) and music and sounds for every hit on your keyboard (crackling ice, for example).

I found all this pretty amazing and couldn’t help sighing loudly. But when showing it to all my friends afterwards I realized we’re not only caught by Googlization but also by a very severe (Microsoft) Wordization.

“Where is the spellings check?”, “I can’t change the font size and style properly!” and “How will other computers be able to open my document?” where only some of the critique I heard. Although the spelling, style and font matters will be improved by the time (it’s still a beta version), the latter is a serious one, since Word doesn’t allow you to open a .txt file written in Omm.

It seems we are stuck in a ‘Word frame’ where different text processors are not being accepted. Only if Omm would adapt its format into a more Wordish style, people would consider using it. I’m afraid it is more likely Microsoft adapting its text-processor by adding the pleasant sounds, music and backgrounds. And that would be a shame, because Omm is for free… :)

You should try: www.ommwriter.com

The Digital Revolution in Cuba is facing several difficulties, due to technical, economical and political factors. First of all, Cuba’s Internet connection ‘es super lenta’ (is extremely slow)[2]. Cuba uses a satellite connection with a 65 Mb/s upload bandwidth and a 124 MB/s download bandwidth for the users of entire island. American legislation, due to the US trade embargo, forbids US investment in Cuban telecommunications and the installation of a rapid fiber optic cable for reasonable Internet velocity[3].

Secondly, few people have access to the Internet. There is distinguishable information available about the possibility of buying/owning proper computers and I couldn’t discover whether it is allowed or not. But PCs are very expensive and actual connection to the Internet is limited. Internet is accessible in cybercafés and some hotels, but two Reporters Without Borders journalists experienced difficulties as registration by name and ID number is usually required[4] and their online behaviour strictly being watched by the cybercafés’ employees[5].

Furthermore, there are two types of Internet; the ‘national Internet’ and the ‘international Internet’. The first is a sort of intranet that, concluding from various contradicting sources[6] [7], provides solely email and some Internet pages (.cu) maintained by Cuban authorities. The second is the ‘international’ Internet as we know it.

Besides the extremely slow connection, the cost for accessing Internet is really high. Most Cubans are obligated to use the intranet because the tariffs for the international Internet are too expensive (about 4 Euros for one hour, which is about one third of the average monthly wage and just enough to lead 3 internet pages)[8].

For the people who can access/afford the cybercafés, the PCs are installed with some kind of software that triggers an alert message when it notices subversive keywords and consequently the application – word processor or browser – closes automatically[9].

Additionally, the government traces all email for dissident of subversive content.[10] This results in ‘self-censorship’, and discourages users from transferring political sensitive information. People are careful about what they write and which pages they visit, as harsh punishments are risked for spreading counter-revolutionary content[11] [12].

Contradictorily, the government doesn’t seem to be blocking much of the international Internet. According to the Reporters Without Borders research in 2006, big news sites such as BBC and lemunde.fr are normally accessible[13], and no huge numbers of Internet pages were found. Nevertheless, censorship also occurs for commercial ends[14], and some sites that promote non-state regulated commercial sites are not accessible for Cubans. Whether the sites are blocked by the government isn’t approved, ‘but Cuban authorities have in the past reportedly prohibited access to pages they consider “counter-revolutionary,” including blogs critical of the socialist system’[15].

Besides the lack of broad and open access to its citizens, Cubans also face reverse censorship by US. For instance, Cubans claim that Google blocks access to Cubans with no clear reason why[16]. Also, recently Microsoft seems to be blocking Cubans from using the MSN messenger[17] and Windows, as a consequence of the US trade embargo[18].

So, Cubans seem to have a hard time exploring the World Wide Web, due to high costs, extremely slow Internet and strict monitoring by the government.  According to the available sources, censorship consists of deliberately limiting Cubans from accessing the international Internet pages and monitoring subversive content on PCs and in email. But if that is the case – the fear of the masses connecting to the World Wide Web, how can we explain the government’s agreement with the first plans for providing the island with faster Internet connections being already made? Earlier this year Venezuela announced having plans to lay a sub-marine fiber optics cable to connect Cuba and Venezuela that is expected to be ready in 2010. Also, as a result of the eased long-standing restrictions on telecom links to Cuba by the Obama administration in April this year[19], the US also seem to be willing to connect the island by fiber optics.

This contradicts the aforementioned observations of the government deliberately denying access to the major part of the population. It is extremely difficult to get an objective view of the Cuban Internet situation, as information on the Internet from various sources is very contradictory and some of the (main) sources might be biased. Analysing and describing the current Cuban Internet behaviour was very complicated, as I doubted the reliability, due to the complicated relation between Cuba and the US, of the sources. Facts about the number of users, the tariffs in cybercafés, the websites accessible for citizens and the possibilities for having access and computers are not very consistent. For example, are Cubans at all interested in using the Internet as a political liberation tool[22]? We haven’t heard the opinion of the masses yet, as it is only a mere part of the Cuban population, able to pay the expensive price for Internet usage or with abroad connections to publish their blogpostings, we ‘hear’ online. News from either pro-Cuban, non-Cuban or Cuban but not pro is very contradictory, due to several complicated political, social and economical factors.

[1] Symmes, Patrick. ‘Che Is Dead’, Wired. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[2] Voeux, Claire. ‘I tested the Cuban Internet for you’, RSF Report 2006. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[3] ONI Report on Cuba, http://opennet.net/research/profiles/cuba

[4] Voeux, Claire. ‘I tested the Cuban Internet for you’, RSF Report 2006. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[5] Voeux, Claire. ‘Cuba’s Way Of Controlling The Internet’, RSF Report 2006. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[6] RSF Report 2006 about internet usage in Cuba. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[7] ONI Report on Cuba, http://opennet.net/research/profiles/cuba

[8] RSF Report 2006 about internet usage in Cuba. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[9] Voeux, Claire. ‘Cuba’s Way Of Controlling The Internet’, RSF Report 2006. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[10] RSF Report 2006 about internet usage in Cuba. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[11] RSF Report 2006 about internet usage in Cuba. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[12] ONI Report on Cuba, http://opennet.net/research/profiles/cuba

[13] Voeux, Claire. ‘Cuba’s Way Of Controlling The Internet’, RSF Report 2006. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[14] Faris, R. and Villeneuve, N. ‘Measuring Global Internet Filtering’ in R. Deibert et al. ‘Access denied: The practice and policy of global Internet filtering’. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2008)

[15] Israel, Esteban. ‘Cubans say access to online market site is blocked’, International Business Times. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[16] Valle, Amaury E. del. ‘Does Google Censor Cuba?’, Juventudrebelde.co.cu, last viewed 2009/11/04

[17] Protalinski, Emil. ‘Microsoft Blocks Messenger in US Embargoed Countries’, Arstechnica.com. Last viewed 2009/11/04)

[18] Symmes, Patrick. ‘Che Is Dead’, Wired. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[19] Telegeography. ‘TeleCuba to lay first US-Cuba fibre-optic cable’. Last viewed 2009/11/04

[20] Lanrami, Salim. ‘Reporters without Borders remains silent about the journalist tortured in Guantánamo’, Globalresearch.ca. Last viewed, 2009/11/11

[21] Anderson, Tim. ‘Cuba and its ‘Independent Journalists’. Thegreenleft.org.au. Last viewed 2009/11/11

[22] Frank, Marc. ‘Cuba may allow for less state control of economy’, Havana Journal. Last viewed 2009/11/04