Before this article, I was familiar with the practice of redlining as a historical concept. It is one of the least talked about and most damaging policies from the era of a segregationist America. Today we are now seeing a new form of virtual redlining, restricting access to knowledge for students. The most common reason to restrict and ban certain topics from being seen is for moral reasons. There are perfectly good reasons to ban and restrict certain content on network computers in schools. Illegal activities such as child pornography, and drug dealing are things which are unacceptable in any context. It is when institutions have to decide on something that is legal, but taboo to many people. The example of revenge porn is an excellent one. Sometimes in higher learning institutions students must do research on taboo topics. This isn’t just limited to porn though. If you wanted to do a study on alt-right or explicitly neo-Nazi groups, it might be helpful to go on websites such as 4chan, or Stormfront. These websites are vile places with some of the worst opinions of humanity being expressed. To do a thorough study on them though you must wade into the mud. I would guarantee that 4chan is banned on almost every institutional network and Stormfront on a good portion of them.
The obvious solution to this problem (especially in community colleges) is to have a more open attitude when either choosing what sites go on a banned list, or designing algorithms which are more open. This is the easy technical solution. The societal solutions are much harder. Community Colleges see more of these restrictions due to the opinion that their purpose is more about job training than abstract intellectual thought. The attitude being that why would they need to look up such taboo topics in such a setting? This brings up the fact that those in the ruling classes often feel a moral paternalism for the working classes. It has existed since the earliest days of progressivist politics in the late 19thand early 20thcenturies.
The most concerning thing about this article though is that it might be a bellwether for something more sinister in the coming years. The concept of the digital divide is not new and something we have explored already. Chris Gilliard in his article is explicit in stating that digital redlining is not the same as the digital divide. The two though I think will become more and more linked in the future. As laws surrounding net neutrality fall in the United States and are under threat in Canada, it is possible to see a future of the internet which divides what can be accessed easily and what cannot be based on your income. If you pay for an internet or data package which fast lanes certain popular websites, but leaves others behind a “throttle wall” then the information people will be able to access will be dependent on income. This is reintroducing the “gatekeeper” effect which plagued old style media institutions of the past. The beauty of the internet was that you had essentially the same amount of “digital square footage” that the New York Times had. The openness and democratic nature that we value in the internet will be lost.