Is society morally obligated to bridge "Digital divides"?

Considering the obligation of society to other 'social divides' - and assuming that by "ICT" you mean 'information and communication technologies' - efforts in this area would seem dubious. That's not to say that some would not attempt to make it an issue.

First, establish what are the moral obligations of those less digitally fortunate to society? As long as they don't harm anyone or violate any laws have they met their moral obligations to society and therefore are deserving of digital equality? Or, should their obligation to society have a higher moral standard?

What's the idea? Is it that some should receive for free what others pay for?

No.





David

I see the digital divide as a question of national infrastructure. It's not really practical to string power lines into rural areas, but we do it anyway because electricity is essential to modern life and as a nation, we provide the means for all citizens to get power at a reasonable cost. Not free, reasonable cost. Same with phone service and mail service. Not the same with cable service. Cable is not an essential service. So the question becomes "is the Internet essential to modern life?". I think it is rapidly becoming so. A community without access to the Internet will soon be as handicapped as one without phone service. That doesn't mean the service if free, but if you don't have a high enough population density, it might make sense for government to subsidize the service so that rural users can have high speed access for similar rates as those in more urban areas. Likewise, I think it makes sense that public libraries provide Internet access for those who cannot afford it at home just as the government provides public schools.

@katakombic

I submit your case is not about moral obligation. There is no moral obligation to provide mail, roads, phone lines, internet, etc. However, failing to provide infrastructure can handicap a society.