martedì 18 dicembre 2018

Roundtable: is Internet a right?

materiale didattico estratto dal sito


Ssustainable Development Goals:  Target 9.C
(Universal Access to Information and Communications Technology)
"Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020."

Today we’re going to be discussing whether or not online access should be considered a basic right of all humans.

Why is it important/relevant?

First, let us read what has to say about human rights:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages.
Most people agree that things like food, water, shelter, education, and freedom should be guaranteed rights for all humans, regardless of where they were born or who governs them. However, as technology continues to rapidly change how people live, learn and work, many have begun to also consider the internet (Which hit the 4 billion users milestone in 2018) as a basic human right. Others argue that although it is an important means to gaining other rights, it should not be categorized alongside them as essential.
In 2016, the United Nations chose a side in this debate and added online access as a human right. It also condemned countries that take away or disrupt their citizens’ access for political reasons.

Content & Multimedia

First, let’s read/watch these resources:

1. The targets for SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

2. What are the Universal Human Rights? -- from TED-Ed on YouTube.




6. Internet Access is Not a Human Right -- a New York Times Op-Ed.

7. In Europe, Central Asia, and North America, more than 70% of the population had access to the internet in 2015. However, in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, that rate is barely over 20%. Explore the numbers in greater detail with this Our World in Data article.

Discussion Questions

  1. The internet should be a basic human right. Agree or Disagree.
  2. While nearly everyone agrees that the internet is a useful tool, there is far less agreement about how much of the internet should be visible. The so-called “Great Firewall of China,” for example, tightly restricts access to information and various social media. Is this acceptable? What about access to the so-called “Dark Net,” land of drug dealers, child abusers, and human traffickers? Where, in your view, should the access lines be drawn?
  3. Brainstorm a list of actions that you think governments and companies could take in order to increase internet access rates around the world. Rank your top five ideas according to “likelihood of being effective.”
If this subject really interests you, please feel free to do some additional research and include it in your submission. Don’t worry about being “right”. The point of this discussion is to explore these ideas together.

Peer Feedback

After submitting your response, read at least two of your classmates’ responses and post a reply. Did they change your perspective in any way? Do you disagree? Why or why not? Can you add to their ideas?

martedì 20 novembre 2018

Active Learning Strategy: Debates

MIT Fossil Fuel Divestment Debate (4/9/15)

The question of whether MIT should divest from fossil fuels brings up several ethical issues. The first and most obvious is our responsibility as humans to prevent damaging warming of the planet, which is largely caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere due to combusting “dirty” fossil fuels. Secondly, the debate brings up the issue of hypocrisy. On the anti-divestment side, MIT could be hypocritical by divesting from fossil fuel when it consumes so much of it and when oil companies are large funders of its research. On the pro-divestment side, MIT needs to align its values of improving the world with its actions, and needs to educate society about the dangers of fossil fuels and climate change (not just its students). One supporter, in defense of MIT, declared that divestment from fossil fuels would not be hypocritical just like opposing slavery was not hypocritical, despite its integral role in society and the economy in its time.
Both sides had good arguments for and against divestment. The anti-divestment team argued that because MIT’s investment (and all university investments combined) form less than 1% of the global fossil fuel market, retracting it would be a largely symbolic measure. They also pointed out that not all fossil fuel companies are equal, and not all approach climate change the same way. In particular, privately owned oil companies were the “worst,” but since they have no shareholders, divesting would not affect them. The anti-divestment team prominently supported climate change education and implementing a carbon price rather than divesting.
The pro-divestment team argued that although the divestment would not make an appreciable economic impact, symbols genuinely matter in our world (and gave the example of divesting having worked during the Apartheid in South Africa). They also pointed out that people do not demand fossil fuels, people demand energy, which could be provided by many other sources (mainly nuclear, renewables, increased efficiency, and decreased consumption). The team prominently supported a multifaceted approach that included not only divestment, but implementing a carbon price, educating people about climate change, researching the science behind and developing the technology for renewable energy. They argued that education, science, and technology were not enough, however, but that policies needed to be pushed by society to make change happen (citing that smoking didn’t decrease because we knew the health effects, but because of regulatory measures). They urged divestment as a symbol to spark social movement, because disinformation by fossil fuel companies and the suspected insincerity of their desire for a carbon tax is currently preventing useful policies.
I originally thought of divestment as an uninteresting economic and political issue, but now I realize its usefulness as a symbolic tool. Though both sides presented good points, I was particularly affected by the incongruous nature of the anti-divestment team’s arguments, to the point that it convinced me even more of the pro-divestment team’s honesty. The anti-divestment team argued both that divesting would make little economic impact, but also that investors could use their influence to put pressure on fossil fuel companies (as well as bothering to debate the issue). They argued that MIT should instead focus on researching a carbon price, but the money divested could be used for such practical purposes.
They pushed education and the intelligence of people, yet offered no defense against accusation of disinformation by fossil fuel companies. They continually ignored the pro-divestment side’s arguments, as they often supported the same solutions without offering any new reason not to divest. Finally, in a petty stab, they declared that since investment companies show profit is not lost when institutions divest, if MIT wanted to divest it would have done it already. Compared to the pro-divestment team’s call to courage, action, and global leadership, the choice between which side is more ethical was clear.

MIT OpenCourseWare
24.191 Ethics in Your Life: Being, Thinking, Doing (or Not?)
Spring 2015
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit:

giovedì 15 novembre 2018

Punto di Non Ritorno - CAPOLAVORO Assoluto


Appinventory è l'evento che  inaugura il ciclo di 8 appuntamenti della rassegna UniudForAll: incontri divulgativi su temi di ricerca.che si terrà presso la sede di Gorizia dell’Università degli Studi di Udine

mercoledì 28 Novembre, ore 16.00-19.00

Si tratta di un incontro di particolare interesse per gli insegnanti di ogni grado in quanto sarà presentato:
AppInventory: un nuovo catalogo multimediale di applicazioni Web 2.0 e per dispositivi mobili

Il progetto, ideato e sviluppato nel laboratorio SASWEB del Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche, Informatiche e Fiscihe dell’Università degli Studi di Udine, ha come principale obiettivo quello di informare e supportare i docenti nell’implementazione di forme di didattica attiva e partecipata, fornendo strumenti di scoperta e di apprendimento di applicazioni per la creazione di artefatti digitali, per la comunicazione e la collaborazione online e per l’aggregazione di contenuti eterogenei.

Nel corso dell’incontro sarà inaugurata la piattaforma Web AppInventory, che supporta il docente nell’esplorazione del catalogo e nell’accesso alle schede multimediali di più di 270 applicazioni, corredate di video di presentazione originali, realizzati dagli studenti dell’Università di Udine.
La seconda parte dell’incontro prevede un’attività laboratoriale per la sperimentazione della nuova piattaforma ed una sua prima valutazione da parte dei partecipanti.
Il seminario è ad ingresso libero e gratuito; visto il limitato numero di posti si chiede gentilmente di registrarsi all’indirizzo seguente   dove sono riportati ulteriori dettagli dell’iniziativa.

Per tutti i docenti la partecipazione al seminario è riconosciuta come attività di formazione, previa iscrizione allo stesso attraverso la piattaforma S.O.F.I.A. del Miur, cercando tra le iniziative dell’Università degli Studi di Udine.
Link diretto all’iniziativa, previa autenticazione:

Può scaricare la locandina dell’incontro in formato PDF (che trova anche in allegato a questa mail):