I found the good article shows the approaces of social impact of cyberspace.

I take a memo here.

Main Argument:
Impact of cyberspace is not strong in the aspect of the community.
Reasons are that new urbanism, consumption, post-modernism and third-way,
which are the concepts of community studies has focused on,
insist on the locality and propinquity for a community.
The reason of changing of urban life by telecommunication technology (internet)

Follow up:

1.Change time and space
2.Change basis for communication
3.Blurring the distinction between real and virtual

He writes three reasons of changing of urban life with citing only from Kitchin.
But this arguments are very shallow.
And this argument forcus on the “urban life".
It is different social change from urban life change.
Important point is arguments below.
Approaches of social impact by cyberspace

1.technological determinism
2.futurism and utopianism: Toffler
3.dystopianism: Orwell
4.social construction of technology

Here are the approaches about the social change
by the IT, telecommunication and cyberspace
These are very useful for me.
But the arguments are not enough because Wamsley doesn’t use
various scholars’ arguments.
It almost depends on Graham & Marvin.

Therefore I have to resure the arguments of Graham & Marvin.
However, these approaches are core arguments of my paper.
Twelve cautions (issues) at watching the social impact of cyberspace

1.“Information is only as useful as the locale in which it is available”.
2.“IT does not annihilate markets and many location-fixed phenomena”.
3.“Access to cyber space is unequal”.
4.“A major use of telecommunications is to facilitate face-to-face meetings”.
5.“dysfunctionality in society”
6.“Cybercommunities can be very transitory”.
7.“Risk of superficially”.
8.“Scale”: mega-community weaken interpersonal relationship
9. reducing quality of life with distance from locality and bonding
10.“lack of human contact”: like isolation of working in home
11.“lack of privacy”
12. Homogenization by globalization triggered by IT

Yes. Here are the issues about researching social change by cyberspace.
It is important because “enthusiasm",
which is enthusiastically support the potential of internet,
tend to be monolithtic and simplified, ofcourse as well as for me.
Therefore we have to be cautious to analyze the potential of cyberspace.
Important issue is “unequality of access", which is called “digital divide".
The concept of “Degital divide” means the disparity between those who can access to the internet and those who cannot.
But this concept is not only about economical barriers, who can buy the computer and modem or not.

It include the cultural, racial, sexual and natinal border even in cyberspace.
For example, a male-oriented community has the possibility to exclude the female user.
And the community of cultural minority in a country tend to be exclusive the users of majority group, ofcourse we can see the reverse pattern.
I see cyberspace as the free space, but in fact, there are a lot of problems about the freedom in cyberspace.

Morever, digital devide is relevant to deeply economical gap.
According to a scholar, those who have computer and modem is categorized
in over middle-class.
To be worse, people cannot make poverty improved if they cannot buy and use them.
Ofcouse, to use internet need the literacy.
But the cost of education of computer literacy is very high.
Therefore, degital devide is, so-called, cultural reproduction.
And no.5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are very important issues.
They are, I think, interrelated with each other.
How do I qualify the phenomena
like the enclaved between real and virtual world, one hand.
How can cyberspace create the socially dense space,
dynamic space of culturally change of self and participants,
and the place where it keeps the plurality and socia-bonds.

And what is result?
And where does it happen?
And who?
Can I define it as the public sphere like Arrendt said, right?

Wamsley, D. J., (2000) “Community, Place and Cyberspace,
Australian Geographer. Vol.31, No. 1, pp. 5-19