Jeremy explains the problem of the construction plan in a blog post “They Don't Care About Us”:

中 科四期落腳彰化二林，其附近是有台灣米倉之稱的稻米重要產銷專區，濁水溪的水資源更是灌溉出全台數一數二的西螺與溪湖果菜市場，彰雲兩縣的沿海更是有產 值數十億的養殖漁業，包括外銷的台灣鯛與著名的王功牡蠣等。中科四期的廢水排放設計草率，可能讓沿海養殖漁業全毀，蔬果稻米染毒，縣民五次北上陳情，卻換 來環評委員會擱置爭議，仍是有條件通過中科四期開發案，…

As the driving force behind the expansion of of CTSP is the myth of I.T industry, blogger Munch points out that the industry will not save Taiwan's economy, on the other hand the current mode of production will result in a crisis:

中 科四期的問題，不是通過與阻擋的戲局，它不是開始，也不會是最終，因為台灣高科技產業，其實只是高級代工產業，權充國際生產鍊的高等加工廠。當無法在設計 與行銷創造獨特，依賴產品代工的生產，在科技產業低利潤的年代，只能不斷擴廠，開發更多的科技園區，以量能來彌補不足，然後在高產都無法創造利潤，最後就 是移轉投資、整廠遷移，留下的是已遭破壞的土地。

In order to campaign against the CTSP expansion, a group of young people set up awebsite and launched a photo signature action.

However, in response to the call for a peaceful march against the CTSP 4th project a farmer, Oulisan（歐力上）, which means “an old guy” in Japanese and Taiwanese, asked if the young organizers were ready to practice an alternative way of life:

我 是一個中年彰化農民，坐四望五之年，心中一直有一個疑惑，每一個父母希忘自己的孩子書念得好，將來有競爭力，可以進入高科技廠就業(就是你們反對的對 象)，有一個穩定的收入，有一個平安幸福的一生，幾乎沒有人希望自己的孩子回家務農，因為工作辛苦收入少得可憐，這是父母的看法。

是的，農村不快樂， 當你們年輕人響應「聲援農村」行動時，有沒有想過，自己將來是回家務農還是投入其他收入較穩定的職場？你們的熱心關懷自身所處的土地， 歐力上我百分之百支持，但是如果你不想回歸農村，又基於環保理念反對產業，將來台灣將空有荒廢的土地，而沒有產業，身為未來台灣社會舞台主角的你們，將如 何自處？

This is indeed a critical question for the young activists. In fact some young people have decided to choose farming as a way of life in the past few years. Meanwhile, ecological groups has filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the construction may lead to the lowering of the underground water levels and ground sinking. GVers in Taiwan will also continue to keep a close eye on these issues.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) should be used to support and encourage cultural diversity and to preserve and promote the language, distinct identities and traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples, nations and tribes in a manner which they determine best advances these goals. The evolution of the information and communication societies must be founded on the respect and promotion of the rights of Indigenous peoples, nations and tribes and our distinctive and diverse cultures, as outlined in international conventions. We have fundamental and collective rights to protect, preserve and strengthen our own languages, cultures and identities.

But can ICT truly preserve and protect distinct identities and culture? Does ICT by its very intervention introduce an element of westernization amidst the indigenous culture that it purports to preserve and protect? What is the optimum balance between preserving traditional knowledge and embracing remix culture? The cultural debate surrounding deployment of ICT in the field of indigenous/ knowledge and culture simply refuses to die down.

According to Mark Oppenneer, “the implementation of ICTs in service to indigenous peoples in development settings is a double-edged sword”, as both the critics and proponents of ICT4D have seemingly irreconcilable perspectives.

Questioning the cultural neutrality of the ICT medium, Charles Ess, in his paper “Questioning the Obvious? Ethical and Cultural Dimensions of CMC and ICTs” states that

[..]. Far from serving as value-free or morally-neutral tools, CMC (Computer mediated Communication) technologies themselves appear to embed and foster the cultural values and communicative preferences of their Western designers. As a first example: South Africa has attempted to establish Learning Centres intended to empower indigenous peoples by helping them take advantage of the multiple potentials and capacities of ICTs. A series of observers have noted, however, that these Centres repeatedly fail – in part, because of basic cultural conflicts. Briefly, the Centres reflect their designer’s Western emphasis on individual and silent learning – in contrast with indigenous preferences for learning in collaborative and often noisy, performative ways (Postma 2001). This conflict is also captured in Edward T. Hall’s distinction between high and low context cultures (1976). In this schema, contemporary societies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Germanic countries show a preference for literate (i.e., textual), high content (but low context) information transfer – while societies such as Arabic cultures, indigenous peoples, and many Asian cultures prefer instead more oral, low content (but high context) modes of communication.

[…] Similarly, Western Group Support Systems (GSS) that favor anonymity as a feature intended to encourage open and direct communication proved disastrous in the Confucian cultures of South Asia, as this indeed succeeded in encouraging subordinates to make comments that were culturally interpreted – and condemned – as attacks on one’s “face” (Abdat and Pervan 2000). These and multiple other examples make clear that CMC technologies carry and further a specific set of cultural values and communicative preferences - ones that, far from being universally shared, are indeed limited to specific cultural domains.

Secondly, because these technologies thus clearly embed and foster specific cultural values and communicative preferences - the initial enthusiasm for these technologies inadvertently but powerfully only aids and abets a form of “computer-mediated colonization” that threatens to override diverse cultural values and communicative preferences with those defining the dominant economic and political powers of the West.

While Ess, worried about the medium defeating the intended purpose of preservation, calls for a more culturally-aware framework, others have pointed out that such concerns are not entirely correct.

In response to a query by David Sasaki, director of Global Voices' Rising Voices section, as to whether or not helping under-represented communities join the online global conversation inevitably leads to their westernization/Americanization,  Álvaro Ramírez and Diego Gomez, co-founders of the HiperBarrio project, spoke of the community adapting Western culture to their own needs, infusion of new knowledge and broadening horizons.

Citing the example of hip-hop music, Alvaro pointed out that for the community, while there was definitely some US influence, the issue was not so much Americanization as adapting something western to their own needs. So it was not only about getting influenced but exerting influence as well, giving birth to something new, new knowledge or culture. Diego noted that the project had also opened up other doors of communication beyond westernization.

I think that in this project especially they have been influenced not just by Americans they now begin to think about India, Dubai, and other cultures that they didn't know existed before. Or they didn't have much reference.

Projects such as the E-Bario project in Malaysia, Community project of the indigenous Ngalia and Badimaya people of Western Australia, the Alan - Gluban project in Taiwan are a few cases in point.

In the final analysis, as Mark Oppenneer points out

…the critics are right: misguided ICT4D implementation that doesn’t take into consideration a wide range of cultural factors and explicitly or implicitly imposes Western processes or structures upon indigenous recipients does constitute a new form of computer-mediated colonialism. And yes, the proponents of ICT4D are right: ICTs, when implemented thoughtfully and respectfully – keeping the needs of the recipients at the fore – can be powerful agents of change in the fight to reduce poverty and improve the lives of marginalized peoples in developing nations.

In his 2008 presentation, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - The Role of ICTs, Jesse Fidler listed various possibilities for ICT to actively engage the indigenous communities and realize their visions.

And as far as preserving the pristine, isolated local culture is concerned, Professor Amartya Sen perhaps summed it up best in his talk at the 3rd IDRC/ Harvard Forum on the future of information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) when he said that there is “no such thing as ‘unaided culture”, or ”culture that exists in isolation”.

Started by a group of bloggers in 2005, and then organized by ADCT since 2006, BoF(Birds of a Feather), aka Taiwan Youth Blog Festival, has become the major Web 2.0 event in Taiwan. This year, because of Typhoon Morakot that wreaked havoc in August 2009 in southeren Taiwan, BoF 2009 on 9/27 focuses on how online community, as a part of local society, should have leverage in the offline world under the theme “Clean UP!”. Besides damage mitigation, this year BoF also divide sessions for microblogging, blogger economy and family bloggers, observing how different trends and innovations change the landscape in the blogosphere. (Live broadcasting in both text and video here.)