Slashdot Mirror

Wonder what percentage of users would rather be tracked by default.

According to a 2012 Pew Internet study, 73% of search engine users said they were against tracking by the search engines, and 68% were against targeted advertising.

The corollary is that respecting DNT even for IE 10 matches what over 70%(*) of the users want, while ignoring it only satisfies the wishes of 28%(**) of the users.

(*) I'm starting with the 'targeted ads' numbers which are the more conservative ones. The survey shows 28% of the users want them and 68% oppose them. Furthermore another study shows that, when they have to manually hunt and set DNT, 5 to 6% of the overall population turns it on. Given that we know 68% favor DNT that means 7 to 9% of the users will go through the hassle. So if DNT is on by default on IE 10 we can expect 7 to 9% of the I-want-targeted-ads crowd to turn it back off which translates to 2 to 2.5%. So if DNT is honored for IE 10 these 2 to 2.5% users will get what they want as well as the 68% who are fine with the default setting, yielding a total of 70 to 70.5% users getting what they want.

(**) Or, conversely, going against the wishes of 68% of the users (the remaining 4% don't know what they want).

Wonder what percentage of users would rather be tracked by default.

According to a 2012 Pew Internet study, 73% of search engine users said they were against tracking by the search engines, and 68% were against targeted advertising.

The corollary is that respecting DNT even for IE 10 matches what over 70%(*) of the users want, while ignoring it only satisfies the wishes of 28%(**) of the users.

(*) I'm starting with the 'targeted ads' numbers which are the more conservative ones. The survey shows 28% of the users want them and 68% oppose them. Furthermore another study shows that, when they have to manually hunt and set DNT, 5 to 6% of the overall population turns it on. Given that we know 68% favor DNT that means 7 to 9% of the users will go through the hassle. So if DNT is on by default on IE 10 we can expect 7 to 9% of the I-want-targeted-ads crowd to turn it back off which translates to 2 to 2.5%. So if DNT is honored for IE 10 these 2 to 2.5% users will get what they want as well as the 68% who are fine with the default setting, yielding a total of 70 to 70.5% users getting what they want.

(**) Or, conversely, going against the wishes of 68% of the users (the remaining 4% don't know what they want).

Wonder what percentage of users would rather be tracked by default.

According to a 2012 Pew Internet study, 73% of search engine users said they were against tracking by the search engines, and 68% were against targeted advertising.

The corollary is that respecting DNT even for IE 10 matches what over 70%(*) of the users want, while ignoring it only satisfies the wishes of 28%(**) of the users.

(*) I'm starting with the 'targeted ads' numbers which are the more conservative ones. The survey shows 28% of the users want them and 68% oppose them. Furthermore another study shows that, when they have to manually hunt and set DNT, 5 to 6% of the overall population turns it on. Given that we know 68% favor DNT that means 7 to 9% of the users will go through the hassle. So if DNT is on by default on IE 10 we can expect 7 to 9% of the I-want-targeted-ads crowd to turn it back off which translates to 2 to 2.5%. So if DNT is honored for IE 10 these 2 to 2.5% users will get what they want as well as the 68% who are fine with the default setting, yielding a total of 70 to 70.5% users getting what they want.

(**) Or, conversely, going against the wishes of 68% of the users (the remaining 4% don't know what they want).

though that's really what 90% of the users want anyway.

Citation needed?

I'll bite. So according to a study, 73% users said they were against tracking by the search engines, and 68% were against targeted advertising.

So it's not as high as 90%. But still, what's best? Respecting DNT for IE 10 users and thus doing what 70%(*) of users want or ignoring it and only satisfying the wishes of 28%(**) of the users?

If you tell users, "click this checkbox to prevent people from tracking your behavior online!", yes, most users would click that checkbox. Unfortunately that promise would be a lie

Nobody said anything about wording it that way and that not how it's worded in IE's dialogs. So I'm not sure where you're getting at with you 'lying' insinuations.

Make it an informed choice, and the number of users that enable it will be less than 90%, and advertisers would have an unambiguous signal about the user's intent and no reason to not honor it.

Bullshit! I'm on a national Do-Not-Call phone registry. You cannot get on the list without explicitly asking for it. Does it mean I never get telemarketing calls? No. Does it mean telemarketers remove me from their list when I tell them not to call me again? No. Instead they hang up in my face and call again a few days later!

IE 10 is just the advertisers' latest excuse to continue doing whatever they want.

(*) I'm starting with the 'targeted ads' numbers which are more favorable to your point of view. The survey shows 28% of the users want them and 68% oppose it. Furthermore a separate study shows that, when they have to manually hunt and set DNT, 5 to 6% of the overall population turns it on. Given that we know 68% favor DNT that means 7 to 9% of the users will go through the hassle. So if DNT is on by default on IE 10 we can expect 7 to 9% of the I-want-targeted-ads crowd to turn it back off which translates to 2 to 2.5%. So if DNT is honored for IE 10 these 2 to 2.5% users will get what they want as well as the 68% who are fine with the default setting, yielding a total of 70 to 70.5% users getting what they want.

(**) Or, conversely, going against the wishes of 68% of the users (the remaining 4% don't know what they want).

though that's really what 90% of the users want anyway.

Citation needed?

I'll bite. So according to a study, 73% users said they were against tracking by the search engines, and 68% were against targeted advertising.

So it's not as high as 90%. But still, what's best? Respecting DNT for IE 10 users and thus doing what 70%(*) of users want or ignoring it and only satisfying the wishes of 28%(**) of the users?

If you tell users, "click this checkbox to prevent people from tracking your behavior online!", yes, most users would click that checkbox. Unfortunately that promise would be a lie

Nobody said anything about wording it that way and that not how it's worded in IE's dialogs. So I'm not sure where you're getting at with you 'lying' insinuations.

Make it an informed choice, and the number of users that enable it will be less than 90%, and advertisers would have an unambiguous signal about the user's intent and no reason to not honor it.

Bullshit! I'm on a national Do-Not-Call phone registry. You cannot get on the list without explicitly asking for it. Does it mean I never get telemarketing calls? No. Does it mean telemarketers remove me from their list when I tell them not to call me again? No. Instead they hang up in my face and call again a few days later!

IE 10 is just the advertisers' latest excuse to continue doing whatever they want.

(*) I'm starting with the 'targeted ads' numbers which are more favorable to your point of view. The survey shows 28% of the users want them and 68% oppose it. Furthermore a separate study shows that, when they have to manually hunt and set DNT, 5 to 6% of the overall population turns it on. Given that we know 68% favor DNT that means 7 to 9% of the users will go through the hassle. So if DNT is on by default on IE 10 we can expect 7 to 9% of the I-want-targeted-ads crowd to turn it back off which translates to 2 to 2.5%. So if DNT is honored for IE 10 these 2 to 2.5% users will get what they want as well as the 68% who are fine with the default setting, yielding a total of 70 to 70.5% users getting what they want.

(**) Or, conversely, going against the wishes of 68% of the users (the remaining 4% don't know what they want).

though that's really what 90% of the users want anyway.

Citation needed?

I'll bite. So according to a study, 73% users said they were against tracking by the search engines, and 68% were against targeted advertising.

So it's not as high as 90%. But still, what's best? Respecting DNT for IE 10 users and thus doing what 70%(*) of users want or ignoring it and only satisfying the wishes of 28%(**) of the users?

If you tell users, "click this checkbox to prevent people from tracking your behavior online!", yes, most users would click that checkbox. Unfortunately that promise would be a lie

Nobody said anything about wording it that way and that not how it's worded in IE's dialogs. So I'm not sure where you're getting at with you 'lying' insinuations.

Make it an informed choice, and the number of users that enable it will be less than 90%, and advertisers would have an unambiguous signal about the user's intent and no reason to not honor it.

Bullshit! I'm on a national Do-Not-Call phone registry. You cannot get on the list without explicitly asking for it. Does it mean I never get telemarketing calls? No. Does it mean telemarketers remove me from their list when I tell them not to call me again? No. Instead they hang up in my face and call again a few days later!

IE 10 is just the advertisers' latest excuse to continue doing whatever they want.

(*) I'm starting with the 'targeted ads' numbers which are more favorable to your point of view. The survey shows 28% of the users want them and 68% oppose it. Furthermore a separate study shows that, when they have to manually hunt and set DNT, 5 to 6% of the overall population turns it on. Given that we know 68% favor DNT that means 7 to 9% of the users will go through the hassle. So if DNT is on by default on IE 10 we can expect 7 to 9% of the I-want-targeted-ads crowd to turn it back off which translates to 2 to 2.5%. So if DNT is honored for IE 10 these 2 to 2.5% users will get what they want as well as the 68% who are fine with the default setting, yielding a total of 70 to 70.5% users getting what they want.

(**) Or, conversely, going against the wishes of 68% of the users (the remaining 4% don't know what they want).

How about an actual study on Twitter demographics instead of guessing and anecdotes?

Those numbers are outdated (Sep 1, 2011); smartphones surpassed feature phones in the US this year: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-2012/Findings.aspx

In any case, current numbers are not nearly as important as future growth, and the feature phone sales have actually declined while smartphones are growing like crazy.

I could not find any comparison in numbers between TV subscriptions and cell phones, but I suspect that more people nowadays have access to text messaging.

313M US Population (July 2011 est.) US CIA World Factbook
286M US cell phones (as of 2009), US CIA World Factbook, approx 240M unique users (source eMarketer and
96.7% of U.S. homes have a TV (2012 estimate) Nielsen May 2011 estimates
Almost 99% of video content watched in the U.S. is on traditional television (2010) Nielsen 2010 fact sheet
The average American watches 31.5 hrs of TV per week (2010) Nielsen 2010 fact sheet
83% of American adults own cell phones and three-quarters of them (73%) send and receive text messages. www.pewinternet.org

So it appears neither broadcast TV nor cell phones captures the entire population but both are good options to reach a substantial portion of the population.

*Smart phones* are still not the norm. Most cell phone owners have dumb phones/feature phones. The only reason they seem like the norm is because of their massive profit margins and thus massive marketing to make it SEEM like everyone has a smart phone and thus you need one to be as good as everyone else. (OH NO! Social symbol!)

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Smartphones/Summary.aspx

""
83% of American adults have a cell phone and one third of them.
43% of American adult cellphone owners have a smart phone.
65% of American adults do NOT own a smart phone.
Several groups have higher than average levels of smartphone adoption, including:

The financially well-off and well-educated â"
59% of adults living in a household earning income of $75,000 or more are smartphone owners;
48% of those with a college degree own smartphones.

Even among those with a household income of $30,000 or less, smartphone ownership rates for those ages 18-29 are equal to the national average.
""

Take that last part to heart becase when the luxury purchases of the low-income mirror those of the upper-income, the items purchased are most likely status/social symbols.

It's strange how we think what happens in our house is the same as the rest of the country. According to PEW Internet, only 66% of homes in the US have broadband. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Home-Broadband-2010.aspx

I think the point there is that they can't be sure who is producing and who is trading until they investigate

The real problem the FBI faces, as far as I understand it, is that people involved in the production of child pornography are paranoid and technically sophisticated.

Attention whoring teens who take pictures of themselves and upload them to the internet are "technically sophisticated"?

I think there is a disconnect between the popular idea of the criminal charge and what it actually is:

Assault - can be touching someone, spitting on someone Vs. the common idea of beating the snot out of someone
Sex offender - can be pissing on side of road Vs. rapist
Child porn - can child abused by captor Vs. 17 year olds sexting

"A new survey from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 4% of cell-owning teens ages 12-17 say they have sent sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images or videos of themselves to someone else via text messaging, a practice also known as “sexting”; 15% say they have received such images of someone they know via text message."

- http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx

"A new survey from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 4% of cell-owning teens ages 12-17 say they have sent sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images or videos of themselves to someone else via text messaging, a practice also known as “sexting”; 15% say they have received such images of someone they know via text message."

So, that tell's me that, on average, an image is forwarded by the original recipient to three who know the original sender. It does not, OTOH, tell me anything about how many such images are generated. How many cell-owning teens ages 12-17 are there? (Answer: 75% of all American teens ages 12-17 own a cell phone, according to Pew Research.According to Wolfram Alpha, there are 22,410,000 teens between 15 and 19, which is likely close enough, so roughly 672,000 images classifiable as CP are generated during the 5 years that cell-owning teens are between the ages of 12-17, or 134,000 images per year.

How many kids are being raped to produce CP?

Non violent?

Ask the kids who have been raped to produce the stuff.

Sorry to break your mental fantasy of kids being raped against their will... you were probably enjoying it.

Here is where most of the "child pornography" is coming from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexting

Teens taking pictures/videos of themselves and sending it to boy/girl friends online where is gets intercepted.

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx

"A new survey from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 4% of cell-owning teens ages 12-17 say they have sent sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images or videos of themselves to someone else via text messaging, a practice also known as “sexting”; 15% say they have received such images of someone they know via text message."

There's just no way that all adults average out to 10 messages a day.

Even more surprising is that 10 is the median. The mean for adults is 39.1 (page 6 of the report), and no, that's not just including young adults.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text users. More markedly, the frequency of teenagers’ texting has also increased rapidly over the year and half leading up to this study. Between February 2008 and September 2009, daily use of text messaging by teens shot up from 38% in 2008 to 54% of all teens saying they text every day in 2009.

The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here. There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups.

As if Chinese nationals feel free to speak frankly and honestly about such things in public.

Hell, the chinese government doesn't even allow pollsters to ask direct questions about such things.
But they can get away with asking oblique questions to infer the opinions of the polled and that's precisely what's been done.

Read the Pew Center's 2008 report yourself and try to come up with an argument that is a little bit less glib.

Actually, studies have shown that the "facebook generation" are much more careful with their information than for what they are given credit. In many times, more than the old people. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks/5-Online-Privacy--What-Teens-Share-and-Restrict-in-an-Online-Environment.aspx?r=1

Here's the report on broadband. %55 percent are on broadband, and 10% are on dial-up. Also noted:

Non-internet users represent a large pool of potential broadband users, but many are just not interested in getting online.

So for many,it's not an disdain for a fast connection, but just a lack of internet in general for the internet.

Quoting from the actual Pew Internet study (page 4):

Non-broadband users cite a number of reasons for not using the service
â" including availability, price, and lack of interest.

ô 62% of dial-up users say they are not interested in giving up their current connection
for broadband.
When asked specifically what it would take them to get them to switch to broadband:
ô 35% of dial-up users say that the price of broadband service would have to fall.
ô 19% of dial-up users said nothing would convince them to get broadband.
ô 14% of dial-up users â" and 24% of dial-up users in rural America â" say that
broadband service would have to become available where they live. .

So in other words, most (81%) dialup users _do_ want broadband but either can't afford it or don't even have the option. Saying they "don't want it" because of this is like saying starving people don't want to eat because the price of food is too high or there's not enough food to go around--it's just false.

This is an issue of supply and demand. The demand is obviously there, but people's incomes are not high enough. This is evidenced by the finding in the same study that poor people's broadband adoption has stagnated while that of the wealthier has continued to rise.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project has some excellent information about how Americans use Internet and mobile technology. Despite Slashdot, Twitter, MySpace, et. al., a huge slice of America only uses modern communications technology when they need to, while a smaller slice tries to avoid it.

For many people, technology is something they struggle to adapt to, rather than rush to embrace. It can be frustrating for these people, and very time-consuming. There's only so much time in the day, and if I weren't keeping up on the latest geekery, I could be using that time to read more history, ride my bike more, become a karate black belt, or whatever.

Most people are not technology-obsessed, and there will always be a certain percentage of the population that is too old to care about the latest new thing that makes it easier to hook up with barhopping friends or more easily consume huge libraries of P2P pr0n.

No, the penetration is 55% as of Fall 2006. 55% of American children 12-17 have made a social networking profile, with a margin of +10% because their parents might have been listening to the phone call. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_ Jan_2007.pdf

The abstract is here: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/198/report_displa y.asp

No, the penetration is 55% as of Fall 2006. 55% of American children 12-17 have made a social networking profile, with a margin of +10% because their parents might have been listening to the phone call. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_ Jan_2007.pdf

The abstract is here: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/198/report_displa y.asp

37% of email users said spam had increased in their personal email accounts, up from 28% of email users who said that two years ago. And 29% of work email users said spam had increased in their work email accounts, up from 21% two years ago. Yet fewer people say spam is "a big problem" for them.

c.f. (report PDF, phone survey about spam that was conducted between February 15 and March 7, 2007)

Now does this tell us something about e-mail or about recipients?

CC.

37% of email users said spam had increased in their personal email accounts, up from 28% of email users who said that two years ago. And 29% of work email users said spam had increased in their work email accounts, up from 21% two years ago. Yet fewer people say spam is "a big problem" for them.

c.f. (report PDF, phone survey about spam that was conducted between February 15 and March 7, 2007)

Now does this tell us something about e-mail or about recipients?

CC.

Non-users of the Internet are older, poorer, and less well-educated than users. Older, poorer and less well-educated people are also less likely to own computers. For those of us who read the reports from the Pew Internet project like the one I just cited, these findings are old news.

With widespread access available to many people in the workplace, some people may well see no need to have a connection at home. One of my clients, a neighborhood health center, has a workforce drawn disproportionately from these less advantaged social groups. The management there is starting to become concerned about the amount of time these people spend surfing eBay, YouTube, etc.

No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches,

Zune: http://seo.zunch.com/search_engine_usage_statistic s.htm
Pew Internet: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/167/report_displa y.asp
WebSideStory: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=33 34881

Three independent reports show that while they have a good share, Google accounts for less than 50% of all web search engine usage. Last I checked, that's not really a monopoly

I myself was curious about how you do a random sample of blogs. Apparently, Pew used a telephone survey whereby they first asked if the adult maintained a blog and then they did their survey based on those who claimed that they did. Their sample of the latter group was only 233.

You can find the actual study at the Pew website.

According to a January Pew/Internet Study, online activity enhances social contact rather than promoting isolation. According to the report, email and the Internet supplements rather than replaces offline communication. 'The larger, the more far-flung, and the more diverse a person's network, the more important email is,' reports Jeffrey Boase, co-author of the study. For example, people who e-mail their friends and family at least once a week are 25% more likely to have phone contact. Internet users, on average, have 37 close friends instead of an average of 30 for non-Internet users. In addition to enhancing social networks, the researchers also discovered that 45% of people turn to their online network to help make major life decisions such as dealing with a major illness, choosing a school, making investment decisions, changing jobs or finding a new place to live. Blog Post: http://www.omninerd.com/news/news.php?nid=509 Study: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/172/report_displa y.asp

Like the one published at the beginning of the year by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
The Strength of Internet Ties, authored by Jeffrey Boase, John Horrigan, Barry Wellman, and Lee Rainie found "The internet and email aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions" The press release that publicized the report says, "One major payoff comes when people use the internet to press their social networks into action as they face major challenges. People not only socialize online, but they also incorporate the internet into their quest for information and advice as they seek help and make decisions. ... One major benefit comes when people want to mobilize their networks as they face problems or significant decisions. The Pew Internet Project survey finds that internet users are more likely than non-users to have been helped by those in their networks as they faced important events in their life. "Internet use provides online Americans a path to resources, such as access to people who may have the right information to help deal with family health crises or find a new job," says John Horrigan, Associate Director for Research at the Pew Internet Project."

The Duke/Arizona study is flawed in its analysis, as it interprets correlation as indicating causality, a common mistake among quantitative researchers.

Like the one published at the beginning of the year by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
The Strength of Internet Ties, authored by Jeffrey Boase, John Horrigan, Barry Wellman, and Lee Rainie found "The internet and email aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions" The press release that publicized the report says, "One major payoff comes when people use the internet to press their social networks into action as they face major challenges. People not only socialize online, but they also incorporate the internet into their quest for information and advice as they seek help and make decisions. ... One major benefit comes when people want to mobilize their networks as they face problems or significant decisions. The Pew Internet Project survey finds that internet users are more likely than non-users to have been helped by those in their networks as they faced important events in their life. "Internet use provides online Americans a path to resources, such as access to people who may have the right information to help deal with family health crises or find a new job," says John Horrigan, Associate Director for Research at the Pew Internet Project."

The Duke/Arizona study is flawed in its analysis, as it interprets correlation as indicating causality, a common mistake among quantitative researchers.

This is becoming statistically less relevant every day. There will always be "some" people that cannot get broadband. According to this study (PDF warning), the number is pretty low, even in rural areas. In rural households 24% have broadband and 29% have dialup (the rest either do not have access or didn't know). But of those who have dialup, 58% of them reported that broadband was available. And this is just rural areas. Urban saturation is much, much higher.

"Across the board, among those who are both successful and struggling, the artists and musicians we surveyed are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use. "

Didn't you read the poll? You can't have fun and education at the same time and all uses "for no particular reason" is clearly fun... or something like that... stupid polls and assumptions and nonsense equivivations and abuse of the English and other languages to mean whatever they want it to mean. OF course, they then top it all off by not revealing what the questions actually were that were being asked.
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/175/report_displa y.asp
or maybe it's in the pdf link?
Nope, just that one question, and it's poorly worded...wait, you mean that the poll consisted of just that one question. Whoever funds these people should demend their funding back. The University of Texas should demand Deborah Fallows return her Ph.D in Linguistics.

seriously, mate, groups can be statistically significant at populations of just over 30. Additionally, you can read the PEW research methods (as performed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International) here.(pdf)

Additionally, nursery is correctly spelled with an "s," and keep your stereotypes of women out of your posts, please, before I burn my bra.

I think the real issue is how the RIAA is not representative of the musicians thoughts and concerns.

Most musicians, especially struggling musicians, enjoy using the Internet and File Sharing programs to share their music (See pdf) . However, most feel that their work should be protected and they should get some sort of compensation from it (a perfectly justifable argument. Can't make much music if you're starving) (See pdf).

How are the above to concerns and attitudes towards file sharing in line with the RIAA's past, recent and future actions.

Also, this was an anonymous survey so it'd be interesting to really see who fell where (pop stars vs local bands).

I think the real issue is how the RIAA is not representative of the musicians thoughts and concerns.

Most musicians, especially struggling musicians, enjoy using the Internet and File Sharing programs to share their music (See pdf) . However, most feel that their work should be protected and they should get some sort of compensation from it (a perfectly justifable argument. Can't make much music if you're starving) (See pdf).

How are the above to concerns and attitudes towards file sharing in line with the RIAA's past, recent and future actions.

Also, this was an anonymous survey so it'd be interesting to really see who fell where (pop stars vs local bands).

It's funny when people think that it's interesting that the internet can cater to both women and those over 50 years old. I can see that being odd some 15 years ago, when the internet wasn't readily available to the public, and when PCs were just for the wealthy geeks in town.

But these days EVERYone has a PC. People do things like shop, bank, and communicate using PCs. 66% of American women go on-line [according to Pew, 2005]. My elderly mother and all her friends use the internet every day.

So what's the big deal about a let's-share-our-shit forum that appears to attract woman over 50? I bet the on-line barbie forum attracts a lot of pre-teen girls, and the knitting forums have a surprising number of women. I even know women that use eBay.

Welcome to the new world, where women and older people use the internet too.

I was curious about how they actually defined "use the internet" -- being such a net-user as I am it was hard for me to think of someone saying "no" to the question. Does that mean, use the internet _ever_? So I read their PDF then poked around on their website http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/42/dataset_displa y.asp and downloaded the phone survey used. The first question asked is gender, then, I found it very interesting that the next two questions had to do with how the respondent feels about how well the government can be trusted.
PRINCETON SURVEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES PEW INTERNET AND AMERICAN LIFE DAILY TRACKING SURVEYNovember 2003 FINAL REVISED QUESTIONNAIRE N=1400+ adults 18 and older Field Dates: November 18 December 15, 2003 Job#: 23069 Hello, my name is XXXX and I'm calling for Princeton Survey Research. Were conducting a survey to find out what Americans think about some important issues today, and we would like to include your household. May I please speak with the YOUNGEST MALE, age 18 or older, who is now at home? (IF NO MALE, ASK: May I please speak with the OLDEST FEMALE, age 18 or older, who is now at home?)
SEX RECORD RESPONDENT SEX
1 Male
2 Female

Q1 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country today?
1 Satisfied
2 Dissatisfied
9 Dont know/Refused
Q2 How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?
1 Just about always
2 Most of the time
3 Only some of the time
9 Dont know/Refused
NO QUESTION 3/4
(READ) On another subject
Q5 Do you use a computer at your workplace, at school, at home, or anywhere else on at least an occasional basis?
1 Yes
2 No
9 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
Q6 Do you ever go online to access the Internet or World Wide Web or to send and receive email?
1 Yes
2 No
9 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
ASK ALL INTERNET USERS (Q6=1); NON-USERS (Q6=2-9) SKIP TO ART09:
Q7 Did you happen to go online or check your email YESTERDAY?
1 Yes, went online yesterday
2 No, did not go online yesterday
9 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
IF WENT ONLINE YESTERDAY (Q7=1), ASK:
Q8 When you went online yesterday, did you go online from HOME?
1 Yes, went online from home
2 No, did not
9 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
IF WENT ONLINE YESTERDAY (Q7=1), ASK:
Q9 Did you go online from WORK yesterday?
1 Yes, went online from work
2 No, did not
9 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
No Question 10/11
ASK ALL INTERNET USERS (Q6=1):
Q12 About how many years have you had access to the Internet?
RECORD NUMBER OF YEARS
0 Under a year
99 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused

IF ONLINE UNDER A YEAR (Q12=0) ASK:
Q12.1 About how many months is that?
RECORD NUMBER OF MONTHS
99 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
ASK IF (Q7=2,9 OR Q8=2,9), DID NOT GO ONLINE FROM HOME YESTERDAY:
Q13 Do you ever go online from HOME?
1 Yes, go online from home
2 No, do not
9 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
ASK ALL WHO WENT ONLINE FROM HOME YESTERDAY OR IF YES IN PREVIOUS QUESTION (Q8=1 OR Q13=1):
Q14 In general, how often do you go online from HOME several times a day, about once a day, 3-5 days a week, 1-2 days a week, once every few weeks, or less often?
1 Several times a day
2 About once a day
3 3-5 days a week
4 1-2 days a week
5 Every few weeks
6 Less often
9 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
ASK IF (Q7=2,9 OR Q9=2,9), DID NOT GO ONLINE FROM WORK YESTERDAY
Q15 Do you ever go online from WORK?
1 Yes, go online from work
2 No, do not
9 (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
ASK ALL WHO WE

While several of the stories (like this one on /.) are saying a slightly higher percentage of women now use the 'net, the first bullet point on The Pew site says "The percentage of women using the internet still lags slightly behind the percentage of men." Later in their summary Pew gives the bland tag news sources probably reacted to: "In most categories of internet activity, more men than women are participants, but women are catching up. "

The report itself is far more wide-ranging, and most of its interesting content gets left out of the usual suspects. I mean, parents are more likely to be online than nonparents -- 80% to 60%, which is a BIG difference. And so on. Even dramatic stuff gets discarded in favor of a horse-race-between-the-sexes thing, here. And I'll bet Pew phrased their own headline as a gender gap thing as a way of getting the attention of news sources, too -- the problem perpetuates itself.

Why is it that general news sources touch on only one or two aspects of something like this, but the original source's press release is much richer in the same space? It's like the whole "force a dialectic on the story even if there isn't one" thing is causing reporters to discard tons of primary information to sell a faked-up conflict that isn't there. (The more tabloid a source is, the worse it gets, too. Fox makes a hell of a living pimping every story up like this.)

In a reporting world like that, reporters aren't being asked to turn stories on their heads. They're just regurgitating press releases and reinforcing stereotypes.

While several of the stories (like this one on /.) are saying a slightly higher percentage of women now use the 'net, the first bullet point on The Pew site says "The percentage of women using the internet still lags slightly behind the percentage of men." Later in their summary Pew gives the bland tag news sources probably reacted to: "In most categories of internet activity, more men than women are participants, but women are catching up. "

The report itself is far more wide-ranging, and most of its interesting content gets left out of the usual suspects. I mean, parents are more likely to be online than nonparents -- 80% to 60%, which is a BIG difference. And so on. Even dramatic stuff gets discarded in favor of a horse-race-between-the-sexes thing, here. And I'll bet Pew phrased their own headline as a gender gap thing as a way of getting the attention of news sources, too -- the problem perpetuates itself.

Why is it that general news sources touch on only one or two aspects of something like this, but the original source's press release is much richer in the same space? It's like the whole "force a dialectic on the story even if there isn't one" thing is causing reporters to discard tons of primary information to sell a faked-up conflict that isn't there. (The more tabloid a source is, the worse it gets, too. Fox makes a hell of a living pimping every story up like this.)

In a reporting world like that, reporters aren't being asked to turn stories on their heads. They're just regurgitating press releases and reinforcing stereotypes.