Slashdot Mirror
Pew Internet Project Study on Internet Non-Users
cheezitmike writes "The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a new study on the digital divide and the declining growth of the Internet: "Pew Internet Project tracking data show a flattening of the overall growth of the Internet population since late 2001. Internet penetration rates have hovered between 57% and 61% since October 2001, rather than pursuing the steady climb that they had showed in prior years." You can also just read their short summary of findings or stories about the study in The Washington Post and The New York Times (free reg.)."
I thought it was interesting that some of the people who stated their reasons for not going online said that it was because their systems were being monopolized by someone else in their household. Kinda reminds me of when I was a teenager and when I was hogging up the machine.
...And then there's that guy who said his wife would talk to other guys.
Kinda reminds me of some other things too...
I remember in the early days how there were all kinds of news shows about all the shady characters on the internet, and how they were trying to scare the masses. There were even a few "end of the world" type programs that connected the Internet to general decadence. God, according to Christian media, didn't approve of internet pr0n.
Although fixed wireless solutions are stepping in to add competition to the telco/cableco monopolies, computer usefulness and internet usefulness are being stymied by the lack of cheap, permanenet, and reasonably fast internet connectivity. Not everyone is willing to pay $50/mo for a good net connection. Dialup doesn't cut it.
:) Not 802.11x FYI. I'd tip my hand, but I don't want more competition...yet. ;)
That's why I've worked my tail off the last year to deploy a good wireless solution.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
There's a whole number of reasons why I decided to be a Net Evader, some of them mentioned in the articles:
That maybe there is just a class of people who keep their information sphere small, and that this study shows the net isn't immune.
The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
Yeah. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that less well-off families who put $200 into a computer and $20/month into dialup (as opposed to $200 on Air Jordans and $20/month on ESPN), tend to become better off.
I was the first one in my family to go to University. I make twice what my parents make at half their age.
No, my family wasn't dirt-poor, but we weren't rich. I could never have gone to Harvard. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I found out that my folks had to take out a frickin' loan to get me that Apple ][ that I begged for, and that got me started.
As a result of high school hacking with that box, I never lacked for summer jobs during my college years, and I was able to graduate debt-free and land myself a good job that started off a great career.
Over 20-odd years, my folks' original investment has cranked out the kind of ROI that investment managers have wet dreams about. (I wrote that has hyperbole, but then worked it out based on the cost of the machine and the income my career has generated. My parents' ROI cleans Warren Buffet's clock)
I found the above portion of the article to be a little disturbing. It implies that everyone should be using the internet, yet some people resist it because of unfounded reasoning.
How about the fact that it's OK if you don't want to use the internet? If over half of the people not on the net now don't want it, I don't see what the big deal is. It isn't for everyone, and maybe shouldn't be. TV isn't for everyone, cellphones aren't for everyone. So what?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Net avoiders are:
20% moochers who make friends and family use the net for them. Reminds me of my friend's jewish roommate who made us open the door for him on Yom Kippur.
17% idiots who gave up on complicated concepts like "back arrows" and "typing." Also people who balked at the expense of fixing computers and dealing with ISP bullshit (heh they should have gone webslum)
24% true luddites, or people who have better stuff to do, depending on how you look at it.
It also says that the majority of these folks (56%) don't plan on going online, that they don't have the social or technical skills to do so, and so I say good riddance. Doesn't look like our community is missing out on anything.
One thing that bothers me is their "special look" at disabled users. They never define "diabled," and I think they are defining a disabled person on the internet as somebody whose disability directly effects internet use (basically, the blind and those with difficulty using the mouse). Therefore, it's kind of self fulfilling...if it's hard and expensive to do something, you're not going to do it. I think if you look at the numbers of people with learning diabilities, physical impairments and debilitating illnesses who go online, you might discover the exact opposite -- that the buffering effect of online chat makes it easier to communicate, that the ability to move at one's own pace makes it easier to concentrate and comprehend. Shit, my first CS teacher was wheelchair bound with Lou Gherig's disease. Computers turned a crippling illness into a chance for him to make good money and a real impact on kids.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
What is it about the Internet that is so different from other activities? Does the brain have some sort of internet receptors that would make it especially dangerous?
I totally agree that with your desire to have a balanced life, but why do you feel the internet is more tempting than the other activities you describe? Why don't you feel cooking a big lunch on Saturdays or hiking or reading in front of fireplace is 'too tempting' but the internet is?
Anyone have data on the growth of TV over the years? Did it boom, then flatten out, or what?
I'd be curious to see how the TV versus Internet acceptance rates look.
It makes sense that things flatten out. Prices for Internet access are about the same as they were 5+ years ago. The people who can afford it will be more likely to get it. Just like TV's were expensive for a long time, but have now gotten cheap enough that almost everyone has one in their home (even the poor). If Internet and computer hardware rates were much less then I think we'd see more market penetration.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
While there are many people that fall into the category you mentioned, not all do. For example, I have a hi-speed internet connection. I love the net. However, a couple of years ago, our TV broke. I tried to convince my significant other that we didn't need a replacement. We got one, but if it had been up to me we wouldn't have. Sure we could easily afford a new TV, I just didn't see the point. From the cost-benefit analysis - I have to drive to the store vs. the pleasure I receive - it didn't make any sense to me. I'd rather have spent the time doing something else. From reading Slashdot posting over the years, I'm not alone.
Interesting comment. This ties right in with the observation in the study that internet use correlates with newspaper reading, TV use, and other sources of information and/or entertainment.
And likewise, the study says that cell phone and PDA use also correlates with internet use.
I think what we're seeing is the start of a new trend where some people decide to drastically limit the time and money they spend for being flooded with (dis)/(non)information.
Maybe there is life beyond ubiquitous connectivity?
- Christoph