Slashdot Mirror
Internet Use Grows to 69 Percent of US Adults
NickABusey writes "According to Harris Interactive, more than two-thirds, or 69 percent of American adults were internet users last year. This is up from only 56 percent in 1999 and a measley 9 percent in 1995. Perhaps more noteworthy is the increase in users with high-speed Internet connections. In 2001 is was 22 percent, now it is up to 37 percent."
69 percent of US adults use the Internet. Sounds good, right? Here's the problem...
Most of these people probably do not use the Internet for something truly worthwhile. By that I claim that instead of doing research or reading various news sources to gain an unbiased perspective on the world around us, people mostly are just forwarding silly emails, chatting mindlessly with their peers, searching for pornography, and downloading crappy quality pirated music files.
The Internet has changed my life. I have a news source for each aspect of life that I must keep up on. I can read the NY Times, Slashdot, live Associated Press feeds, and much more. I don't have to rely on biased news sources (FOX, anyone?) to brainwash me into a Republican prosumer.
I also used the Internet to first teach myself about programming. A few years ago, I found an Open-Source project and just jumped right in. Using the Web interface, IRC, etc., I was able to teach myself proper C++ coding and Linux system software design. I started my own Linux company last year.
What I'm saying is just that I wish people truly knew what they were doing more with respect to computers and the Internet. I fear that 30% of this 69% sample group probably doesn't even know how to use Google to find Web sites, USENET postings, pictures, news articles, etc. That's truly sad.
I don't mean to champion intellectual pursuits too much. I do agree that the Web and Internet as a whole has a lot to offer in the way of social progress, but as I see test scores continue to drop and standards get lowered for our next generation of children, I can't help but wonder if little things like these could be changed to make all of our futures better and brighter.
Thanks for reading, friend.
Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
Well yeah, looking at porn sucks with dial up.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
Norvig's Law !!!
Any technology that surpasses 50% penetration
will never double again
(in any number of months).
Considering the nature of the most abundant content in the Internet, it's oddly appropriate.
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
It's not surprising that 60% are college students. Considering the root of the internet to academic insitutions.
And while it's not surprising only 7% are over 65, considering that constitutes over 10 million, I'd say that there are plenty of old people using the internet. Granted, that might still be a small percentage of the number of old people alive in the US, but 10M is nothing to scoff at.
Considering that many old people tend to be conservative and how many people online use email and get porn spam, I'm surprised the politicians don't take a firmer stand. I would assume this based would really support tougher legislation than what's being proposed.
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
Right. Because the New York Times, fabricated stories and all, has no bias. *jerk-off motion with hand*
Percent of useful content on the internet continues to drop.
Or reading and posting on slashdot, but yeah, I see your point.
Here's a point for you to consider: who judges what use is use rather than just fiddling around?
The other interesting bit is how much of this 'use' happens at work...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Most of these people probably do not use the Internet for something truly worthwhile.
100% of those polled when informed of your response replied:
And who the hell is this guy to tell us what is "worth while"?
Sent from your iPad.
Yes I agree, and I'll also be one to admit, porn on dialup SUCKS... (not just people in the pictures :P) On a general college network/networks porn is a large issue... I'd say 90% of the bandwidth I use is outgoing on DC++ for people downloading some of my 30 or so gigs of porn. Music is another 5% to 10%... if you want proof have a look here.. http://www.tyrantanic.net/mrtg/aiwa/aiwa.tyrantani c.net_2.html (keep in mind thats a 10mbit connection to the rest of the network, just 100mbit local on the switch)
Also if you take into account all those popup ads advertising porn, or increasing penis size or what have you, you'd bet that MOST internet traffic is download of some sort, I'd guess porn. However there are plenty of other useful things to waste your bandwidth on.. like uhhmm... ok lets see here. For example when you hmm.. nevermind. I can't think of anything.
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.
I think it's rather naive to say you get your news from NY Times, AP, Slashdot, etc. rather than biased sources like Fox. ALL news sources of some degree of bias. If you think a news source is un-biased, that just means you agree with whatever bias they demonstrate.
I find it helpful to get news from a variety of sources of all types. The most interesting comparison to me is to see what stories are not covered by a news outlet.
Ranger96
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.-Ecclesiastes 1:9
Some people use their television to keep abreast of current affairs and learn about the world around them. Others use it to watch sitcoms, soaps, and/or game shows (and, of course, porn). The degree of market penetration of the television would not be where it is today if it had been only seen as a medium for education and news. Instead, the entertainment side is what drew the average Joe Sixpack.
Likewise, some of us utilize the Internet for research and keeping abreast of current affairs. Others use it to chat, download files, and play games. We wouldn't see the market penetration we have here without those kinds of features - the entertainment sector, you could say.
Without the housewife chatting with her pals, the kids playing games online, and the hubby downloading his porn, we may not have seen any push to get high-speed lines installed in many areas.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
But for all this marketing-driven drivel, it seems that little substance has been added to the internet. Think about how much text-based content you could download, compared to the fancy ill-designed un-navigatable front page so many companies use now.
It's symbiotic. More people get high-speed to see the pretty pictures, and more companies use pretty pictures to appease the high-speed people.
However, who are we to judge? My grandmother just turned 82 this year. Her husband also just passed away. I got her a computer and taught her to use the Internet. Right now she knows how to send email, chat over MSN, do her banking, and perform simple google searches. That's all. She isn't churning out homegrown linux apps or discussing religion on usenet, in fact, I'm quite sure she couldn't change the resolution on her monitor. However, it's her lifeline to the outside world. It's given her a reason to not just give up on life.
So, what I'm trying to say that the beauty of the Internet is how it can be so many different things to so many different people.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
Is it a problem that people used movable type to read Richardson's "Pamela" rather than the Bible?
Is it a problem that people went to the movies to watch Rudolph Valentino kiss Theda Bara instead of "Greed?"
Is it a problem that people used radio to listen to Amos 'n Andy rather than to the speeches of great statesmen?
Is it a problem that people used advances in color printing technology to subscribe to "Playboy" rather than "American Heritage?"
Is it a problem that people used vinyl LP's to listen to Elvis Presley albums instead of "Die Meistersinger von Nurnburg?"
Is it a problem that people used cable TV to watch MTV instead of C-SPAN?
Because, if these are problems... boy, have we got problems.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I can't believe he is saying that slashdot is unbiased.
Their bias is in their slogan: "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Its biased towards the "Nerds" group and someone has to make a decision on what "matters" and what doesn't.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Damn all of you quick fingered bastards typing out those 69 jokes in a jiffy. I thought I might be the first one to notice. Not even close. Damn all of you. No Funny for me. Damn all of you again.
Free XBox, PS2
It's a bit of a pain to get news from a wide variety of sources though. Takes quite a bit of time. I've found a couple resources to be useful for this.
Google News and Technorati pick from a wide variety of sources and allow you to search news articles. But I sometimes find it hard to find what I want in all the clutter. Plastic provides moderation and discussion of news, but doesn't have broad coverage. Various RSS aggregators allow me to create your own news feed, but they don't have good coverage of mainstream news sources and they're a bit of a pain to set up. There's a couple recent attempts at personalized news -- Findory News is one -- that try to pull news from a broad variety of sources targetted to your interests.
What do you use?
Jesus Christ, come off your high-horse.
The Internet is fantastic. It has changed my life too: I have made friends over the Internet; I have the career I have because I fell in love with web design; I started two online magazines; and I spend probably two hours per day reading news and commentary from around the world. It still blows my mind how much better informed I can be thanks to the fact that I can read blogs from Iran, newspapers from India, etc.
But I also use the Internet to forward silly emails, chat mindlessly with peers, to search for pornography, and download crappy quality music files. In other words, to have fun.
It's great to be engaged intellectually with things that interest you, but it's also a fundamental human right to goof off.
No matter what technologies we invent, not everyone is going to want to program, read the news all day, or found a business. People have other interests, and that's fine.
Listen, I'm horrible at sports, I don't know the first thing about plumbing, I have no idea how to fix a car, and I'd rather buy take-out than learn to cook. Does this make me a bad person? Am I a lesser person because I am not engaged enough to learn how a car works? No, of course not! It just means that I have different interests from others, and I should be able to follow my interests just as much as they can follow theirs.
Note 1: Your case would be a lot more convincing if you didn't make it while posting to Slashdot! Shouldn't you be coding or informing yourself, rather than goofing off?
Note 2: Your case would also be a lot more convincing if you didn't make the argument that the Internet is a failure because it hasn't shown everyone that the Republicans are bad. One of the great advantages for me of the Internet is that it has expanded my news sources past the traditional left-wing sources that I read on paper (like the New York Times) to centrist (Washington Post) and conservative sources (like the National Review and Weekly Standard). I've become more, not less conservative, as the result of reading the Internet. It is objectively true that the Internet expands the range of sources we have our fingertips, but it is extremely subjective to say that having access to more sources makes you more liberal.
I wonder what percentage of bandwidth consumption is due to porn. Video files being much larger and all and porn already being one of biggest (if not the biggest) businesses online.
And I wonder what the ratio of porn downloads are of college students versus everyone else. With the high-speed connections, I'm sure college students consume the most bandwidth. But I'm also sure that they're not consumers (in financial terms) anywhere to the same degree as they are file-traders.
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
I think it's rather naive to say you get your news from NY Times, AP, Slashdot, etc. rather than biased sources like Fox. ALL news sources of some degree of bias. If you think a news source is un-biased, that just means you agree with whatever bias they demonstrate.
Well said. I almost coughed up my coke when I read the grandparent's assertion that he is getting unbiased news and then proceeds to list a number of American-centric news sources.
Ranger96 is right: all news has some bias. The only thing you can really do is to read news from several widly different sources. And consider including some non-US sources of info such as Al-Jazeera and the BBC. I'm sure someone will complain that Al-Jazeera is nothing more than a hate-mongering rag but the fact of the matter is that a large portion of the Arab world listens to it. If you want to understand the world, you'd better know what other people are reading because it will shape their worldview.
The most interesting comparison to me is to see what stories are not covered by a news outlet.
That's true but the only way you find out about these articles is through the 'activist' websites of the issue that got ignored. And let's face it: those aren't exactly unbiased sources of info either. I think what you have to do is get as much info as possible and then use some good old fashioned critical thinking to figure out what's REALLY going on. And that's admittedly pretty tough.
GMD
watch this
Within those paragraphs, there was a nugget of truth.
Instead of turning on the 5:00 news report, most of us pick and choose who we go to for our news.
I do not think that your assertion that FOX News is any more biased than the NY Times is correct. It is ignorant and naive to think that any newsmedia is objective.
The Europeans have known this for years; what is wrong with the Americans that we have this notion that the press is somehow objective (or should be objective)?
Is Slashdot objective? No! But, we read it because we like it and it entertains us. Same thing with the newsmedia.
You now have the ability to pick what you want, when you want it, how you want it, from the perspective you want, etc.
News has become a commodity and the means of producing it have diversified.
According to Harris Interactive, more than two-thirds, or 69 percent of American adults were internet users last year.
Alas, only 63% of adults were grown-ups last year.
-kgj
-kgj
Yea go USA! My father in law is one of those 69%...just this weekend I spent about two hours removing 12 viruses/trojans and another 6 or so spyware programs from his computer. All gotten from some evil pr0n sites (well he is divorced and single..).
Last month I installed a firewall and updated his anti-virus. I asked him why he had them both disabled, he said "My favorite web site requires me to have these turned off at all times."
With my wife (his daughter) in the room I didn't really say anything, but before we left I explained to him in private that his favorite web site has been installing viruses and spyware on his PC...then I gave him a few tips on how to find reputable pr0n.
I hope next year 99% of all US citizens are online, I'm going to be starting up a zombie network to punish evil terrorists and i'll need the boxen.
Apple free since 1990!
IANASA but 2,000 people, mostly students hardly seems a worthwhile sample when trying to describe a population base of 290 million people.
Actually, you'd be surprised. You don't need a large sample size to run an accurate poll. Look at Gallop and Zogby polls covering elections for an example of this. A poll can be done using a sample size of only a few hundred, yet it will fairly accurately reflect the real-world results.
This is, of course, assuming that the poll is done as scientifically as it should be.
I won't argue that the comments on Slashdot are good and they help balance the bias, but you also have to consider the bias of the audience that comments on Slashdot. Slashdot is 'News for Nerds', and hence those of us that read it, whether we like it or not, have the bias of a somewhat technically literate crowd.
In the real world, some people still buy Microsoft, some get frustrated with Linux, some could care less about Martian rovers on the moon... Maybe the world would be better off if it thought like the average Slashdot reader, but then again, maybe not.
On this thread overall, it's probably good to read other perspectives, but I'm kind of surprised that there's discussion about some internet use being more worthwhile than someone else's use. Personally, I think that keeping in touch with friends and family is more worthwhile than my news reading, but that's me. Conversation and the sharing of ideas, other than an opposable thumb, is what makes us human. So writing off a person who just writes e-mail and chats with their friends as not putting the internet to good use is disturbing. Most of these news sources quoted (other than slashdot of course) are one-way communication. It's generally the discussion with others that gives us insight and other perspectives. Why else would commenting on blogs be popular?
I think that the internet also adds many conveniences that are worthwhile - I can do all of my finances online, and can pay my bills while on vacation. I can order things from another state without leaving my living room. I can get directions from my house without having to ask anyone. I can even converse and argue with random people I don't know about stuff on Slashdot. My guess is that if you polled those people that said they use the internet, few would consider their use of it not to be worthwhile.
Progress, baby!
s'wut i sed.