4 ms·

Honest question: is it really worth it to try to change them? For people older than 60 years the internet is still so new that many still might think it is a "

Honest question: is it really worth it to try to change them? For people older than 60 years the internet is still so new that many still might think it is a "fad". It will be very, very hard to teach new tricks to old dogs. As the article says: > "There are a lot of things about the internet that get less useful as you get older," he said. OTOH, for people younger than 20, the proportion of not connected will most certainly be very low. As the article says: > "Virtually everyone is online before age 50," Dr Blank told the BBC I suspect that the effort to get the last and very reluctant old people online is just not worth it.

Ericson2314 7y ago
But also > Earlier versions of the survey found the 50-plus drop-off in net use had persisted for a long time, said Dr Blank, suggesting it was not tied to a particular age group that grew up without the net. Given that the different survey results didn't really agreec on the basics, I'm not sure the correlation means much. But if that is true it would definitely make it more worth it.
- cstross 7y ago
  I've just gone through the decline and death of an elderly relative. She was able to use a Mac and browse the web a decade ago. Then she began to forget how to do things she'd been proficient at a few years earlier. In the past four years her ability to use the computer dropped to zero, and attempting to get her onto an iPad instead failed (it was too complicated/required too much learning -- I'd left it too late, not recognizing the early signs of decline). At the time of death she had medium to advanced vascular dementia; the point is, cognitive decline in old age is a real thing, and people lose the ability to do stuff they knew how to do at an earlier age.
bonoboTP 7y ago
> For people older than 60 years I think the threshold is higher now, I'd say 70 years+. 60 year olds were 40 when the Internet started to become a thing and were in their late 20s when personal computing took off in the 80s. Those are quite receptive ages still.
DanBC 7y ago
> "Non-users are older, proportionately less well-educated and have lower incomes," said Dr Grant Blank, survey research fellow at the OII, who oversaw the project. > Non-users, said Dr Blank, were those who did not go online via any means - either phone or computer. The proportion of those falling into this category grew as people aged, he said. The main welfare benefit in the UK at the moment is Universal Credit which is an online-only benefit. You apply for it online. All communication is done online. If non-users are not able to even use computers then they can't access the benefits they are entitled to. A lot of people have been made redundant from Job Centre Plus (the public facing offices of the Department for Work and Pensions) and so the help just isn't available from DWP. It seems a lot of that help work has been off-loaded onto libraries which would be fine if they'd been given a funding bump to cope with it, but they haven't. As a Librarian I spend most of my time helping people with universal credit: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/universal-credit-claimants-librarian-help-application/ https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/universal-credit-claimants-libra...
VLM 7y ago
Internet use is very fad-like. The general public does not get on the net just to play with DNS resolution and TCP connections. For a couple years "use the net" for the general public meant certain flash in the pan individual sites; email (only used by old people, according to Koreans), ICQ, myspace, FB, yik yak, now I guess insta is momentarily where its at, but history shows that'll be forgotten like livejournal by the early 2020s. Haranguing people as per the article about "The wide range of good health information might prove useful for many" sounds like haranguing people to subscribe to cable TV because CSPAN will make them a better citizen; thats beautiful social status signalling, but lets be realistic, for the masses the internet is for pr0n and fad site of the month. Much like people who don't have a TV are not missing valuable educational programming, they're mostly missing sitcoms and pro sports. A little less time wasting and brain rotting will never hurt anyone. It'll be inconvenient for paying bills or customer service or whatever, but by design that has always been inconvenient so whats the difference?
amaccuish 7y ago
My mum and dad are in their sixties and use tech heavily. I'd say 70s, maybe 75+ish.

Ericson2314 7y ago

But also > Earlier versions of the survey found the 50-plus drop-off in net use had persisted for a long time, said Dr Blank, suggesting it was not tied to a particular age group that grew up without the net. Given that the different survey results didn't really agreec on the basics, I'm not sure the correlation means much. But if that is true it would definitely make it more worth it.

cstross 7y ago
I've just gone through the decline and death of an elderly relative. She was able to use a Mac and browse the web a decade ago. Then she began to forget how to do things she'd been proficient at a few years earlier. In the past four years her ability to use the computer dropped to zero, and attempting to get her onto an iPad instead failed (it was too complicated/required too much learning -- I'd left it too late, not recognizing the early signs of decline). At the time of death she had medium to advanced vascular dementia; the point is, cognitive decline in old age is a real thing, and people lose the ability to do stuff they knew how to do at an earlier age.

bonoboTP 7y ago

> For people older than 60 years I think the threshold is higher now, I'd say 70 years+. 60 year olds were 40 when the Internet started to become a thing and were in their late 20s when personal computing took off in the 80s. Those are quite receptive ages still.

DanBC 7y ago

> "Non-users are older, proportionately less well-educated and have lower incomes," said Dr Grant Blank, survey research fellow at the OII, who oversaw the project. > Non-users, said Dr Blank, were those who did not go online via any means - either phone or computer. The proportion of those falling into this category grew as people aged, he said. The main welfare benefit in the UK at the moment is Universal Credit which is an online-only benefit. You apply for it online. All communication is done online. If non-users are not able to even use computers then they can't access the benefits they are entitled to. A lot of people have been made redundant from Job Centre Plus (the public facing offices of the Department for Work and Pensions) and so the help just isn't available from DWP. It seems a lot of that help work has been off-loaded onto libraries which would be fine if they'd been given a funding bump to cope with it, but they haven't. As a Librarian I spend most of my time helping people with universal credit: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/universal-credit-claimants-librarian-help-application/ https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/universal-credit-claimants-libra...

VLM 7y ago

Internet use is very fad-like. The general public does not get on the net just to play with DNS resolution and TCP connections. For a couple years "use the net" for the general public meant certain flash in the pan individual sites; email (only used by old people, according to Koreans), ICQ, myspace, FB, yik yak, now I guess insta is momentarily where its at, but history shows that'll be forgotten like livejournal by the early 2020s. Haranguing people as per the article about "The wide range of good health information might prove useful for many" sounds like haranguing people to subscribe to cable TV because CSPAN will make them a better citizen; thats beautiful social status signalling, but lets be realistic, for the masses the internet is for pr0n and fad site of the month. Much like people who don't have a TV are not missing valuable educational programming, they're mostly missing sitcoms and pro sports. A little less time wasting and brain rotting will never hurt anyone. It'll be inconvenient for paying bills or customer service or whatever, but by design that has always been inconvenient so whats the difference?

amaccuish 7y ago

My mum and dad are in their sixties and use tech heavily. I'd say 70s, maybe 75+ish.