4 ms·
> My first reaction was “7% sounds low”, but again, that’s probably biased by my own experiences. That was my reaction as well, particularly based on how the q
by wxnx 6y ago
> My first reaction was “7% sounds low”, but again, that’s probably biased by my own experiences.
That was my reaction as well, particularly based on how the question was asked - it was very specifically about the Internet, not mentioning specific services that someone with low technological literacy might not associate with Internet usage (e.g. Google Maps, or Facebook Messenger) [1].
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Non-internet_users_2021_Methodology-Topline_FOR_RELEASE.pdf https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Non-i...
- kube-system 6y agoEven then, I'd consider someone using Google Maps or Facebook Messenger to have moderate technical literacy, decent regular literacy, and a better-than-worst financial situation.
- wxnx 6y agoQuite right, poor choice of phrase on my part. My point was that there are people who are e.g. legitimately surprised when their high-speed data connection drops and it prevents them from using Google Maps on their smartphone. To them, it's functionally a GPS, not Internet-based at all. Similarly for certain messaging apps, which integrate with the phone's OS so tightly that it's not apparent that they're using Internet-based communication vs. SMS. My larger point was that to then expect all respondents to a phone survey (on a measurement significantly linked to technical literacy, no less) to make similar distinctions unprompted is perhaps a bit of reach.