...I'm confused by this article. 'Many more, 34 percent, said they didn't find the Internet relevant to them (...). Thirty-two percent said the Web was too dif

...I'm confused by this article. 'Many more, 34 percent, said they didn't find the Internet relevant to them (...). Thirty-two percent said the Web was too difficult to use, according to Pew.' 'By contrast, there are real structural challenges (poverty and inequality) that are keeping younger, less socially mobile populations from becoming America's next great inventors or scientists or civil servants' So 2/3rds of the responses say the problem is either that the web isn't relevant to them, or that it's too hard to use, but it's -poverty and inequality- that are the problem? Then elsewhere, "Mostly they're poorer, older and undereducated, according to the Pew Research Center's latest figures." but then the article says "And it's not merely a matter of waiting for old fuddy-duddies who don't "get it" to die off: As the data show, older people have been among the quickest to adopt the Internet among the disconnected population." Doesn't that latter bit seem to imply that the 'older' part of the former will be solved with time? Or that the 'older' part isn't a problem at all? And what about that "younger, less socially mobile populations" bit they referenced (prior paragraph)? I am trying to make sense of both 'why (I) should care' (is it that these people are wrong, and that the internet really -is- relevant to them, and/or that they just need better training on how to use it? The article also says 'But these remaining holdouts are likely to be the hardest to reach, because you can't just throw money at them', but the way to solve both those issues, and the remaining adjectives the Pew Research Center quote references ('poorer' and 'undereducated') is by education and addressing poverty, which requires throwing money at the problem), -and- what to do about it, and I'm not really finding it in the article. Note, I'm -not- saying that this isn't a problem, or that I can't come up with reasons why it would be. I'm just saying that the article seems to be saying "37M Americans aren't online. That's a problem", and nothing more. Not why that's a problem, not who it affects and why(well, they cite survey responses, then seem to posit their own reasons that run counter to the survey), not how it affects society at large (or me individually, beyond the possibility that some of these people would become great if only they used the internet, something that they just take for granted), and not what to do about it.