Blogcritics: Comments on Rah! Rah! The Internet!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:41:07 EDT

I'm voting "yes" on the Internet referendum

Comment by Dana Huff

Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:38:42 EDT

I was going to email you about something, Mike, but I didn't see a contact. I would rather not post what I was going to say here -- it was not negative towards you, but merely an observation I made. Feel free to contact me if you wish to know. If you can't get to my email from here, it's on my blog. Damn spambots. Make us all paranoid. For good reason. I am so insulted that everyone in the world seems to think my (nonexistent) penis needs enlarging. (Okay, digression over.)

Comment by SFC SKI

Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:09:05 EDT

I'm surprised that MD didn't point out that there were no minority female homeless bloggers cited in your article, you are hopelessly biased. ;)

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:47:07 EDT

In other words, Mike Kole followed the advice I gave him to an extent. But, predictably, he still got things wrong. The Nielsen Report cited appears to have been prepared for clients -- web portals. It may differ from objective studies because of that. Other oddities include measuring access only once per month and checking only the portals it is working for, apparently. Households that don't have phone lines permanently or temporarily, are excluded. So are users of cell phones, which would include the poor disproportionately. Broadband is now used by about half of people who have access to the Internet. That says nothing about low-income and access to the Net. Furthermore, I cited the technology/speed hierarchy in my comments previously. I don't understand why a few blogs said to be published by homeless men are supposed to be representative of the voices of the poor, most of whom are not men and not homeless. I gather that Mike Kole has so little grasp of the lives of low-income people that he does not know the difference. (Also, the Homeless Guy has been blogging for a long time. Surely, he can afford a small flat by now.) Recent research says the Digital Divide is still very much with us, though there has been some improvement: ~ Only 41 percent of homes where incomes are under $30,000 own computers. ~ Low-income households are connected mainly by dial-up. Upper-income households by broadband. For an overview of the Digital Divide, see thet 'Falling throuh the Net' site. To summarize, most low-income people still do not have Internet access at home. Indeed, the majority lack computers at home. The growth of computer ownership among lower middle-class people is encouraging.

Comment by Al Barger

Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:47:20 EDT

And likely most of those 25% of Americans without internet access simply don't WANT it. Plus, as you said, they could go to a library. Also, there's this diversity of viewpoints business. That's not really what most people who use such phrases really mean. Unless your definition of "poor" means absolutely literally homeless, I would certainly qualify. Of course, to someone such as Mac Diva, I don't count as representing the opinions of the poor. I'm not giving the correct specific diverse viewpoint that socialists demand. Likewise, to much of this same crowd, Clarence Thomas does not represent diversity, but is rather dismissed as an Uncle Tom. If there's one thing the internet's got, it's diversity of opinion.

Comment by Mike Kole

Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:49:19 EDT

Andy- I did a Google search for the info I was looking for, read the blogs or articles, and added the links.

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:46:48 EDT

Some people don't like to let facts get in the way of good rhetoric. Nice line...that one made me laugh!!! What, may I ask do you use to check your facts...as in what search engine... Curious minds want to know...thank you in advance.