![\"Instant](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/F5A629310C1D4B22B61FDFC6D4BCBEF6.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\nIn terms of distribution of Internet users among the four categories, the breakdown for the November 1998 poll looks like this:<\/p>\n\n
For the March 2000 Pew Internet Project poll, the breakdown is as follows:<\/p>\n\n There are some differences in the distribution of categories between 1998 and 2000, with 8 percent more users falling into the Veteran Enthusiast category in 2000, a slight drop in the share of Instant Acolytes, and a decrease in the percentage of Cautious Adopters.\u00a0 It is not surprising that the share of Veteran Enthusiasts has grown since 1998, because yesterday\u2019s Veteran Enthusiasts are likely to stay that way and yesterday\u2019s Instant Acolytes will swell the ranks of today\u2019s Veteran Enthusiasts.\u00a0 The decrease in the share of Instant Acolytes likely has to do with the pool of new users the Internet draws from over time.\u00a0 New users today, who have lower incomes and lower levels of educational attainment than those of yesterday, may be less disposed toward embracing technology than their earlier counterparts.\u00a0 Section VI. explores possible reasons for the reluctance to embrace the Internet, focusing on heightened concerns about online privacy as the reason.<\/p>\n\n Who are the people that fall into these categories of Internet users and are they different in 2000 than they were in 1998?\u00a0 A large part of the story of new users in 2000 is that they are mostly young women and more enthusiastic about the Internet than men who are new to the Internet.\u00a0 Slightly more than 1 in 4 women on the Internet, or 26%, are Instant Acolytes compared with 19% of men on the Internet who are Instant Acolytes; looked at differently, almost three out of five (58%) Instant Acolytes are women.\u00a0 Of people who have come online in the year prior to March 2000, 54% were women.\u00a0 Moreover, Instant Acolytes are more likely to go online from home than other user categories, suggesting that the Internet is becoming a home-based information\/entertainment tool, and is less of an extension of work or school.<\/p>\n\n Instant Acolytes<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n November 1998: This group of users is more female, less educated, and with a lower income than the overall Internet population of 1998.\u00a0 Women make up 55% of Instant Acolytes versus 48% of all Internet users at the end of 1998.\u00a0 Only 29% of this group has college or post-graduate degrees, compared with 38% of all users, and 35% of 1998 Instant Acolytes have household incomes over $50,000 versus 40% for all Internet users.\u00a0 Nonetheless, at least by one measure of Internet activity, Instant Acolytes have taken to the Internet with enthusiasm comparable to the larger Internet population; 84% of Instant Acolytes report using email and 85% of all 1998 Internet users report the same.<\/p>\n\n March 2000: Like their earlier counterparts, the Instant Acolyte 2000 group is more female, less wealthy, and less educated than the overall Internet population of March 2000.\u00a0 As already noted, women comprise 58% of Instant Acolytes in early 2000 versus 50% of the entire Internet population.\u00a0 Slightly more than 27% of this group has college or post-graduate degrees compared with 37% of all Internet users.\u00a0 And 35% of Instant Acolytes have household incomes over $50,000 as opposed to 42% of all Internet users.\u00a0 Email is an equally popular Internet activity across both groups; 91% of Instant Acolytes are email users versus 93% of all Internet users in March 2000.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Discussion: <\/i>\u00a0 The key difference between Instant Acolytes in 1998 and 2000 involves young women, specifically those between ages 18 and 29.\u00a0 Among Instant Acolytes between 18 and 29, 44% were women in 1998, but 59% were women in 2000.\u00a0 Women between age 30 and 45 were also prominently represented among Instant Acolytes; 61% of Instant Acolytes between 30 and 45 were women in 2000 versus 57% in 1998.\u00a0 At the other end of the age spectrum, women over 56 years of were quite enthused by the Internet in 1998, with 64% of Instant Acolytes over 56 being women.\u00a0 In March 2000, only 44% of Instant Acolytes in the \u201cover 56\u201d age group were women.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Cautious Adopters<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n November 1998: This group looks about the same as the overall Internet population in terms of gender breakdown (46% of Cautious Adopters are women compared with 48% of all Internet users), but Cautious Adopters are less educated and wealthy than the average user.\u00a0 Thirty-four percent of Cautious Adopters have household incomes over $50,000 in contrast to 40% among all users, and 28% have college or post-graduate degrees versus 38% for all Internet users.\u00a0 A striking contrast within age groups comes in the 18-29 cohort; 68% of Cautious Adopters in this category are men, with the remaining 32% women.\u00a0 Older women are more likely to be Cautious Adopters than their male counterparts; 63% of Cautious Adopters over age 56 are women.\u00a0 With respect to email use, 68% of Cautious Adopters have used email (the November 1998 average is 85%), with 72% of women and 65% of men saying they have used email.\u00a0 The gap in email usage suggests that caution translates into less Internet use, since email is the Internet\u2019s most popular application.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n March 2000: The Cautious Adopter of 2000 is slightly more likely to be male than the overall Internet population (52% are male versus 50% for the Internet population), less wealthy, and rate substantially lower on educational attainment.\u00a0 Just 30% of this group makes more than $50,000 per year compared with 42% of the overall Internet population.\u00a0 Only 20% of Cautious Adopters have college or post-graduate degrees versus 37% of the entire Internet population.\u00a0 As with the 1998 group of Cautious Adopters, among young Cautious Adopters there are more men than women; 59% of Cautious Adopters between ages 18 and 29 are men and 41% are women.\u00a0 The pattern reverses with age; 58% of Cautious Adopters over age 56 are women and 42% are men.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, the mainstay Internet application\u2014email\u2014has not strongly captured this group\u2019s imagination; 78% are email users (in contrast to the 93% average), with 81% of men and 74% of women reporting having used email.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Discussion: <\/i> While Cautious Adopters are very similar in 1998 and 2000, two points stick out in the 2000 group, namely education levels and email use.\u00a0 The 17-point deviance from the average for college and post-grad educational attainment for the 2000 group (as opposed to 10 points for 1998) may reflect the declining pool of well-educated new users as Internet penetration rises.\u00a0 Email use among Cautious Adopters in 2000 is a puzzle, with men reporting higher email use than women.\u00a0 The Pew Internet Project has found that women are more frequent emailers and like it better.\u00a0 Fully 92% of women have used email and 46% report having used it \u201cyesterday\u201d, while 91% of men have used email and 40% used it \u201cyesterday.\u201d\u00a0 And 78% of women say they look forward to checking their email versus 62% of men.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Veteran Enthusiast<\/b> <\/p>\n\n November 1998: Unsurprisingly, the Veteran Enthusiasts are, as a group, wealthier, more educated, and more male than the average Internet user of the latter part of 1998.\u00a0 Nearly 58% of Veteran Enthusiasts are men, as opposed to 52% of men overall among the online population.\u00a0 Forty-nine percent of this group have college or post-grad degrees compared with the 38% average.\u00a0 And 48% have household incomes over $50,000 versus 40% of the overall Internet population.\u00a0 Veteran Enthusiasts also embrace email; 94% count themselves as email users (with no difference in usage rates between men and women), a figure 9 points higher than the average for Internet users.<\/p>\n\n March 2000: The March 2000 Veteran Enthusiasts are very much like the November 1998 group, which is understandable because veteran enthusiasts of two years ago are today\u2019s veteran enthusiasts.\u00a0 They are slightly more male (52% are males versus 50% of the entire Internet population), wealthier (50% have household incomes over $50,000, eight points higher than the average), and more educated (47% graduated from college or beyond, ten points higher than the average for the Internet population).\u00a0 1998\u2019s Instant Acolytes are probably reflected here, 55% of whom were female, and with the fervent embrace of email by women, it is not surprising that women have increased their representation among Veteran Enthusiasts by March 2000.\u00a0 Within age categories, older men seem to be particularly ardent \u2018Net users.\u00a0 Among Internet user over the age of 56, 60% are men; among Veteran Enthusiasts over age 56, 64% are men.\u00a0 Finally, Veteran Enthusiasts are active emailers; 96% of all Veteran Enthusiasts use email, 97.2% of women and 95.7% of women.<\/p>\n\n \u2018Net Apathetic<\/b> <\/p>\n\n November 1998: Users who have been online for more than 2 years but who say that they would not miss the Internet are more likely to be female and less wealthy than the average Internet user, but about as well educated.\u00a0 Fifty-two percent of the \u2018Net Apathetic are women (in contrast to 48% of women in the entire Internet population at the end of 1998), and 34% have household incomes over $50,000 versus the 40% average.\u00a0 However, 36% of the \u2018Net Apathetic have college or post-grad degrees, nearly the level as all Internet users (38%).\u00a0 Interestingly, the \u2018Net Apathetic are on balance younger than the overall Internet population.\u00a0 Fully 40% of the \u2018Net Apathetic are between 18 and 29, compared with 28% in that age group in the Internet population at large.\u00a0 This cohort is more likely to be female; women are 43% of the December 1998 Internet population between ages 18 and 29, while women make up 53% of the \u2018Net Apathetic in the 18-29 age group.\u00a0 In terms of email use, 84% of the \u2018Net Apathetic are email users, 85% of men and 83% of women.<\/p>\n\n March 2000: The typical \u2018Net Apathetic user for early 2000 is very much like the average Internet user, although the \u2018Net Apathetic is more likely to be male and better educated than the average Internet user.\u00a0 While half of all Internet users were men in March 2000, 59% of the \u2018Net Apathetic are men.\u00a0 Fully 39% have college or post-graduate degrees (versus 36% of all Internet users), and 35% of the \u2018Net Apathetic have attended some college, as opposed to 31% of all Internet users.\u00a0 Yet 42% of the \u2018Net Apathetic have household incomes above $50,000, and that matches the number for all Internet users.\u00a0 Unlike the 1998 \u2018Net Apathetic group, youth is not an issue; 31% of the \u2018Net Apathetic are between 18 and 29 for the March 2000 group versus 30% of all Internet users in the 18-29 age bracket.\u00a0 There is simply a general pattern in all age groups of more men than women falling into the \u2018Net Apathetic category.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, the \u2018Net Apathetic are less frequent email users than average; 86% report having used email, with no differences across gender, which is about 5 points below the March average.\u00a0 As discussed further below, the likely reason for this lower rate of email use has to do with access; the \u2018Net Apathetic are less likely to have online access from home, which depresses Internet usage in all categories of activities, not just email.<\/p>\n\n The following tables summarizes the demographic characteristics of the user types in November 1998 and March 2000.<\/p>\n\n Summary of Demographic Characteristics by User Classification<\/b> <\/p>\n\n Summary of Demographic Characteristics by User Classification<\/b> <\/p>\n\n The only Internet activity considered above is email, but people do much more online than simply send email.\u00a0 As the Pew Internet Project has found, people surf the Web as frequently as they go online to check email.[3.numoffset=”3″ \u201cTracking Life Online,\u201d op. cit., p. 26.]\u00a0 By comparing what Instant Acolytes do online to the average Internet user and the most enthusiastic veterans, we can gain a sense of what matters most to new users and make guesses as to how that might affect the Internet in the future.\u00a0 And by comparing what new users today value on the Internet with what new users valued in 1998, we can get a sense of how Internet users are changing, and speculate about how the Internet may evolve.<\/p>\n\n The following tables compare Internet activities for Instant Acolytes, Veteran Enthusiasts, Cautious Adopters, the \u2018Net Apathetic, and the overall average for March 2000 and November 1998.<\/p>\n\n Table 3<\/b> <\/p>\n\n In both tables, the activities are divided into three categories, \u201cfun\u201d activities, activities in which the Internet is used as an information utility, and transactions.\u00a0 For March 2000, the Instant Acolytes engage in \u201cfun\u201d activities to an equal or greater extent than the average user in 7 of 8 activities.\u00a0 In a number of cases, such as going online for fun, playing a game, or going to a chat room, Instant Acolytes are more active than Veteran Enthusiasts.\u00a0 When it comes to using the Internet as an information utility, Instant Acolytes approach the frequency of use of average users in most areas, although their lower-than-average usage levels are notable in looking for financial information, political information, or visiting government websites.\u00a0 Veteran enthusiasts substantially outpace Instant Acolytes in using the Internet as an information utility, with 10 to 20 point gaps in a number of categories.\u00a0 The interesting exception is health care information, the one category in which Instant Acolytes\u2019 usage rate exceeds the average and (setting aside spiritual information) the gap between Instant Acolytes and Veteran Enthusiasts is narrowest (7 points).\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Turning to transactions, it is clear that even the most enthusiastic new users are reluctant to make purchases online.\u00a0 Instant Acolytes lag behind the average in all categories, and the gap between this group and Veteran Enthusiasts is wide in all activities, except gambling.\u00a0 Length of time on the Internet is strongly associated with willingness to conduct Internet transactions, and perhaps the most compelling evidence of this is seen in a comparison of Cautious Adopters with the \u2018Net Apathetic.\u00a0 The Cautious Adopter, the new user who would not miss the Internet, is nonetheless about as likely to engage in \u201cfun\u201d Internet activities as the \u2018Net Apathetic, who has been on the Internet a while but has not become enamored of it.\u00a0 But when it comes to transactions, people in the \u2018Net Apathetic category are more frequent online purchasers and far more likely to make online travel reservations or bank online than Cautious Adopters.<\/p>\n\n The November 1998 results follow the same general pattern as the March 2000 results, with the important differences being that Instant Acolytes lag further behind Veteran Enthusiasts in fun activities and seem somewhat more active in using the Internet as an information utility, both in absolute terms and relative to Veteran Enthusiasts.\u00a0 All users were more likely to go online to look for political information\u2014perhaps because the 1998 poll was taken during an election season\u2014with Instant Acolytes closer to Veteran Enthusiasts\u2019 usage rate than in 2000.\u00a0 Instant Acolytes are 10 points more likely to go online for financial information in 1998 than 2000, while Veteran Enthusiasts are 5 points more likely.\u00a0 The results for \u201cwork-related activity besides emails\u201d are also telling.\u00a0 Internet users in general engaged in this information-gathering activity at a much higher rate in 1998 versus 2000, with 70% of 1998 users having done this compared with 48% in 2000.\u00a0 With high usage rates across all user categories in \u201cwork related activities\u201d, Instant Acolytes lag behind Veteran Users and the overall average.\u00a0 Nonetheless, the gap in the likelihood in going online to do a transaction is wide, with 46% of Veteran Enthusiasts having gone online to buy something compared with 29% for Instant Acolytes.<\/p>\n\n Another element that influences the usage habits of these user classes is frequency of Internet use, amount of time spent online, and where people go online from.\u00a0 By asking what people did online yesterday, the Pew tracking poll sheds light on these factors.\u00a0 The following table summarizes the findings for the four categories of Internet users.<\/p>\n\n Table 5<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n Several distinctions among user classes are evident:<\/p>\n\n A number of conclusions emerge from the preceding analysis.\u00a0 First, new users seem most comfortable at the outset with fun activities on the Internet.\u00a0 Second, fun activities seem to engage people to a greater extent today than they did two years ago, when the information utility aspect of the Internet held a stronger attraction (relative to the average and Veteran Enthusiasts) among Instant Acolytes than it did in March 2000.\u00a0 The evidence suggests that people go online today for fun, while two and a half years ago, fun was an important reason, but practical applications held greater sway.\u00a0 That is probably because new users today are more likely than veterans to go online from home; the Internet is a fun activity (relative to the past) that is to be done at home more than at work.\u00a0 Finally, new Internet users\u2014whether enthusiastic about the Internet or not\u2014are reluctant to complete transactions online.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Although newcomers to the Internet are reluctant to do online transactions, once they cross the \u201ctransactions divide,\u201d how do they compare with long-time Internet users?\u00a0 To explore this question, I examined the Internet usage habits of a subset of Internet users who said that they have ever bought something online.\u00a0 As noted in Table 3, 47% of Internet users in the March sample have ever bought something online, and of those 794 Internet users who have purchased something online, 165 are Instant Acolytes.\u00a0 Here\u2019s how the frequency of their Internet activities compares with Veteran Enthusiasts profiled in Table 3, and Veteran Enthusiasts who have ever bought anything online.<\/p>\n\n Table 6<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n The table suggests that Instant Acolytes who have bought something online are in many ways like veteran users who have over time woven the Internet into their daily lives.\u00a0 For \u201cfun\u201d activities, Instant Acolytes who have taken the step to purchase something over the Internet are more active users than veterans in most cases.\u00a0 Looking at \u201cinformation utility\u201d activities, Instant Acolyte purchasers match Veteran Enthusiasts in a number of categories.\u00a0 For information utilities that have professional, financial, or news gathering overtones, Instant Acolyte purchasers lag behind Veteran Enthusiasts.\u00a0 With respect to transactions, it would seem that Instant Acolytes who have made an online purchase are comfortable with relatively less important online transactions, such as auctions or making travel reservations.\u00a0 For transactions that involve money management, which presumably are of larger magnitude or importance than auctions or travel expenditures, Instant Acolytes show lower levels of activity than Veteran Enthusiasts.\u00a0 Finally, it is important to note that 60% of Instant Acolyte purchasers are women.\u00a0 That is slightly more than the overall number for Instant Acolytes (58%) and reinforces the point that women are enthusiastic and active new users of the Internet.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n The table also shows that Veteran Enthusiasts who have made an online purchase are the most active Internet users, with these users being most active in transactions of all kinds.\u00a0 In a number of \u201cfun\u201d activities, however, such as going online just for fun, playing a game, or going to chat rooms, it is notable that Veteran Enthusiasts purchasers and Instant Acolyte online purchasers are equally active users.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Between this section and the preceding one, we see that generally Instant Acolytes are active Internet users in many respects except<\/i> when it comes to conducting online transactions.\u00a0 But once Instant Acolytes have crossed over into the world of online transactions, they are nearly as active on the Internet as veteran users, and more active in \u201cfun\u201d uses of the \u2018Net.\u00a0 The choice to conduct an online transaction is tantamount to a choice to take one\u2019s Internet use to the next level.\u00a0 What determines whether a user makes the choice to transact online?\u00a0 The next section explores reasons this question.<\/p>\n\n A sensible guess as to why new users\u2014those who quickly embrace the Net or not\u2014might hesitate to conduct transactions over the Internet is that these users are concerned about theft of credit card numbers or other personal information in the course of the transaction.\u00a0 The Pew Internet Project poll shows that this is the case.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Internet users who have been on the \u2018Net for a year or less report lower levels of trust than users who have been online for two or more years.\u00a0 When asked whether most people can be trusted, 36% of Internet users online for two or more years answered \u201cyes\u201d versus 27% of users online for a year or less.\u00a0 In terms of using their credit card to purchase things on the telephone, veteran users are only slightly more likely to do this than new users.\u00a0 Seventy-three percent of all veteran Internet users have used their credit cards to make purchases over the telephone compared with 69% of users online for a year or less.\u00a0 Yet new users are much more likely to be concerned about credit card theft when making telephone purchases.\u00a0 Only 16% of veteran Internet users reported worrying \u201ca lot\u201d about credit card theft during phone purchases compared with 27% of veteran users.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Substantial gaps between new and veteran users open up when looking at people\u2019s online purchasing behavior and concerns about credit card theft.\u00a0 Veteran users are almost twice as likely to have ever used their credit card to buy things on the Internet; 56% of users online for two or more years have used a credit card to purchase something on the Internet versus 30% of users online for a year or less.\u00a0 Conversely, new users are about twice as likely as veteran users to be worried a lot about theft of credit card numbers when making Internet purchases; 29% of new users say they worry a lot about Internet credit card theft compared with 15% of veteran users.\u00a0 In terms of expressing \u201csome\u201d concern about Internet credit card theft, 40% of new users say they are somewhat concerned versus 35% of veteran users.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Thus, although new Internet users are somewhat less trusting in general than veteran users, this lower level of trust translates into only modestly lower levels of telephone purchasing behavior, but substantially<\/i> lower online purchasing behavior.\u00a0 As noted above, new users are about half as likely to send credit card information over the Internet for purchases, but lag only 4 points behind veteran users in telephone purchases (at a high level of having ever made such purchases for new and veteran users).\u00a0 Even with approximately same \u201cworry rate\u201d about credit card theft for phone and online purchases, new users\u2019 inexperience on the Internet results in a reluctance to engage in ecommerce.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n The following tables summarize poll findings on privacy and trust and length of time on the Internet.<\/p>\n\n One inescapable conclusion is that Instant Acolytes are different from average and experienced Internet users.\u00a0 They are more likely to be women who go online from home, with lower levels of education and income, and with a preference to surf the Internet to a variety of \u201cfun\u201d sites.\u00a0 What, if anything, should policymakers do differently given that today\u2019s most enthusiastic new Internet users depart from the traditional stereotype of the educated white-male Internet user?\u00a0 The answer falls into two categories: a) privacy, and: b) content.\u00a0 New Internet users, as will be discussed, have different attitudes toward privacy than experienced users.\u00a0 When it comes to online content, Instant Acolytes, with their focus on \u201cfun\u201d sites, value a variety of Internet content as they explore the \u2018Net.\u00a0 Policymakers may want to nurture a climate in which a wide range of content is accessible on the Internet.<\/p>\n\n Privacy<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n With new Internet users registering clear worries about the privacy and security of their Internet transactions, privacy policy looms large in thinking about possible barriers to the Internet\u2019s future growth.\u00a0 Indeed, when asked policy-oriented questions about privacy, new users showed a stronger tendency to entrust government in setting the rules for privacy and less of an inclination to let online companies have free reign with their personal information.\u00a0 The Pew Internet Project poll asked people who should have the most say over how Internet companies track people\u2019s online activities.\u00a0\u00a0 Only 17% of Internet users responded that the government should, while 8% said Internet companies should and 71% said individuals should.\u00a0 Put another way, only 1 in 4 Internet users thought that either the government or Internet companies should set the rules on how Internet companies track people\u2019s personal information, but new users in this subset of Internet users\u2014by a margin of 77% to 62%–were more likely to say they wanted the government setting the rules, not Internet companies.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n With respect to \u201copt in\u201d approaches to use of personal information, whereby online sites must explicitly receive permission from users before collecting information, 86% of all Internet users said they agreed with the proposition that Internet companies should ask people for permission to use personal information.\u00a0 Interestingly, the longer a person has been online, the more likely they are to favor \u201copt in\u201d; 88% of users online for two or more years favored \u201copt in\u201d versus 82% of people online less than a year.\u00a0 At present, however, the Federal Trade Commission has adopted the \u201copt out\u201d approach endorsed by the Network Advertising Initiative, a consortium of Internet advertising companies.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n What is notable about people\u2019s attitudes about \u201copt in\u201d is that it appears to be the culmination of a series of rational choices and behaviors vis-\u00e0-vis the Internet.\u00a0 The longer people have been online, the more likely it is that they shop online.\u00a0 Although people worry about credit card theft in the course of transactions (54% say they worry \u201c a lot\u201d or \u201csome\u201d about this), 15% have experienced credit card theft of any sort, and of this group, just 8% say the theft occurred over the Internet.\u00a0\u00a0 That is, less than 1% of all Internet users have had their credit card number stolen over the Internet and only 3% of Internet users report ever having experienced fraud on the Internet of any kind.\u00a0 The convenience and other benefits of online shopping (e.g., lower prices, greater choice, ease of gathering product information) outweigh the cost of credit card theft (which occurs infrequently online).\u00a0 If that weren\u2019t the case, it is unlikely that more experienced users would be more frequent purchasers of products over the Internet.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n But the perceived and real costs of releasing personal information are evident to Internet users.\u00a0 Only about a quarter of Internet users (27%) believe that Web companies\u2019 tracking of their activities is a helpful thing (e.g., because it helps the company provide information that matches their interests).\u00a0 Fully 54% say such tracking is harmful because it violates their privacy.\u00a0 And a substantial number bear the burden of such tracking in their email in-boxes; about 3 in 8 (37%) of Internet users report receiving unwanted \u201cspam\u201d email messages, 70% of which are sales solicitations.\u00a0 It is no wonder that more experienced Internet users prefer \u201copt in\u201d; they see a significant cost to allowing companies to collect their personal information.<\/p>\n\n Because Internet users see a cost in making their personal information freely available to Web companies, it makes sense that they\u2014especially Internet purchasers\u2014want to choose whether that information is made available.\u00a0 Fully 89% of Internet users who have bought things online favor an \u201copt in\u201d approach to privacy versus 79% of all Internet users.\u00a0 Online purchasers are willing to pay the cost of the product purchased, but nothing more.\u00a0 This also shows that online purchasers understand that their personal information has value.\u00a0 If Web vendors want personal information about the purchaser, the \u201copt in\u201d group of Web buyers\u2014the vast majority of Web shoppers\u2014is saying that they must at least ask permission.\u00a0 And if the answer is no, under \u201copt in\u201d the burden then falls back to the online vendor to provide an incentive to Internet consumers to give up something of value.<\/p>\n\n Online Content<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n New users are drawn to the Internet by \u201cfun\u201d activities, and it seems to be only a matter of time (assuming their privacy worries are adequately addressed) until they become active in Internet transactions.\u00a0 The implication of new users\u2019 preference for doing fun things online is that they value a lot of options in how they may have fun or gather information.\u00a0 Indeed, it may be people\u2019s \u201csearch and learn\u201d mode early in their online lives is what enables them to trust the technology enough to begin doing online transactions.\u00a0 The openness of the Internet is the essence of the \u201csearch and learn\u201d approach to engaging with the Web.\u00a0 The potential of Internet service providers owned by cable companies to restrict access to Internet content flies in the face of a \u201csearch and learn\u201d approach by new users.\u00a0 Whether such possible restrictions would dampen the spirits of new users is another question and technology and the marketplace may be rendering such concerns obsolete.\u00a0 Peer-to-peer Internet search technology is a powerful new tool to circumvent central servers that may serve as bottlenecks to content distribution.\u00a0 And, with recent announcements by AT&T that it would allow open access to its cable Internet content, the industry is apparently getting signals from the market that open access is valuable to consumers.<\/p>\n\n Nonetheless, at one time at least, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expressed a bias toward encouraging investment in new broadband infrastructure, a bias that would supersede encouraging open access.\u00a0 As FCC Chairman William Kennard commented during litigation by cities to force AT&T to transmit non-AT&T provided content on its high-speed Internet service, the Commission would not weigh in on the side of open access because this might dampen investment incentives to build broadband plant.\u00a0 With the jurisdictional aspect of the question settled,[4.numoffset=”4″ The Court found that individual cities cannot regulate open access, but that the FCC had the authority to require cable providers to open their networks to other Internet Service Providers.] the FCC should adopt a position that encourages open access to a wide variety of Internet content.\u00a0 At a minimum, the findings here suggest that a \u201cfirst do no harm\u201d policy posture that presently seems to be the mantra for broadband investment should extended to access to Internet content.<\/p>\n\n The Internet\u2019s Future<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n In contemplating how today\u2019s Instant Acolytes might shape the Internet\u2019s future, the early history of the telephone is instructive.\u00a0 As Claude Fischer notes, the Bell System\u2019s early marketing efforts focused on the telephone as an item for businesses and professionals.[5. Claude S. Fischer, American Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940.<\/em> Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992. pp. 231-236.]\u00a0 To the extent it was used at home, early adopters were generally men who needed it to conduct business or respond to emergencies (i.e., doctors).\u00a0 When it became clear that women were heavy telephone users, marketers re-targeted their efforts to women as \u201cchief executives\u201d of the household.\u00a0 In creating uses for the telephone, telephone marketers envisioned women using it to manage the household and purchase groceries.\u00a0 However, as Fischer point outs, women used the telephone primarily for sociability, something that came as a surprise to industry marketers.\u00a0 Rural women especially used the telephone to decrease social isolation.<\/p>\n\n With Instant Acolytes\u2019 inclination to go online from home and for fun, the Internet may be evolving much like the telephone into a domestic tool for sociability used more heavily by women.\u00a0 Rather than a mysterious technology that is the province of men, the Internet is on the cusp of becoming a household appliance whose applications are as much social as transactions-oriented.\u00a0 While Instant Acolytes, females or males, will engage in more transactions the longer they are online, the evidence presented here (and from the early history of the telephone) suggests that the social uses of the Internet will be as worthy of scrutiny as the commercial ones.\u00a0 Again, this argues for a policy climate in which a wide diversity of content is allowed to flourish.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n The trends toward the Internet as tool for sociability are likely to shape, as well as be shaped by, the coming explosion in bandwidth capacity and the growing variety of Internet access appliances.\u00a0 As the Internet moves out of the home office and into the family room or kitchen, means of Internet access will have to serve people\u2019s desires for entertainment, real-time communication with others (either audio or video), and provide a wide choice of information options.\u00a0 Applications such as buying things online and managing personal finances online will continue to be important to Internet users.\u00a0 But shared experiences distributed among different users at different locations may take on a larger meaning for users.\u00a0 Today\u2019s Instant Acolytes, at least, are signaling that they see the Internet as a tool for entertainment in the home and interactive communication such as instant messaging and chat rooms.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n Tomorrow\u2019s Instant Acolytes will look a lot like today\u2019s, although with grayer hair. Fully 55% of the current non-online population being women, with one-third of the non-online population women over age 50.\u00a0 This group is somewhat less trusting than the overall population (29% of this group says that people can be trusted versus 33% of people online), and with the proliferation of entertainment websites, will probably value diversity of content as much as today\u2019s Instant Acolyte.\u00a0 While the marketplace will drive much of what is available to them, policymakers would be wise to set rules that provide assurances about the privacy of Internet transactions and provide a climate in which a rich variety of content is available to those in \u201csearch and learn\u201d mode on the Internet. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I. Introduction The Internet is not only one of the most rapidly disseminating technologies in history, it is also\u2014to a degree different from other mass communications technologies\u2014rapidly evolving as it disseminates.\u00a0 Today\u2019s new adopters of the Internet face a range of options undreamed of by their predecessors of just a few years ago.\u00a0 With higher […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sub_headline":"","sub_title":"","_crdt_document":"","_prc_public_revisions":[],"_ppp_expiration_hours":0,"_ppp_enabled":false,"ai_generated_summary":"","relatedPosts":[],"reportMaterials":[],"multiSectionReport":[],"package_parts__enabled":false,"package_parts":[],"_prc_fork_parent":0,"_prc_fork_status":"","_prc_active_fork":0,"datacite_doi":"","datacite_doi_citation":"","_prc_seo_qr_attachment_id":0,"spoken_article_player_enabled":true,"bylines":[],"acknowledgements":[],"displayBylines":true,"footnotes":"","prc_watchers":[]},"categories":[],"tags":[],"bylines":[],"collection":[],"datasets":[],"level_of_effort":[],"primary_audience":[],"information_type":[],"_post_visibility":[],"formats":[458],"_fund_pool":[],"languages":[],"regions-countries":[],"research-teams":[526],"workflow-status":[],"class_list":["post-97631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","formats-report","research-teams-internet"],"label":false,"post_parent":97621,"word_count":6658,"canonical_url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2000\/09\/25\/main-report-26\/","art_direction":false,"_embeds":[],"watchers":[],"table_of_contents":[{"id":97621,"title":"New Internet Users","slug":"new-internet-users","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2000\/09\/25\/new-internet-users\/","is_active":false},{"id":97631,"title":"Main Report","slug":"main-report-26","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2000\/09\/25\/main-report-26\/","is_active":true}],"report_materials":"","report_pagination":{"current_post":{"id":97631,"title":"Main Report","slug":"main-report-26","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2000\/09\/25\/main-report-26\/","is_active":true,"page_num":2},"next_post":null,"previous_post":{"id":97621,"title":"New Internet Users","slug":"new-internet-users","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2000\/09\/25\/new-internet-users\/","is_active":false,"page_num":1},"pagination_items":[{"id":97621,"title":"New Internet Users","slug":"new-internet-users","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2000\/09\/25\/new-internet-users\/","is_active":false,"page_num":1},{"id":97631,"title":"Main Report","slug":"main-report-26","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2000\/09\/25\/main-report-26\/","is_active":true,"page_num":2}]},"parent_info":{"parent_title":"New Internet Users","parent_id":97621},"materialsOrdered":[],"chaptersOrdered":[],"partsOrdered":[],"partsEnabled":false,"datacite_doi":"","prc_seo_data":{"title":"Main Report","description":"I. Introduction The Internet is not only one of the most rapidly disseminating technologies in history, it is also\u2014to a degree different from other mass communications technologies\u2014rapidly evolving as it…","og_title":"Main Report","og_description":"","schema_type":"Article","noindex":false,"canonical_url":"","primary_terms":[],"custom_schema":[],"og_image":0,"indexnow_submitted_at":null,"gsc_index_status":null},"prepublish_checks":{"prc-image-alt-text":{"status":"complete","message":"No image blocks in content.","data":null},"prc-about-this-research":{"status":"incomplete","message":"Add an \"About this research\" details block.","data":null},"prc-paragraph-count":{"status":"complete","message":"Found 64 paragraphs.","data":{"count":64}},"prc-internal-link":{"status":"incomplete","message":"Add at least one internal link.","data":{"count":0}}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"relatedPostsOrdered":[],"bylinesOrdered":[],"acknowledgementsOrdered":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97631"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97631\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":134229,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97631\/revisions\/134229"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"bylines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bylines?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"datasets","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/datasets?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"level_of_effort","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/level_of_effort?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"primary_audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/primary_audience?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"information_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/information_type?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"_post_visibility","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_post_visibility?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"formats","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/formats?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"_fund_pool","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_fund_pool?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"languages","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/languages?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"regions-countries","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/regions-countries?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"research-teams","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/research-teams?post=97631"},{"taxonomy":"workflow-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/workflow-status?post=97631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"In](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/AD43729B4CED4893992C9B5CEAE87506.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"For](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/3F46E19D90BD4B4F9236C67ACD4D7227.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\nIII. The Internet\u2019s Newcomers<\/h3>\n\n
\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/E2A582F96E4248E0B582F4D6830E3274.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/46969A5A964A4984B192E14B11729552.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/D5F0CD8AE3F74899ACB9E2B6FC1DBED5.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\nIV. What People Do Online<\/h3>\n\n
![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/F9BE67CE29D1418FB527A4E7FB17D1DA.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/37B55F8D4ABE461FBB282290851691FE.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/08A2E410CA65461AB4556A98CA2478E1.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n\n
Discussion <\/i> <\/h4>\n\n
V. The \u201cTransactions Divide\u201d and Internet Usage<\/h3>\n\n
![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/8210A7482F7043A58F90A7ABAEE09150.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\nVI. Privacy Worries and Internet Transactions<\/h3>\n\n
![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/7E825B42F44243889BE6AC8B921EC809.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/ED20D98520DD4A86AE8BDF5CB9CDBD66.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/779AE1F97DBC4CB99D0B629560958EDD.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/FD81D9A3A0BE477F9DADB76C1B3B4617.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/6E7FB8F1FCE540FB8FDC2BB2CF676C3D.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\nVII. Policy Implications and the Internet\u2019s Future<\/h3>\n\n