Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Technology

America's View of the Internet 285

Alien54 writes "It won't make you dinner or rub your feet, but nearly one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time, according to a new poll released today by 463 Communications and Zogby International. The poll examined views of what role the Internet plays in people's lives and whether government should play a greater role in regulating it. The online survey was conducted Oct. 4-8, 2007, included 9,743 adult respondents nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.0 percentage point. From the results blog post: 'More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings. More than one in four Americans has a social networking profile such as MySpace or Facebook. Among 18-24 year-olds, it's almost mandatory - 78% of them report having a social networking profile. Americans may love the Internet, but most are not prepared to implant it into their brain, even if it was safe. Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America's View Of the Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by UncleTogie ( 1004853 ) * on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:22PM (#21132087) Homepage Journal

    More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.

    Now, ask the same question, but instead substitute "TV programs" for "Internet content". I'll bet you the percentage breakdown doesn't change much.

    This isn't about "internet content", it's about what standards a work of art is judged by.

  • by xPsi ( 851544 ) * on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:27PM (#21132147)

    Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.
    Ahh, 11% may be small for a political poll, but 11% seems HUGE for a question like that considering it is supposed to scale up to the population at large. That would be like the entire state of California and Massachusetts together deciding to get wetware WiFi for every man, woman, and child. I expect the number of people actually willing to do such a thing in the US is much smaller than that. Neil Degrasse Tyson made a similar observation about the statistic that 93% of members of the Academy of Sciences doubt or actively disbelieve in the existence of a personal god [stephenjaygould.org]. The 93% isn't really all that surprising. That makes sense. What is surprising to me is that 7% do.
  • Re:Brain implants? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:30PM (#21132199)
    Depends on what method of control they're talking about. If they mean online games (or pr0n), then a neural interface would be absolutely awesome.

    Especially simulated reality hooked directly into the brain. We know from dreams that the brain can process things quicker where our sense of time passing is not "real time" (ie, a dream that seems to go on for 30 minutes might take place in a MUCH shorter ammount of real time).

    How cool would it be to go on a simulated 2 week vacation to the Bahamas, but only really spend 1 hour running the simulation? Or perhaps it could even be reduced further in time. Why get upset over death when we could live an entire lifetime of extra activites in a single evening (think of that old Star Trek TNG episode where Picard lived an alt life where he was an old man with grandchildren and then upon death reawoke on the bridge, with only 2-3 minutes having passed). Of course, the addiction possibility here would be high. Imagine how much work place productivity would suffer if every time an employee came back to work each morning they've spent a virtual 6-months away in paradise.
  • by plasmacutter ( 901737 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:32PM (#21132223)
    50%+ want the internet regulated?

    Let me guess.. "for the children"?
    I mean it has to be, otherwise they would be condoning censorship of political speech or complete corporate takeover of the internet.

    I want to know what happened to parents actually, you know, parenting?!

    apparently that only happens in my family.

  • Brain Hacking (Score:2, Interesting)

    by halbert ( 714394 ) <svr4unix-slashdotNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:33PM (#21132243)
    I can't wait for brain hacking. Imagine the possibilities! It could give a whole new meaning to zombies. "Need more brains to hack..."
  • old people (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lordvalrole ( 886029 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:37PM (#21132301)
    Old people over 70 should not get a voice on just about anything dealing with technology (not at this present time at least). There always is a gap in thinking between young people and old people in most things (especially technology). Older people have a harder time to grasp concepts of all sorts. Show a 70+ year old person programming, or how to make a website, or make something in 3d and they will just look at you funny. Show a 12 year old the same things and they are intrigued. We are also talking about a generation that think porn is wrong, and considering the amount of porn on the interweb...yeah I am sure they want that to have oversight.

    Old people in general should not be in high up places (ie. congress, supreme court, company execs.) Just because you are old doesn't make you wiser....it just makes you old with old ways of thinking.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:40PM (#21132333) Journal
    Respect to the views and opinion of the old people was a good survival strategy. Back in the hunter gatherer days, these people were the storehouse of knowledge. They remember which roots and berries the tribe survived during the last famine etc. So even if they were not pulling their weight in the hunts, others gave them a cut of the leg of the zebra or a woolly mastodon. But now a days, now that we have the internet to serve as the storehouse of knowledge (and much more), yeah, we really need to think what to do with the old people. First I would like to cut their social security off. I mean, come on. How can we go for lower taxes and less onerous government if these old fogeys keep going to the elections and keep voting for either a tax-and-spend Democrats or borrow-and-spend Republicans?
  • WTF?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:42PM (#21132381) Journal
    It won't make you dinner or rub your feet
    Neither would my ex-wife.

    ...nearly one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time
    Well, the internet and Rosie Palm.

    More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government.
    Well, I'll agree that government should have web sites and portals. They should control their own sites, as I control my own site. So yeah, that's reasonable (depending on how the question was phrased).

    Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content
    Which supports my previous observation, although again they should control their OWN content

    while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.
    That's not unreasonable, either. My dad doesn't even have a computer, has never been on the internet, and considering that, it would not be unreasonable of him to think it reasonable. Even a lot of younger people think the internet is like a TV set, and even the twentysomethings forget that most of the internet is beyond their government's reach.

    More than one in four Americans has a social networking profile such as MySpace or Facebook.

    Hell, I have a myspace page (that I haven't logged into in a year or two), a web site (that I haven't updated oin almost two years), a K5 account (that I haven't logged into for over 2 years), and a slashdot account and I'm 55. But I don't look my age. Or act it.

    Americans may love the Internet, but most are not prepared to implant it into their brain, even if it was safe. Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.

    Only a total complete idiotic fuckwit moron would have ANYTHING implanted in their brain without an overriding medical reason. If you would have an internet connection implanted in your brain, WTF ARE YOU THINKING? Go ahead, dumbass, and when I crack your connection I'll control you like a meatware robot.

    Holy fuck! If brains were dynamite, most people wouldn't have enough to blow their noses.

    Note that a far higher percentage than 11% are mentally handicapped. Even retarded people have more sense than that!

    -mcgrew

  • by drDugan ( 219551 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:43PM (#21132393) Homepage

    I read stories like this and have to, with a wry grin, shake my head and roll my eyes.

    The idea that groups determine with a democratic vote how a society functions is both absurd and an essential part of the American dream. By dream I mean just that - a mythical non-reality created to give hope to people who otherwise would not accept the reality they have.

    Repeat after me:
    America is not a democracy!
    America is not a democracy!
    America is not a democracy!

    America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Learn the difference. This means the country has laws first (a Constitution), and the US has a democratic process to elect the people respnsible for upholding and execting the rules of the republic. At no time, and in no way were the opinions of the masses asked for, expected, or accepted in figuring out how the system works - and with good reason: their beliefs were/are easily swayed, grossly under-informed, and as anyone who has tried to decide anything by committee or group: group opinion taking is non-functional.

    However, most American dwell in the dream that things in the US are "democratic" - that the way a group, the world, the Internet, or the USA "should" function is that we ask everyone, take a vote, and the highest count wins. Bzzzzt. WRONG. Bad Idea. I see this mentality driving the idea that Zogby should do some poll of the population for what "the people" think the government should do about Internet content. This mentality is extremely wrong, and will get people into a lot of trouble. In America, the answer you get from the masses is directly proportional to what rich, powerful white men craft as messages for the masses to believe.

    Strangly, increased capacity for communication will and has made such polling much easier than ever before. It does not make it more valid or more useful in creating policy or a smoothly functioning, successful society.

    Aside from the bonehead mentality that we should all vote to determine policy - there is an even simpler issue here. Once one understands how and why this country was formed, and the principles behind it - it becomes obvious that regulating content on huge ditributed computer networks is NOT EVEN CLOSE, not even in the ballpark to what the original intention of the US government was. It is off beyond the outfield, over the green monter, and somewhere off in the bay. It is, in fact, criminal, by all definitions of the term, to distort the function of government so far outside the legal bounds of it's creation.

  • Re:Brain implants? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blhack ( 921171 ) * on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:51PM (#21132501)
    I wonder if the brain has a usable life though?
    Right now, our brains only last for about 80-100 years.....
    I wonder if there would be any strange side effects from giving it 1000 years worth of experience?

    If we really did accomplish this, imagine how much faster we could progress technologically......allow devs to drop into one of these things and we could have software that would normally take months to build developed in mere minutes!
  • by nyteroot ( 311287 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:54PM (#21132551)

    Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.


    Why not? It'd make http://xkcd.com/333/ [xkcd.com] a lot less awkward..
  • Total Recall (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @02:58PM (#21132599) Journal
    "Hi, I'm Johnny Cab!"

    If they mean online games (or pr0n), then a neural interface would be absolutely awesome.

    I'd rather have a female R. Jander Panell [wikipedia.org] than a porn implant. "Jandra" wouldn't need a positronic brain, conventional modern robotics (heated and lubricated of course) would do, controlled by a conventional computer like the one you have in front of you.

    As to games, I'd rather have a dedicated building with holographs. You have the advantage of getting a little exersise, too, like with the fuckbot.

    However, I am a cyborg, and have been since 2006. I have an implant in my left eyeball, my friend Tom calls me "the six thousand dollar man" because of my bionic eye; click my sig for details. But again, I didn't let them stick a needle in my eye without a damned good reason.

    -mcgrew
  • by disckitty ( 681847 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @03:17PM (#21132829) Homepage
    > you can keep in touch with lots of other people online

    I'll admit its best to get to know the people in your neighbourhood, and if you're not doing that, you should. However, in the increasingly globalized world that we live in, where lots of people and families are travelling, its nice for it to not take 3 weeks to 6 months for communication to arrive (via snail mail) nor be hugely expensive (via long distance charges).

    > impassioned debates ... [&] ... pissing off people on the other side of the planet with sophomoric trolling

    I'll disagree that this is a negative. I actually think its great that people are actively seeking out debates and conversing. It may not be formal, nor highly intellectual, but its amazing to hear peoples views on things. One of the nicest things about the comments on, for example, Slashdot, is that the article will state one thing, but I learn a lot more by reading peoples' comments (that may or may not be correct, but I can take the time to research them if I really care to confirm it). Further, the fact that we can interact with people on the other side of the planet is incredible, as it allows the potential for increasing contributions for discussions.

    pr0n, fps and pretending you're someone you're not (which is actually akin to acting...) aren't so bad. If you want to see some potential issues with face-to-face communication, see how Japan is handling keeping seniors entertained (via dolls). Maybe if the marketplace wasn't so geared towards single-serving sales, and media so fear-oriented, we'd have more face-to-face community. On the flip side, dumb people exist on the internet no differently than down the street. And at least with the internet, you can pick and choose which people to interact with...
  • Biased "survey" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by D H NG ( 779318 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @03:54PM (#21133317)

    The online survey was conducted Oct. 4-8, 2007, included 9,743 adult respondents nationwide
    In other words, a quarter of people already online say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time. Gee, what a surprise.
  • Re:Brain implants? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @04:04PM (#21133457)

    Not so strange, eh? (Also, if you want to spend some time experiencing really surreal things, start doing lucid dreaming. It's awesome.)
    Actually (going a little off original subject here), I have become quite adept at lucid dreaming, kinda out of necessity. I suffer from a sleep disorder known as ASP (Awareness during Sleep Paralysis). As you said when people dream their eyes might follow their actions in the dream, but their BODY generally does not. When you run like crazy in a dream your limbs sit there motionless. The reasoning for this is that the brain shuts down most motor functions during deep sleep (to prevent injury). ASP is a disorder that affects some people where you partially wake up. Your eyes open, your brain "kicks back on", and you become full aware of your surroundings, but for whatever reason some part of your dream remains in a dream-like state. The result is that a) you can't move because your brain still has the paralysis effect in place, and b) because it's still dreaming, your brain will start to superimpose a dream over the existing reality.

    Personally during this state before I learned to control it I had episodes where I saw chains holding me down, heard grows coming from the hallway, heard footsteps walking around in the house, felt invisible hands clawing into my stomach, and have seen a zombie like face playing peeka-boo at with me at the foot of my bed. This all looks VERY real, because you can look around the actual room, hear everything that's going on, etc. When the brain needn't render the whole environment it seems to be able to do a great job and rendering "spot detail". Luckily, given that it IS a dream, all rules of lucid dreaming apply, and you can control the environment and keep it non-scary if your are aware of it. It's a nice experience if you know to remain calm and unafraid (if your mind starts drifting you can scare the shit out of yourself if you're not careful, especially if you realize the situation and start thinking "Wouldn't it be really scary if . . . ").

    This is actually a very good candidate for explaining lots of supposedly paranormal phenomenon that has been experienced throughout the ages. Look back at so many of the alien abduction reports, ghost sightings/reports, etc, and then look at how many occur with the person in bed and unable to move. A lot of them have that trait in common.

    Wiki entry on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis [wikipedia.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 26, 2007 @04:21PM (#21133673)
    Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?

    -- Thomas Jefferson

    Turns out the republic wasn't such a bright idea either: we are now living under the rule of the most expensive, most powerful government and world empire (military bases in some 150 countries around the world) in the history of organized coercion. What could possibly have went wrong with the idea of some men having power over other men?

    At least, it's not such a bright idea if you value your natural human right (god-given if you prefer) to freedom and self-ownership. Considering the exponential growth of the US government over the past 200 years, and the consolidation of power and revenue in the hands of the few at the expense of liberty, I dare say it can't even be argued that the republic is a lesser evil.

    Hell, at least in a monarchy the king is financially accountable for his actions, and suffers personally from spending unwisely.
  • by UserGoogol ( 623581 ) on Friday October 26, 2007 @06:47PM (#21135165)
    Yeah, and it isn't communication via passenger pigeon either. What's so special about face to face communication? Face to face communication isn't the pinnacle of interpersonal communication. You can't multitask to much of a degree without the person you are communicating with knowing, which is annoying and a breech of privacy, you are limited to communicating with whatever numbers you can physically be near, it is not possible to easily filter out undesirable communication, and so on.

    Of course, face to face communication does have its plusses too (hell, the things I just listed could be viewed as positives in their own way). But the thing is that face to face communication is a fixed target: there's only so much that you can modify "two people flapping their meat at each other," but the Internet can be improved indefinitely.

Credit ... is the only enduring testimonial to man's confidence in man. -- James Blish

Working...