Poll: US Attitudes About Internet Are Insane
Zogby International and 463 Communications released the results last night of an interesting and well executed poll about the attitudes US adults have about the internet. Nearly 10,000 respondents were included and I presume the companies did not seek out the craziest 10,000 people in America (only 20% were from the West Coast, for example) - so these are probably pretty valid results.
To summarize: an alarming percentage of respondents are open to brain implants that allow them to access the internet with their minds and that allow their children's locations to be tracked, they think government censorship of online video content is acceptable, the internet makes them feel closer to God and less close their significant others - but their own identities on the internet are not very important to them. This is frightening stuff.
Among the findings:
* 24% of respondents said the Internet could serve as a replacement for a significant other, including 31% of single people, 31% of self described political "progressives" and 18% of those who consider themselves "very conservative."
* More than 1 in 4 respondents have a profile on a social networking site, including 78% of those ages 18-24, 32% of Democrats and 22% of Republicans. Only 14% of respondents said the internet is an important part of what they consider to be their identity. That's the aggregate number, I'd like to see what percentage of 18-24 say it's an important part of their identity. These numbers may or may not be important for those of us watching digital identity controversies involving data and identity portability and control.
* Brain Implants. Thank you Zogby for asking about brain implants. "How likely would you be to implant a device into your brain that enabled you to use your mind to access the internet if it could be done safely?" 11% of respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to do so. Only 4% said they were not sure! 3 out of 4 said they were not at all likely, but that's not very reassuring.
* Kid tracking chip implants. 18% said they would feel better being able to track their child's where about more than they would feel uneasy putting a device in their child for that purpose. Children do become adults and just imagine if that tracking device could also be used to access the internet! Oh the future, how exciting it is.
* Tracking implants are probably most appropriate for people who generally trust authority figures to watch out for their best interests. If you ever took serious issue with the authorities you'd probably regret having a tracking implant in your arm. How do respondents feel about government control in regard to all this stuff?
More than half of respondents believe that internet content, like video, should be controlled in some way by the government. Only 36% said the blocking of internet video would be unconstitutional. Since uncensored internet video so far has brought our society to the brink of absolute ruin, I can understand those beliefs.
* God. When you're putting a web-enabled tracking microchip implant in your child's brain and calling for government control of online content - how does all of this make you feel about God? So far, 10% of respondents said the internet has made them feel closer to God, including 20% of Born Again Christians. Wait until you get that brain implant that lets you access the internet with your mind - you'll feel like God. Until you fall on the wrong side of that government regulation you were so excited about and are easily tracked by the same chip in your head. Then you'll feel like you're in hell.
You will be, we all will be - thanks in no small part to the beliefs captured in this survey. Mine is just another voice, from someone who spends too much time in the hive mind already, urging you to say no to the implant (and go hug your significant other).
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1733
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
What worries me more than the chip implants is that a quarter of the people surveyed seem to think the Internet can be a replacement for a significant other. That's really screwed up in more ways than one.
Posted by: Raoul | October 25, 2007 9:27 AM
As much as you cannot debate the numbers, I'd have to spend some time with that survey, because those conclusions are just outright weird in some regards.
Posted by: Antoine of MMM/Brighthand | October 25, 2007 9:50 AM
I worry about the half of the US population who want their government to control internet content, which would to a large extent end up censoring it on behalf of the rest of the world as well. This is not just a bit mad, it's criminal. The implication is that half of all Americans would happily endorse their government to commit acts of imperialist aggression against the rest of the world, well we knew that any way.
Posted by: Andy Roberts | October 25, 2007 9:58 AM
But I really want a brain implant. Or is it that I need a brain transplant? Ficus, anyone?
Posted by: Kevin | October 25, 2007 10:01 AM
I'm not sure that these beliefs are as insane as you're implying. Specifically:
Q3, about brain implants. This introduces a significant variance among people about what if it can be done safely means. If I take that to mean:
-No chance of physical/mental harm to myself.
-No higher chance of 3rd-party tracking than current wireless access
Well then sure, why not? It's a purely beneficial situation.
Q5, regarding censorship of video. We don't have uncensored video as it stands. That's why you don't find snuff films and child porn on the web (easily). Is blocking that unconstitutional? I have no idea (being Canadian), but I doubt it, since it's already being done.
All of that being said, how in the world can someone think the internet's a substitute for a significant other? Yowzers.
Posted by: Aaron Lemur Mintz | October 25, 2007 10:01 AM
I think what it is is a good example of why we don't have a democracy but a representative form of government. Unless enough people believe in censorship to get an amendment to the Constitution, what they believe about it doesn't to affect me. It may in a market sense, which is fine. But they can't specifically use force of law to censor me.
Posted by: Morgan | October 25, 2007 10:30 AM
----- You wrote -----
Nearly 10,000 respondents were included and I presume the companies did not seek out the craziest 10,000 people in America (only 20% were from the West Coast, for example) - so these are probably pretty valid results.
---------------------
F***** You !!
What kind of journalistic slop is this? And obviously an ill-informed and useless example of statistical analysis!
So you are beating me up for the region I live in, without ever interacting with me?
I've always enjoyed reading your articles, but I probably should now be reading them with a keener eye... cause we out here on the West coast, well, we are obviously just too stupid to gleam your wit and wisdom ???
Posted by: Greg McIlhiney | October 25, 2007 11:03 AM
Wow, Greg. That really helped me drop any perception that the West Coast is home to a larger proportion of nuts & flakes than any other region in the US. Pick up a sense of humor the next time you're shopping in Wild Oats, m'K?
Posted by: Cindy | October 25, 2007 11:14 AM
@Greg - if it makes you feel better, I live in Portland, Oregon, grew up in Eugene, OR - the two craziest towns in the USA outside of Arcata California. And I love all those cities. I was just kidding in the post but I apologize if my sarcasm didn't come through in the text. If I had a joint I'd pass it to you, bro.
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick | October 25, 2007 12:02 PM
Good God! Brain implants!!
Are people really that naive in the U.S, these are probably the same people who voted for George "We Will Prevail" Bush.
Posted by: Hyder | October 25, 2007 12:13 PM
Hi Marshall, I appreciate your response!
I obviously came across as being very hostile, and this was __NOT__ my intent!
I apologize if I did not recognize that this phrase was meant in a numerous way, though I did not read as such and it was not apparent to me.
Enough said, I hope :-)
Posted by: Greg | October 25, 2007 12:35 PM
Marshall,
Think about implants and uncensored videos combined. Bored in a meeting, bang porn in your head, on a plane, bang porn, trying to work on things with your significant other by going to a terrible romantic comedy, you guessed it, porn in your head. The best part about it, nobody knows that you're on the interweb. This solves 3 of the 4 problems, as for tracking, i oppose big brother.
Posted by: Ralph Wiggam | October 25, 2007 12:36 PM
@ Ralph-
LOL... way to weave it all together. To go one step further, I would think your scenario is where the "internet as replacing significant others" becomes especially relevant- I've had girlfriends that can tell I'm on the web when I'm talking to them over the phone. These implants would send the divorce rate through the roof!
Posted by: bryan christmas | October 25, 2007 1:16 PM
this is the key of how the brain implants will catch on:
As long as there are at least a few takers, those people gain an advantage over non-adopters by having the "super powers" of instant knowledge. At some point this phenomenon tips until it's a major disadvantage _not_ to have an implant. Game over at that point for anyone who's in the tech field that doesn't assimilate... for those of us who fear this future, I would propose starting a catamaran or alpaca farm fund now.
sean
Posted by: Sean Tierney | October 25, 2007 1:27 PM
Scary, not really. At least when you compare it to most studies related to the interwebs.
1. Brain Implant - If it doesn't kill, maim, debilitate or otherwise harm you then it just means you can spend a little more time in the sunshine instead of looking up the entomology of "situational irony" on Wikipedia.
2. Lojack for kids? I thought we called those cell phones and issued them to every American child at the age of 10 these days. I could be wrong.
3. Government controlling web videos. Do recall that for the vast majority of respondents the following words have no meaning --
Social Media
Web 2.0
Net Neutrality
When taken into consideration, I'm surprised that more people don't already believe that video is government regulated.
My two cents.
Posted by: Steve Spalding | October 26, 2007 1:36 AM
great post, marshall. while i am always skeptical of polls, the microchipped population is a real issue and people are f'ing idiots if they are going to take that from corporations and governments who have anything but a trustworthy record. for a full picture of things i highly recommend watching the movie america: freedom to fascism (you can watch it for free on google video) which talks about how microchipping the population is part of a fascist agenda.
Posted by: kid mercury | October 26, 2007 4:13 AM
Come on folks--let's get honest about who is likely to be in this so-called "scientific" poll. These are folks who are willing to go on the Zogby website, sign up to be part of a panel and then, when Zogby emails them a link, go online and take the questionnaire. These folks are not "represenatative" of U.S. adults by any stretch.
That said, us poll junkies are a weird group.
Posted by: Polling Dr. | October 26, 2007 8:20 AM
...let's be clear about who this so-called "represenatative" poll actually represents. These are folks who first must go on Zogby's site, register, and then--when they receive an email announcing a survey--click on the link and take the survey. This is not a represenatative sample of U.S. adults...
On the other hand, online poll junkies are an interesting group to study, but let's not mislead people to think we are like the rest of society.
Posted by: Polling Dr. | October 26, 2007 8:29 AM
God & Implants. Reminds me of Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson...
Posted by: ddjohnson | October 26, 2007 2:52 PM
If I learned anything from the Lawnmower man movies its that your 'brain on internet' can only produce positive results...
Posted by: Kevin Fox | October 26, 2007 4:09 PM
hmm, what if people who got surveyed thought the survey was a joke and just checked all the boxes?
Posted by: tommy | October 26, 2007 10:53 PM
Hmm... I think I'd be one of the 10% that thinks the internet can replace a significant other, only if I'm also given the brain implant for accessing the web. If we have technology to let you interact with the web through your mind, then that technology must be transmitting stimuli directly to the brain, and able to read, in some sense, what you're thinking. If that's the case, bring it all the way and you have The Matrix. If the simulation can provide all the stimuli real experiences provide to the brain, then they are real as far as you can tell, and interaction with a partner on the web would be real as interaction with one in the physical world. There would be no need to find a partner "offline".
Posted by: Dan Grossman | October 27, 2007 1:30 PM
Reason #187193451131719 why democracy (as instituted in the United States, at least) is a Bad Idea.
Just... gyah. To _at least_ the people who want the internet to censor content: STOP VOTING. PLEASE. Thanks in advance. Or, shit, at least take a quick scan over the Constitution. You'll find what you're looking for right at the beginning.
Posted by: J Crowley | November 2, 2007 11:44 PM