Editing Digital divide (section)

==Reasons and correlating variables==

As of 2014, the gap in a digital divide was known to exist for a number of reasons. Obtaining access to ICTs and using them actively has been linked to demographic and socio-economic characteristics including income, education, race, gender, geographic location (urban-rural), age, skills, awareness, political, cultural and psychological attitudes.<ref name="MossbergerRacePlace"/><ref>{{cite web|last=Lawton|first=Tait|title=15 Years of Chinese Internet Usage in 13 Pretty Graphs|url=http://www.nanjingmarketinggroup.com/blog/15-years-chinese-internet-usage-13-pretty-graphs|work=NanjingMarketingGroup.com|publisher=CNNIC|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20140422192031/http://www.nanjingmarketinggroup.com/blog/15-years-chinese-internet-usage-13-pretty-graphs|archive-date=April 22, 2014}}</ref><ref>Statistical Survey Report on the Internet Development in China. China Internet Network Information Center. January 2007. From {{cite web |url=http://www.apira.org/data/upload/pdf/Asia-Pacific/CNNIC/19threport-en.pdf |title=Statistical Survey Report on The Internet Development in China |date=January 2007 |website=China Internet Network Information Center |access-date=August 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014172226/http://www.apira.org/data/upload/pdf/Asia-Pacific/CNNIC/19threport-en.pdf |archive-date=October 14, 2013}}</ref><ref name=Guillen-2005>{{cite journal | last1 = Guillen | first1 = M. F. | last2 = Suárez | first2 = S. L. | year = 2005 | title = Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use | journal = Social Forces | volume = 84 | issue = 2| pages = 681–708 | doi=10.1353/sof.2006.0015| citeseerx = 10.1.1.649.2813 | s2cid = 3124360 }}</ref><ref name=Wilson-2004>Wilson, III. E.J. (2004). [http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/information-revolution-and-developing-countries ''The Information Revolution and Developing Countries''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017141624/https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/information-revolution-and-developing-countries |date=October 17, 2015 }}. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.</ref><ref name=Carr-2007>{{cite journal | last1 = Carr | first1 = Deborah | year = 2007 | title = The Global Digital Divide | journal = Contexts | volume = 6 | issue = 3| page = 58 | doi=10.1525/ctx.2007.6.3.58| s2cid = 62654684 | id = {{ProQuest|219574259}} }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wilson |first1=Kenneth R. |last2=Wallin |first2=Jennifer S. |last3=Reiser |first3=Christa |title=Social Stratification and the Digital Divide |journal=Social Science Computer Review |date=May 2003 |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=133–143 |doi=10.1177/0894439303021002001 |s2cid=143683631 }}</ref> [[Multiple regression]] analysis across countries has shown that income levels and educational attainment are identified as providing the most powerful explanatory variables for ICT access and usage.<ref name="HilbertWD38,5" /> Evidence was found that Caucasians are much more likely than non-Caucasians to own a computer as well as have access to the Internet in their homes.{{Citation needed|date=September 2023}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hermeking |first=Marc |date=2005 |title=Culture and Internet Consumption: Contributions from Cross-Cultural Marketing and Advertising Research |url=https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/1/192/4616663 |journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=194–196 |doi=10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00310.x |via=Oxford academic}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=De Mooij |first=Marieke |title=Consumer Behavior and Culture |date=2004 |publisher=Sage |isbn=0-7619-2669-0 |edition=1st |location=Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi |pages=252–255}}</ref> As for geographic location, people living in urban centers have more access and show more usage of computer services than those in rural areas.

In developing countries, a digital divide between women and men is apparent in tech usage, with men more likely to be competent tech users. Controlled statistical analysis has shown that income, education and employment act as [[confounding variables]] and that women with the same level of income, education and employment actually embrace ICT more than men (see Women and ICT4D), this argues against any suggestion that women are "naturally" more technophobic or less tech-savvy.<ref name="HilbertGend2011">{{cite journal |last1=Hilbert |first1=Martin |title=Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics |journal=Women's Studies International Forum |date=November 2011 |volume=34 |issue=6 |pages=479–489 |doi=10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001 |s2cid=146742985 }}</ref> However, each nation has its own set of causes or the digital divide. For example, the [[digital divide in Germany]] is unique because it is not largely due to difference in quality of infrastructure.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/sw_2007/papers/schleife.pdf|title=Regional Versus. Individual Aspects of the Digital Divide in Germany|last=Schliefe|first=Katrin|date=February 2007|doi=10.2139/ssrn.955759 |access-date=October 21, 2017 |ssrn=955759 |s2cid=13818257 }}</ref>

The correlation between income and internet use suggests that the digital divide persists at least in part due to income disparities.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Richard |first1=Rubin |title=Foundations of library and information science |date=2010 |publisher=Neal-Schuman Publishers |isbn=978-1-55570-690-6 |edition=3rd |pages=178–179 }}</ref> Most commonly, a digital divide stems from poverty and the economic barriers that limit resources and prevent people from obtaining or otherwise using newer technologies.

In research, while each explanation is examined, others must be controlled to eliminate [[interaction effects]] or [[Mediation (statistics)|mediating variables]],<ref name="MossbergerRacePlace">{{cite journal |last1=Mossberger |first1=Karen |last2=Tolbert |first2=Caroline J. |last3=Gilbert |first3=Michele |title=Race, Place, and Information Technology |journal=Urban Affairs Review |date=May 2006 |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=583–620 |doi=10.1177/1078087405283511 |s2cid=18619121 |url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ncdg |access-date=August 8, 2019 |archive-date=April 28, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190428152321/https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ncdg |url-status=live }}</ref> but these explanations are meant to stand as general trends, not direct causes. Measurements for the intensity of usages, such as incidence and frequency, vary by study. Some report usage as access to Internet and ICTs while others report usage as having previously connected to the Internet. Some studies focus on specific technologies, others on a combination (such as [[Infostate]], proposed by [[Orbicom-UNESCO]], the [[Digital Opportunity Index]], or [[ITU]]'s [[ICT Development Index]]).

===Economic gap in the United States===
During the mid-1990s, the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) began publishing reports about the Internet and access to and usage of the resource. The first of three reports is titled "Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America" (1995),<ref name="USDC 1995 Falling through the Net">{{cite journal |title=Falling through the Net: A Survey of the 'Have Nots' in Rural and Urban America |publisher=[[United States Department of Commerce]] |date=July 1995 |id={{ERIC|ED399126}} |oclc=34188795 |url=https://www.ntia.doc.gov./ntiahome/fallingthru.html |access-date=November 4, 2022 |archive-date=November 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221104134229/https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html |url-status=live }}</ref> the second is "Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide" (1998),<ref>National Telecommunications & Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. (1998). Falling through the net II: New data on the digital divide. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/1998/falling-through-net-ii-new-data-digital-divide {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140518204940/http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/1998/falling-through-net-ii-new-data-digital-divide |date=May 18, 2014 }}</ref> and the final report "Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide" (1999).<ref name="ntia.doc.gov">National Telecommunications & Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/1999/falling-through-net-defining-digital-divide {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140518204952/http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/1999/falling-through-net-defining-digital-divide |date=May 18, 2014 }}</ref> The NTIA's final report attempted clearly to define the term digital divide as "the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without".<ref name="ntia.doc.gov"/> Since the introduction of the NTIA reports, much of the early, relevant literature began to reference the NTIA's digital divide definition. The digital divide is commonly defined as being between the "haves" and "have-nots".<ref name="ntia.doc.gov"/><ref name="USDC 1995 Falling through the Net"/>

The U.S. [[Federal Communications Commission]]'s (FCC) 2019 Broadband Deployment Report indicated that 21.3 million Americans do not have access to wired or wireless broadband internet.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-06-11 |title=2019 Broadband Deployment Report |url=https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2019-broadband-deployment-report |access-date=2022-03-07 |website=Federal Communications Commission |language=en |archive-date=March 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220307041446/https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2019-broadband-deployment-report |url-status=live }}</ref> As of 2020, BroadbandNow, an independent research company studying access to internet technologies, estimated that the actual number of United States Americans without high-speed internet is twice that number.<ref name="broad">{{Cite web |date=February 3, 2020 |title=FCC Underestimates Americans Unserved by Broadband Internet by 50% - BroadbandNow.com |url=https://broadbandnow.com/research/fcc-underestimates-unserved-by-50-percent |access-date=2022-03-07 |website=BroadbandNow |language=en-US |archive-date=March 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220307041431/https://broadbandnow.com/research/fcc-underestimates-unserved-by-50-percent |url-status=live }}</ref> According to a 2021 [[Pew Research Center]] report, smartphone ownership and internet use has increased for all Americans, however, a significant gap still exists between those with lower incomes and those with higher incomes:<ref name="Vogels 22 June 2021 Pew">{{cite news |last1=Vogels |first1=Emily A. |title=Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/22/digital-divide-persists-even-as-americans-with-lower-incomes-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/ |work=Pew Research Center |date=22 June 2021 |access-date=October 27, 2021 |archive-date=October 27, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027022640/https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/22/digital-divide-persists-even-as-americans-with-lower-incomes-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/ |url-status=live }}</ref> U.S. households earning $100K or more are twice as likely to own multiple devices and have home internet service as those making $30K or more, and three times as likely as those earning less than $30K per year.<ref name="Vogels 22 June 2021 Pew"/> The same research indicated that 13% of the lowest income households had no access to internet or digital devices at home compared to only 1% of the highest income households.<ref name="Vogels 22 June 2021 Pew"/>

According to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults executed from January 25 to February 8, 2021, the digital lives of Americans with high and low incomes are varied. Conversely, the proportion of Americans that use home internet or cell phones has maintained constant between 2019 and 2021. A quarter of those with yearly average earnings under $30,000 (24%) says they don't own smartphones. Four out of every ten low-income people (43%) do not have home internet access or a computer (43%). Furthermore, the more significant part of lower-income Americans does not own a tablet device.<ref name="Vogels 22 June 2021 Pew"/>

On the other hand, every technology is practically universal among people earning $100,000 or higher per year. Americans with larger family incomes are also more likely to buy a variety of internet-connected products. Wi-Fi at home, a smartphone, a computer, and a tablet are used by around six out of ten families making $100,000 or more per year, compared to 23 percent in the lesser household.<ref name="Vogels 22 June 2021 Pew"/>

===Racial gap in the United States===
Although many groups in society are affected by a lack of access to computers or the Internet, communities of color are specifically observed to be negatively affected by the digital divide.<ref name=":7"/> Pew research shows that as of 2021, home broadband rates are 81% for White households, 71% for Black households and 65% for Hispanic households.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ |access-date=2022-08-23 |website=[[Pew Research Center]] |language=en-US |archive-date=August 30, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210830151443/https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ |url-status=live }}</ref> While 63% of adults find the lack of broadband to be a disadvantage, only 49% of White adults do.<ref name=":7" /> Smartphone and tablet ownership remains consistent with about 8 out of 10 Black, White, and Hispanic individuals reporting owning a smartphone and half owning a tablet.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last1=Atske |first1=Sara |last2=Perrin |first2=rew |title=Home broadband adoption, computer ownership vary by race, ethnicity in the U.S. |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/16/home-broadband-adoption-computer-ownership-vary-by-race-ethnicity-in-the-u-s/ |access-date=2022-10-17 |website=[[Pew Research Center]] |date=16 July 2021 |language=en-US |archive-date=September 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220926145413/https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/16/home-broadband-adoption-computer-ownership-vary-by-race-ethnicity-in-the-u-s/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A 2021 survey found that a quarter of Hispanics rely on their smartphone and do not have access to broadband.<ref name=":7" />

===Physical and mental disability gap===
Inequities in [[access to information]] technologies are present among individuals living with a physical disability in comparison to those who are not living with a disability. In 2011, according to the Pew Research Center, 54% of households with a person who had a disability had home Internet access, compared to 81% of households that did not have a person who has a disability.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/01/21/americans-living-with-disability-and-their-technology-profile/|title=Americans living with disability and their technology profile|location=Washington|date=January 21, 2011|website=Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech|access-date=April 5, 2020|archive-date=May 21, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521233043/https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/01/21/americans-living-with-disability-and-their-technology-profile/|url-status=live}}</ref> The type of disability an individual has can prevent them from interacting with computer screens and smartphone screens, such as having a [[quadriplegia]] disability or having a disability in the hands. However, there is still a lack of access to technology and home Internet access among those who have a cognitive and auditory disability as well. There is a concern of whether or not the increase in the use of information technologies will increase equality through offering opportunities for individuals living with disabilities or whether it will only add to the present inequalities and lead to individuals living with disabilities being left behind in society.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Lazar|first1=Jonathan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zCPUDgAAQBAJ&q=information+technology+and+disability&pg=PR9|title=Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology|last2=Stein|first2=Michael Ashley|date=2017-06-22|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|isbn=978-0-8122-4923-1|access-date=December 18, 2020|archive-date=January 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117061044/https://books.google.com/books?id=zCPUDgAAQBAJ&q=information+technology+and+disability&pg=PR9|url-status=live}}</ref> Issues such as the perception of disabilities in society, national and regional government policy, corporate policy, mainstream computing technologies, and real-time online communication have been found to contribute to the impact of the digital divide on individuals with disabilities. In 2022, a survey of people in the UK with severe mental illness found that 42% lacked basic digital skills, such as changing passwords or connecting to Wi-Fi.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2022-12-06 |title=Barriers to care: many people with severe mental illness lack digital skills |url=https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/many-people-severe-mental-illness-lack-digital-skills/ |journal=NIHR Evidence |doi=10.3310/nihrevidence_54954|s2cid=254396790 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Spanakis |first1=P |last2=Wadman |first2=R |last3=Walker |first3=L |last4=Heron |first4=P |last5=Mathers |first5=A |last6=Baker |first6=J |last7=Johnston |first7=G |last8=Gilbody |first8=S |last9=Peckham |first9=E |date=2022-08-05 |title=Measuring the digital divide among people with severe mental ill health using the essential digital skills framework |journal=Perspectives in Public Health |volume=144 |issue=1 |pages=21–30 |doi=10.1177/17579139221106399 |pmid=35929589 |pmc=10757390 |s2cid=251349830 |issn=1757-9139}}</ref>

People with disabilities are also the targets of online abuse. Online disability hate crimes have increased by 33% across the UK between 2016–17 and 2017–18 according to a report published by [[Leonard Cheshire Disability|Leonard Cheshire]], a health and welfare charity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/10/online-hate-against-disabled-people-rises-by-a-third|title=Online hate crime against disabled people rises by a third|date=May 10, 2019|website=The Guardian|access-date=April 5, 2020|archive-date=April 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200428025942/https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/10/online-hate-against-disabled-people-rises-by-a-third|url-status=live}}</ref> Accounts of online hate abuse towards people with disabilities were shared during an incident in 2019 when model [[Katie Price]]'s son was the target of online abuse that was attributed to him having a disability. In response to the abuse, a campaign was launched by Price to ensure that Britain's MPs held accountable those who perpetuate online abuse towards those with disabilities.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-42964068/katie-price-calls-on-mps-to-make-online-abuse-criminal-offence|title='He can't speak to defend himself, I can'|work=BBC News|access-date=April 5, 2020|archive-date=March 11, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180311093019/http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-42964068/katie-price-calls-on-mps-to-make-online-abuse-criminal-offence|url-status=live}}</ref> Online abuse towards individuals with disabilities is a factor that can discourage people from engaging online which could prevent people from learning information that could improve their lives. Many individuals living with disabilities face online abuse in the form of accusations of benefit fraud and "faking" their disability for financial gain, which in some cases leads to unnecessary investigations.

===Gender gap===
{{Main|Gender digital divide}}

Due to the rapidly declining price of connectivity and hardware, skills deficits have eclipsed barriers of access as the primary contributor to the [[gender digital divide]]. Studies show that women are less likely to know how to leverage devices and Internet access to their full potential, even when they do use digital technologies.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|date=2019|title=I'd blush if I could: closing gender divides in digital skills through education|url=https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367416.pdf|publisher=UNESCO, EQUALS Skills Coalition|access-date=March 4, 2020|archive-date=March 30, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200330231252/https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367416.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In rural [[India]], for example, a study found that the majority of women who owned [[mobile phone]]s only knew how to answer calls. They could not dial numbers or read messages without assistance from their husbands, due to a lack of literacy and numeracy skills.<ref>Mariscal, J., Mayne, G., Aneja, U. and Sorgner, A. 2018. Bridging the Gender Digital Gap. Buenos Aires, CARI/CIPPEC.</ref> A survey of 3,000 respondents across 25 countries found that adolescent boys with [[mobile phone]]s used them for a wider range of activities, such as playing games and accessing financial services online. Adolescent girls in the same study tended to use just the basic functionalities of their phone, such as making calls and using the calculator.<ref name="Vodafone Foundation 2018">Girl Effect and Vodafone Foundation. 2018. Real Girls, Real Lives, Connected. London, Girl Effect and Vodafone Foundation.</ref> Similar trends can be seen even in areas where Internet access is near-universal. A survey of women in nine cities around the world revealed that although 97% of women were using social media, only 48% of them were expanding their networks, and only 21% of Internet-connected women had searched online for information related to health, legal rights or transport.<ref name="Vodafone Foundation 2018" /> In some cities, less than one quarter of connected women had used the Internet to look for a job.<ref name=":5" />

[[File:Abilities and perceptions of abilities.svg|thumb|Abilities and perceptions of abilities]]

Studies show that despite strong performance in computer and information literacy (CIL), girls do not have confidence in their [[Information and communications technology|ICT]] abilities. According to the [[International Computer and Information Literacy Study]] (ICILS) assessment girls' [[self-efficacy]] scores (their perceived as opposed to their actual abilities) for advanced ICT tasks were lower than boys'.<ref>Fjeld, A. 2018. AI: A Consumer Perspective. March 13, 2018. New York, LivePerson.</ref><ref name=":5" />

A paper published by J. Cooper from Princeton University points out that learning technology is designed to be receptive to men instead of women. Overall, the study presents the problem of various perspectives in society that are a result of gendered socialization patterns that believe that computers are a part of the male experience since computers have traditionally presented as a toy for boys when they are children.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x |title=The digital divide: The special case of gender |year=2006 |last1=Cooper |first1=J. |journal=Journal of Computer Assisted Learning |volume=22 |issue=5 |pages=320–334 }}</ref> This divide is followed as children grow older and young girls are not encouraged as much to pursue degrees in IT and computer science. In 1990, the percentage of women in computing jobs was 36%, however in 2016, this number had fallen to 25%. This can be seen in the under representation of women in IT hubs such as Silicon Valley.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Mundy |first1=Liza |title=Why Is Silicon Valley So Awful to Women? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ |website=The Atlantic |access-date=April 17, 2020 |date=April 2017 |archive-date=January 26, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126122251/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

There has also been the presence of algorithmic bias that has been shown in machine learning algorithms that are implemented by major companies.{{clarify |date=March 2020 |reason="Major companies", plural, is claimed, but only a single company is mentioned and referenced.}} In 2015, Amazon had to abandon a recruiting algorithm that showed a difference between ratings that candidates received for software developer jobs as well as other technical jobs. As a result, it was revealed that Amazon's machine algorithm was biased against women and favored male resumes over female resumes. This was due to the fact that Amazon's computer models were trained to vet patterns in resumes over a 10-year period. During this ten-year period, the majority of the resumes belong to male individuals, which is a reflection of male dominance across the tech industry.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Dastin |first1=Jeffrey |title=Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G |work=Reuters |date=10 October 2018 |access-date=December 11, 2019 |archive-date=December 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212195222/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Age gap===
The age gap contributes to the digital divide due to the fact that people born before 1983 did not grow up with the internet. According to Marc Prensky, people who fall into this age range are classified as "digital immigrants."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Digital Immigrant Definition |url=https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/digital-immigrant.asp |access-date=2023-04-20 |website=Investopedia |language=en}}</ref> A digital immigrant is defined as "a person born or brought up before the widespread use of digital technology."<ref name=":8">{{Citation |title=digital, n. and adj. |url=https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/52611 |work=OED Online |access-date=2023-04-20 |publisher=Oxford University Press |language=en-GB}}</ref> The internet became officially available for public use on January 1, 1983; anyone born before then has had to adapt to the new age of technology.<ref>{{Cite web |title=A Brief History of the Internet |url=https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml |access-date=2023-04-20 |website=www.usg.edu}}</ref> On the contrary, people born after 1983 are considered "digital natives". Digital natives are defined as people born or brought up during the age of digital technology.<ref name=":8" />

Across the globe, there is a 10% difference in internet usage between people aged 15–24 years old and people aged 25 years or older. According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 75% of people aged 15–24 used the internet in 2022 compared to 65% of people aged 25 years or older.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |date=2022-11-30 |title=Facts and Figures 2022: Latest on global connectivity amid economic downturn |url=https://www.itu.int/hub/2022/11/facts-and-figures-2022-global-connectivity-statistics/ |access-date=2023-04-20 |website=ITU Hub |language=en-US}}</ref> The highest amount of digital divide between generations occurs in Africa with 55% of the younger age group using the internet compared to 36% of people aged 25 years or older. The lowest amount of divide occurs between the Commonwealth of Independent States with 91% of the younger age group using the internet compared to 83% of people aged 25 years or older.

In addition to being less connected with the internet, older generations are less likely to use financial technology, also known as fintech. Fintech is any way of managing money via digital devices.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Financial Technology (Fintech): Its Uses and Impact on Our Lives |url=https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fintech.asp |access-date=2023-04-20 |website=Investopedia |language=en}}</ref> Some examples of fintech include digital payment apps such as Venmo and Apple Pay, tax services such as TurboTax, or applying for a mortgage digitally. In data from World Bank Findex, 40% of people younger than 40 years old utilized fintech compared to less than 25% of people aged 60 years or older.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Population ageing and the digital divide, SUERF Policy Brief .:. SUERF – The European Money and Finance Forum |url=https://www.suerf.org/suer-policy-brief/40251/population-ageing-and-the-digital-divide |access-date=2023-04-20 |website=SUERF.ORG}}</ref>

=== Global level===

{{main|Global digital divide}}
{{see also|World Summit on the Information Society|Digital divide by country}}

The divide between differing countries or regions of the world is referred to as the [[global digital divide]], which examines the technological gap between developing and developed countries.<ref name="ChinnFairlie">Chinn, Menzie D. and Robert W. Fairlie. (2004). ''The Determinants of the Global Digital Divide: A Cross-Country Analysis of Computer and Internet Penetration. Economic Growth Center''. Retrieved from [https://web.archive.org/web/20050129222452/http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp881.pdf]</ref> The divide within countries (such as the [[digital divide in the United States]]) may refer to inequalities between individuals, households, businesses, or geographic areas, usually at different [[Socioeconomics|socioeconomic]] levels or other demographic categories. In contrast, the global digital divide describes disparities in access to computing and information resources, and the opportunities derived from such access.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lu |first1=Ming-te |title=Digital Divide in Developing Countries |journal=Journal of Global Information Technology Management |date=July 2001 |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=1–4 |doi=10.1080/1097198x.2001.10856304 |s2cid=153534228 }}</ref> As the internet rapidly expands it is difficult for developing countries to keep up with the constant changes. In 2014 only three countries ([[China]], [[US]], [[Japan]]) host 50% of the globally installed bandwidth potential.<ref name="HilbertBitsDivide" /> This concentration is not new, as historically only ten countries have hosted 70–75% of the global telecommunication capacity (see Figure). The U.S. lost its global leadership in terms of installed bandwidth in 2011, replaced by China, who hosted more than twice as much national bandwidth potential in 2014 (29% versus 13% of the global total).<ref name="HilbertBitsDivide" />

Some [[zero-rating]] programs such as [[Facebook Zero]] offer free/subsidized data access to certain websites. Critics object that this is an anti-competitive program that undermines [[net neutrality]] and creates a "[[Walled garden (technology)|walled garden]]".<ref>{{cite web |last=Heuler |first=Hilary |date=2015-05-15 |title=Who really wins from Facebook's 'free internet' plan for Africa? |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-really-wins-from-facebooks-free-internet-plan-for-africa/ |access-date=2022-08-29 |work=ZDNet}}</ref> A 2015 study reported that 65% of [[Nigerians]], 61% of [[Indonesians]], and 58% of [[Indian people|Indians]] agree with the statement that "Facebook is the Internet" compared with only 5% in the US.<ref>{{cite web |last=Mirani |first=Leo |date=February 9, 2015 |title=Millions of Facebook users have no idea they're using the internet |url=http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ |publisher=Quartz}}</ref>