Latinos Less Likely to Be Online Than Whites

While about two-thirds of Latino (65%) and black (66%) adults went online in 2010, more than three-fourths (77%) of white adults did so. In terms of broadband use at home, there is a large gap between Latinos (45%) and whites (65%), and the rate among blacks (52%) is somewhat higher than that of Latinos. Fully 85% of whites owned a cell phone in 2010, compared with 76% of Latinos and 79% of blacks.

Hispanics, on average, have lower levels of education and earn less than whites. Controlling for these factors, the differences in internet use, home broadband access and cell phone use between Hispanics and whites disappear. In other words, Hispanics and whites who have similar socioeconomic characteristics have similar usage patterns for these technologies.

Survey questions also probed for the use of non-voice applications on cell phones. Respondents were asked specifically about whether they access the internet and whether they use email, texting or instant messaging from a cell phone. The findings reveal a mixed pattern of non-voice cell phone application use across ethnic and racial groups. Hispanics are less likely than whites to use any non-voice applications on a cell phone (58% vs. 64%), and they are also less likely than whites to send or receive text messages (55% vs. 61%). However, Hispanics and whites are equally likely to access the internet and send or receive email from a cell phone. And Hispanics are more likely than whites to engage in instant messaging (34% vs. 20%). Compared with blacks, Hispanics are less likely to access the internet (31% vs. 41%) or send or receive email (27% vs. 33%) from a cell phone, but rates of texting and instant messaging are similar for the two groups.

Though they are no more likely than whites to access the internet from a cell phone, Hispanics are more likely to do so in lieu of a home internet connection. Some 6% of Latinos report that they access the internet from a cell phone but have no internet access at home. This rate is the same for blacks, but notably higher than the rate for whites (1%). This ethnic difference in dependency upon a cell phone for internet use is partially, but not entirely, related to ethnic differences in educational attainment and income.

Notes:

Hispanics are less likely to use the Internet, but if you control for socioeconomic disparities, this difference becomes much less.

Folksonomies: internet society racial socioeconomics

Taxonomies:
/technology and computing/consumer electronics/telephones/mobile phones (0.586078)
/society/racism (0.401832)
/technology and computing/internet technology/email (0.268845)

Keywords:
cell phone (0.956593 (negative:-0.200260)), whites (0.759982 (negative:-0.098191)), Hispanics (0.688999 (negative:-0.460882)), instant messaging (0.627284 (negative:-0.201496)), Whites Hispanics (0.616886 (negative:-0.595336)), internet (0.599118 (negative:-0.557118)), non-voice applications (0.544384 (negative:-0.302308)), similar socioeconomic characteristics (0.540802 (neutral:0.000000)), similar usage patterns (0.534854 (neutral:0.000000)), cell phone application (0.534587 (negative:-0.579566)), home broadband access (0.531314 (negative:-0.324853)), Latinos (0.521064 (negative:-0.074938)), home internet connection (0.520402 (negative:-0.725997)), socioeconomic disparities (0.496159 (negative:-0.518078)), Latinos report (0.494802 (negative:-0.437750)), large gap (0.485524 (neutral:0.000000)), blacks (0.484140 (negative:-0.298736)), white adults (0.482697 (neutral:0.000000)), lower levels (0.478372 (negative:-0.564403)), Survey questions (0.477646 (neutral:0.000000)), text messages (0.475274 (negative:-0.334180)), cell phones (0.475232 (neutral:0.000000)), mixed pattern (0.474386 (negative:-0.579566)), educational attainment (0.473579 (neutral:0.000000)), racial groups (0.473141 (negative:-0.579566)), ethnic difference (0.469658 (negative:-0.502160)), ethnic differences (0.468470 (neutral:0.000000)), internet access (0.467739 (negative:-0.518368)), email (0.448798 (negative:-0.465999)), rate (0.447474 (positive:0.138750))

Entities:
instant messaging:FieldTerminology (0.827065 (positive:0.045812)), internet access:FieldTerminology (0.671573 (negative:-0.518368)), text messages:FieldTerminology (0.350570 (negative:-0.334180)), 65%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 20%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 27%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 31%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 33%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 34%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 41%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 45%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 52%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 55%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 58%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 61%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 64%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 66%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 76%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 77%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 79%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 85%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 1%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000)), 6%:Quantity (0.350570 (neutral:0.000000))

Concepts:
Internet (0.954236): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Mobile phone (0.825736): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Instant messaging (0.678722): dbpedia | freebase
Text messaging (0.526855): dbpedia | freebase
E-mail (0.426325): dbpedia
Internet access (0.385114): dbpedia | freebase | yago
Voice over Internet Protocol (0.368677): dbpedia | yago
Packet switching (0.362359): dbpedia | freebase | yago

 Latinos and Digital Technology, 2010
Electronic/World Wide Web>Internet Article:  Pew Hispanic Center, (02/11/2011), Latinos and Digital Technology, 2010, Pew Hispanic Center, Retrieved on 2011-02-10
  • Source Material [pewhispanic.org]
  • Folksonomies: internet technology racial differences


    Triples

    10 FEB 2011

     Not Everyone, and Therefore Everything, is on the Internet

    Latinos Less Likely to Be Online Than Whites > Example/Illustration > Not Everything is On the Internet
    If we live completely online, then we are turning our backs on people who cannot afford to be online.