23
The Internet
Overview
From a military communication network to a worldwide online space, the Internet is constantly evolving to encompass new functions that connect people and institutions from different fields, and with various purposes. Due to its versatility, the Internet is now omnipresent in commerce, education, banking, dating, and much more. What seemed to belong to the realm of science fiction decades ago, is now part of our daily life. The infrastructure extended considerably such that it is now connecting sophisticated devices, to form what we call the Internet of Things (IoT).
Introduction
There is no denying the significance of the Internet on human culture, as it has infiltrated almost every aspect of society. The pervasiveness of this technology is illustrated by statistics, that reveal that nearly 3.86 billion people use the Internet throughout the globe (Internet Live Stats, 2018). Since its humble beginnings as a military project during the late 1960s, the Internet has emerged as a crucial part of everyday life as people have come to rely on this technology for work, education, relationships, and entertainment.
So, what exactly is this technology that has taken over our lives? According to Martin Irvine of Georgetown University, the Internet can best be understood in three components. It is “a worldwide computing system using a common means of linking hardware and transmitting digital information, a community of people using a common communication technology, and a globally-distributed system of information” (DeFleur and Dennis, 2002, p. 219). It is important to note, however, that the Internet does not act alone in providing us with seemingly endless information-seeking and communication opportunities. An integral part of this technology is the world wide web. While the Internet is a network of computers, the World Wide Web allows users to access that network in a user-friendly way. It provides an audio-visual format and a graphical interface that is easier to use than remembering lines of computer code, allowing people the ability to browse, search, and share information among vast networks.
The impact of the Internet on its users’ lives is widespread and diverse, as it influences the ways in which people understand salient issues in their lives, such as their health, government, and communities. It has disrupted traditional social conventions by changing the style and scope of communication performed by people in their interactions with friends and family, as well as with strangers. Further, it is becoming more apparent that the network structure of the Internet enhances individuals’ personal autonomy by allowing people to function more effectively on their own; it is no longer necessary for people to rely on physical institutions such as banks and post offices to perform daily tasks such as paying bills and sending messages (Rainie & Wellman, 2012). The scene at your local coffee shop in the middle of the day exemplifies this point, as patrons are seen hunched behind their laptops using public wireless Internet to perform job functions that were once conducted in traditional office settings.
This chapter examines Internet technology by beginning with a review of its origins and rise to popularity. Next, recent developments in online marketing, social interaction, and politics will be discussed in relation to their impact on the current state of the Internet. We will conclude by briefly highlighting several issues related to the Internet that are anticipated to receive attention in future debate and research.
Background
Though it is now accessible to virtually anyone who has a compatible device, the Internet began as a military project. During the Cold War, the United States government wanted to maintain a communication system that would still function if the country was attacked by missiles, and existing radio transmitters and telephone poles were disabled. The solution was to transmit information in small bits so that it could travel faster and be sent again more easily if its path was disrupted. This concept is known as packet-switching.
Many sources consider the birth of the Internet to have occurred in 1968 when the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was founded. Several universities, including UCLA and Stanford, were collaborating on military projects and needed a fast, easy way to send and receive information about those projects. Thus, ARPANET became the first collection of networked computers to transfer information to and from remote locations using packet switching.
ARPANET users discovered that, in addition to sending information to each other for collaboration and research, they were also using the computer network for personal communication, so individual electronic mail (email), accounts were established. Email accounts allow users to have a personally identifiable user name, followed by the @ sign, followed by the name of the host computer system.
USENET was developed in 1976 to serve as a way for students at The University of North Carolina and Duke University to communicate through computer networks. It served as an electronic bulletin board that allowed users on the network to post thoughts on different topics through email. USENET then expanded to include other computers that were not allowed to use ARPANET.
In 1986, ARPANET was replaced by NSFNET (sponsored by the National Science Foundation) which featured upgraded high-speed, fiber-optic technology. This upgrade allowed for more bandwidth and faster network connections because the network was connected to supercomputers throughout the country. This technology is what we now refer to as the modern-day Internet. The general public could now access the Internet through Internet service providers (ISPs) such as America Online, CompuServe, and Prodigy. Every computer and server on the Internet was assigned a unique IP (Internet Protocol) address that consisted of a series of numbers (for example, 290.152.74.113).
Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovation theory points out that low levels of complexity in an innovation aid adoption; in other words, innovations that are easy to use are more successful. That qualification presented a problem for the early versions of the Internet—much of it was still being run on “text-based” commands. Even though the public could now access the Internet, they needed a more user-friendly way to receive the information it contained and send information to others that didn’t involve learning text-based commands.
In 1989, Tim Berners-Lee created a graphical interface for accessing the Internet and named his innovation the “World Wide Web.” One of the key features of the world wide web was the concept of hyperlinks and common-language web addresses known as uniform resource locators (URLs). This innovation allows a user to simply click on a certain word or picture and automatically retrieve the information that is tied to that link. The hyperlink sends a request to a special server known as a “domain name server,” the server locates the IP address of the information, and sends that back to the original computer, which then sends a request for information to that IP address. The user’s computer is then able to display text, video, images, and audio that has been requested.
Today we know this as simple “point-and-click” access to information, but in 1989 it was revolutionary. Users were no longer forced to memorize codes or commands to get from one place to the next on the Internet—they could simply point to the content they wanted and click to access it.
It is worthwhile at this point to explain the IP address and domain name system in more detail. The domain name (e.g, google.com) is how we navigate the World Wide Web, but on the back end (which we don’t see), the IP address—a set of numbers—are the actual addresses. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is responsible for assigning domain names and numbers to specific websites and servers. With 1.6 billion users on the Internet, that can be quite a task (ICANN, 2010). To try and keep things simple, ICANN maintains two different sets of “top level domain” names: generic TLD names (gTLD) such as .edu, .com, and .org, and country codes (ccTLD) such as .br for Brazil, .ca for Canada, and .ru for Russia.
IP addresses used to consist of a set of four numbers (e.g., 209.152.74.113), in a system known as IPv4. With 256 values for each number, more than four billion addresses could be designated. The problem is that these addresses have been allocated, requiring a new address system. IPv6 is the designation for these new addresses, offering 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 separate addresses (Parr, 2011). Without getting too detailed, it is doubtful that these addresses will be used up any time soon.
So, what made the Internet so popular in the first place? During the late 1990s and the early 2000s, the Internet became one of the most rapidly adopted mass consumer technologies in history (see Figure 23.1). By comparison, radio took 38 years to attract 50 million Americans, while the Internet took only four years to attract a comparable size audience (Rainie and Well-man, 2012). Advancements in hardware and software exist as primary factors that stimulated the widespread adoption of the Internet. Additionally, enthusiasm displayed by the U.S. federal government, which imposed minimal legal regulations on this technology, also contributed to early penetration of this technology.
Percent of U.S. Adults Who Use the Internet (2000–2018)
Source: Pew Research, 2018
Internet growth in the early 2000s can also be attributed to consumers’ attraction to certain web features and applications. For example, online gaming, radio, instant messaging, health-focused websites, and pornography were all highly instrumental in enticing new Internet users (Rainie & Wellman, 2012). Retail shopping was another activity that attracted new users to the Internet, as businesses quickly capitalized on markets of consumers that preferred buying products online. It is worth emphasizing that the impact of the Internet on business and commerce has been significant. A new concept—e-commerce—was created to describe any transaction completed over a computer-mediated network that involves the transfer of ownership or rights to use goods or services. For example, if you purchase a song from iTunes, you are engaging in e-commerce.
E-commerce is not to be confused with e-business, which is a different term that encompasses procedures for business that are conducted over a computer-mediated network such as ordering new materials to aid in the production of goods, as well as marketing to customers and processing their orders (Mesenbourg, 1999). E-business and e-commerce continue to constitute prominent activities that engage Internet users, as both have emerged as established fields in business school curriculum and the workforce.
Recent Developments
Computer-Mediated Relationships
The Internet continues to be increasingly important for social interactions. Especially with the rise in social networking sites, people use the Internet to cultivate new relationships and to maintain existing bonds with friends and family. Computer-mediated interpersonal communications constitute a major area field of research, which ultimately reflects conflicting evidence as to whether the Internet enhances or is harmful to relationships.
Research concludes that several Internet activities such as game playing and social media can improve online and face-to-face peer relationships (Lai and Gwung, 2013). It is also suggested that online communication can have a positive influence on adolescents’ sense of identity and the quality of their friendships (Davis, 2013). In regard to the parent-child social dynamic, there is some evidence that certain activities such as watching videos online can enhance relationships (Lai and Gwung, 2013). However, the Internet has also been identified as a source of tension between parents and children, and growing concerns over safety have challenged parents to negotiate rules for monitoring and controlling their children’s Internet use.
In terms of romantic relationships, research shows that Americans are increasingly looking for love online (Geiger & Livingston, 2018). In the mid-2000s, studies showed that online dating carried a negative stigma, as people who used it tended to view it as a subpar way of meeting people. However, a more recent study revealed a major shift in attitudes, as the majority of Americans now say online dating is a good way to meet people (Smith & Anderson, 2016). Particularly among young adults, the number of 18–24 year olds who use online dating has nearly tripled from 10% in 2018 to 27% in 2015. Mobile dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble are largely responsible for the increase. Perhaps most interestingly, online dating use among 55–64 year olds also increased substantially, as 12% of people in this age range report using an online dating site or mobile app (Smith & Anderson, 2016).
Perhaps the most significant evidence of the influence of the Internet on romantic relationships can be recognized in the $2.7 billion in revenue reported in 2016 (Gillies, 2017). Match Group was the largest company with a 34.4 percent market share and 45 brands that include March, Tinder, and OKCupid. According to journalist Dan Slater (2013), online dating has had a profound change on society by modifying our perceptions of commitment, as well as the potential for romantic chemistry to be determined by mathematical algorithms. Research reveals that attitudes towards online dating continue to become more positive over time, suggesting their increased prominence in the future of Internet use.
Social Networking Sites and Politics
Social networking sites have become an essential tool for political influence. Websites such as Facebook and Twitter have provided the technological infrastructure for people to organize and activate massive political movements that have influenced significant events, such as elections and government upheavals.
In the context of electoral politics, social networking sites have become a standard tool in politicians’ campaign toolboxes. These sites provide political candidates with an inexpensive means to spread messages and generate voter support in the months leading up to Election Day. Since their emergence during the 2008 United States election, the use of social networking sites has expanded significantly as every serious candidate in the 2016 election maintains active accounts on an array of sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler, and Instagram. Politicians use these platforms to collect information about voters such as email addresses, geographic locations, opinions, and personal interests, which could subsequently be used to customize messages sent to individual voters and to inform policymaking (Bor, 2013; Hong & Kim, 2016). Evidence of political candidates’ success in generating attention on social networking sites continues to increase. We can cite the examples of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign who used a combination of multiple social media platforms to connect with their partisans. According to Craig (2016), politicians are expected to connect with voters in theatrical ways that often relies on social media. This connection is crucial given the fact that their followers now often rely on the content posted by candidates as their main source of information (Enli, 2017). The growth of social media use is especially pronounced in the 30–49 year old age demographic. This increasing percentage has been attributed to the increase in cellphone usage, as research reports that the proportion of Americans who use their cellphones to track political news or campaign coverage has doubled since 2010.
Beyond democratic elections, social networking sites have provided coordinating tools for political movements throughout the world. According to Gonzalez-Bailón & Wang (2016), “digital technologies have accelerated the speed of communication and amplified its reach; they have also made it easier to analyze connections and improve our understanding of how networks mediate the emergence of collective action… Online technologies allegedly allow anyone with an internet connection to become an information broker and be in a position to trigger diffusion reactions.”
But despite the positive impact of social media on participatory democracy and civic engagement, there are also negative effects. One significant field of research focuses on the ways in which social media exacerbates the polarization of political discourse. This research shows that social media users often gravitate toward platforms that reinforce their existing beliefs (Hong & Kim, 2016).
Another consequence of the vulnerability of online networks was the Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Besides spear-fishing attacks to manipulate votes, Russians deployed a series of misinformation campaigns (Berghel, 2017). The proliferation of trolling and fake news further polarized audiences and decreased trust in legacy media. According to Gottfried and Shearer (2016), 62% of American adults use social media as their news source. Consequently, most fake news stories circulated on social media, which led many users to believe them (Silverman and Singer-Vine 2016).
One study revealed the highly partisan nature of political discussion on Twitter, concluding that clusters of political talk are characterized by homogeneous views, which confines users in echo chambers (Hong & Kim, 2016). Echo chambers are “characterized by how people in online debates selectively avoid opposing arguments, and therefore face little resistance” (Karlsen, Steen-Johnsen, Wollebæk, & Enjolras, 2017). Researchers suggest that social media polarization is harmful to communities, societies, and democracies (Matakos, Terzi, & Tsaparas, 2017). Social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook have proven to be an especially effective tool for citizens during political protests and revolutions because they can provide an efficient means for conveying warnings and updates about dramatically shifting ground events such as violent conflict and home evacuations. The Arab Spring is an example of the powerful role of social networking sites in generating collective actions (Freelon, 2018). Even though 59% of social media users find political content stressful and frustrating, 49% of them post content related to politics on Facebook, and 40% on Twitter (Duggan & Smith, 2016). For more on social media see Chapter 24.
Advancements in Online Marketing
With the ongoing changes in the online experience, the strategies for Internet marketers are in constant flux. The sheer amount of traditional advertising messages on the Web has led consumers to develop an immunity against ads, causing the conversion rates for traditional advertisements to decline. Additionally, the growing focus on social connections that has been stimulated by the popularity of social networking sites has made it evident that marketing now requires a true two-way dialogue with consumers. It is not enough to write press releases or even to post advertisements to social networking sites. Marketers now have to identify conversations about their companies, products and competitors—and then actively engage in them. This “social listening” is part of the increased efforts to monitor and analyze the outcome of online marketing campaigns, which allows marketers to gain more information about potential customers and target their efforts to specific user groups.
A key factor in engaging with potential customers is content marketing. While the concept has been around for years, creating brand-specific content that actually has a value for potential customers has become even more valuable in times of online social media. Personalization also plays a key role in enhancing the effectiveness of email marketing. In fact, adding information about the email’s recipient (e.g. name) increases the probability of opening the email by 20%, which increases sales leads by 31% and decreases unsubscribing by 17% (Sahri, Wheeler, & Chintagunta, 2018).
The Internet of Things
The term Internet of Things (IoT) was introduced by the technology pioneer Kevin Ashton in 1998. Even though it has been around for 20 years, it has become more relevant today, given that 49% of the world’s population is connected online (Rainie & Anderson, 2017). While most users typically think about connected cars, personal assistants, and smartphones, the reality is that the IoT includes more devices such as road sensors, health-monitoring and sporting goods, to name a few. There are endless possibilities as to the nature of “things” that can be connected to exchange data. This expanding network, discussed in more detail in Chapter 12, undeniably brings convenience and connection, but will make it nearly impossible for users to unplug by 2026 (Rainie & Anderson, 2017).
Current Status
A 2017 report revealed that 49% of the world’s population is connected online (Rainie & Anderson, 2017). Findings from the Pew Research Internet and American Life Project illustrate the remarkable growth in Internet adoption since the turn of the 21st century (Pew, 2018). In 2018, approximately 90% of American adults use the Internet, which is up from approximately 50% in 2000. Further, 49% of the entire world’s population is connected online (Rainie & Anderson, 2017).
While there was an increase in Internet use observed across all demographic groups, it is interesting to point out distinctions among certain user populations. For example, when comparing different age groups, it is evident that younger adults are considerably more likely to use the Internet. The percentage of people between ages 18–29 who use the Internet reaches near-saturation at 98%; 97% of people ages 30–49 use the Internet; 87% of people ages 50-64 use the Internet; and 66% of people over 65 years of age use the Internet. (Pew, 2018).
Education level also appears to be a factor in predicting Internet usage (Pew, 2018). More than 93% of people with at least some college education use the Internet, while only 65% of non-high school graduates use the Internet. When it comes to economic income, nearly all households (98%) with a reported income of $75,000 or more are Internet users. This percentage steadily declines as household income decreases, but still 81% of households that make less than $30,000 per year reported using the Internet.
Other demographic categories such as gender, race, and ethnicity reflect minimal variation between groups. However, it is interesting to note that a gap still remains when comparing different ethnic groups’ broadband connections at home. A survey completed in 2016 revealed that while 78% of white, non-Hispanic Internet users have high-speed Internet at their home, only 65% of black, non-Hispanic, and 58% of Hispanic adults use high-speed Internet at home (Pew, 2018). In addition to tracking user penetration statistics, it seems equally important to understand what people are actually doing online. According to The Digital Future Report (2017) that conducts an annual survey of Internet trends and issues, Internet users go online to engage in four main activities:
Additionally, since 2010 there has been a significant increase in the percentage of Internet users making online purchases. In 2016, 83% of Internet users bought something online, with clothes and travel being the most popular items purchased (see Table 22.1).
Although Internet users generally agree that this technology has positive implications for individuals and society as a whole, a study of non-users reveals that 13% of American adults still choose not to use the Internet or email (Anderson & Perrin, 2016). Among this percentage of non-users, irrelevance and difficulty in using the technology were reported as the top two reasons for Internet avoidance.
Table 22.1
10 Most Popular Online Purchases in 2016
Item(s) Purchased Online |
% of Internet users who have purchased item online |
|---|---|
Clothes |
67% |
Gifts |
64% |
Electronics |
54% |
Books |
51% |
Travel |
51% |
Hobbies |
43% |
Software/Computer Games |
37% |
Videos/DVDs |
37% |
Computers |
35% |
Children’s Goods |
34% |
Sporting Goods |
29% |
CDs |
23% |
Source: The Digital Future Report, USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future
Factors to Watch
Privacy and Personal Data
With the increasing sociability and personalization of the Internet, protecting privacy online has become an important topic. The vast majority of Americans agree that safe practices on the Internet are central not only to their own, but also the Nation’s, safety (National Cyber Security Alliance, 2012). And as more and more routine tasks (e.g. banking, social security administration, healthcare, bill payments) move online, the importance of safely handling personal data in an online environment will only increase in years to come.
The rise of social media has made personal information (such as photos, birth dates, addresses, and phone numbers) available to third parties. Oftentimes, this information is given away willingly by the individuals who control the information or is collected by third parties without expressed consent. And while publicly posting vacation photos on Facebook might not seem like a serious privacy and security threat, the consequences can be severe. For example, researchers have been able to successfully predict individuals’ social security numbers using publicly available data (such as Facebook profiles) and other over-the-counter software (Acquisti & Gross, 2009).
More than 85% of Internet users have taken steps to reduce the amount of data they make available online by setting stricter privacy settings in social networking sites, changing their browsing behavior, or installing specific security software (Rainie et al., 2013). Still, 91% of Internet users think that they don’t have control of how their personal data is collected and used by other entities (Rainie, 2016). Depending on the context, users find it acceptable to share their health information with their doctor (52%), and grocery stores to obtain loyalty cards (47%), whereas only 37% of users accept to share their driving habits with their insurance company (Rainie & Duggan, 2016).
Privacy is closely related to anonymity. When users have the possibility to hide their identity, they can engage in antisocial behavior such as trolling. Online trolling is “the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet with no apparent instrumental purpose” (Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014). Technical and human solutions are likely to be implemented in order to ensure a safe online social climate (Rainie, Anderson, & Albright, 2017). According to Anderson (2017), 41% of Americans have experienced some form of online harassment, and 79% of them said that online platforms should regulate interactions.
The Rise in Mobile Connectivity
The widespread adoption of smartphones has dramatically changed the way the Internet is used. According to a 2018 Pew Research Center fact sheet, 95% of American adults now own a smartphone, which constitutes a 77% increase since 2011. This shift from the stationary use of the Internet, which has been the standard for most of the Internet’s history, is having a great impact on the way content is presented and consumed. Due to smaller screen sizes and different usage patterns (shorter, but re-occurring usage), the question becomes whether the information presented to mobile Internet users should replicate the regular Internet content, or if it should be an extension? The trend currently points towards a converged model, in which both worlds are closely related.
A study of smartphone use conducted in 2015 explored the concept of being smartphone-dependent, which is a term that refers to people who rely on their smartphone for Internet access because they either do not have traditional broadband service at home or have few options for online access other than their cellphones. (Smith, 2015). This research revealed that dependency upon smartphones is especially high among minorities and economically disadvantaged populations who often do not own a personal computer and only use cellphones when they go online. Further, lower-income smartphone-dependent users are much more likely to access their phones for career opportunities such as conducting job searches and applying for jobs.
To conclude, the Internet is clearly a constantly evolving technology that will continue to be used by humans in new and creative ways. A survey revealed that the importance of the Internet for its users continues to increase over time, as more than half of Internet users in 2013 claimed that the Internet would be, at a minimum, “very hard” to give up (Fox & Rainie, 2014). While its capacity to make life easier remains debatable, the Internet unarguably makes information and communication more accessible. It will be important to continue monitoring the unanticipated outcomes of Internet use, and to analyze the influence of these behaviors on society.
Getting A Job
With smart devices tracking user behavior on multiple levels and the ability to store and compute vast amounts of information, one of the biggest areas of development surrounding the Internet is Big Data and analytics (discussed in Chapter 24). Both terms have become buzzwords not only in advertising, public relations, and journalism, but also in many other industries attempting to leverage Internet-facilitated information to their benefit. According to Markow et al. (2017), demand for data scientists will increase by 28% through 2020. As a result, a theoretical understanding of applications and implications of data ana-lytics—as well as the practical skills to carry out statistical computations—can be great assets in the job market.
Projecting the Future
What will the Internet look like in 2033? Will it be a smart, personal assistant that reduces information overload and never lets us forget a birthday and the ideal present for that person? Or will it be a Big Brother-type surveillance tool tracking our behavior and allowing others to exploit it? It is difficult to predict the future of a technology that has changed so rapidly in recent years. Before the iPhone was introduced in 2007, for most people, the thought of having a powerful computer in their pocket that allowed them to connect to everybody and everything was science fiction. Today, it is commonplace.
So, what will we consider normal in 2033? Although a definite answer is almost impossible to give, some general trends emerge. For example, information sharing will be completely interwoven into daily life—so much so that it becomes invisible and effortless. Cars, buildings, cities, and especially people (think: wearable technology, implants) will have even more sensors and software that track resources, respond to crime, and take constant vital signs. These smart objects, using artificial intelligence and big data to generate predictions about any aspect of life, have formed the Internet of Things. People will be more aware of the world around them and how their own behavior in this interconnected world affects themselves and others. It will help individuals to better manage their workloads, and to monitor daily life, especially in regard to personal health. Augmented reality and wearable devices will allow real-time feedback and suggestions in a variety of life situations. Imagine sitting in a history lecture and being transported in time and space to experience the civil war in virtual, enhanced, augmented reality. Or standing in a boutique and immediately knowing not only if your size is in stock but also if it would be cheaper to buy at a different store just by looking at the price tag.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? But this less cluttered, more streamlined online world—where unwanted information is automatically filtered out and life is greatly assisted by artificial intelligence—also poses big challenges to personal safety and privacy. Experts agree that it will be impossible to prevent abuse, but that it will be a constant race between hackers and providers of protective solutions detecting fraudulent behavior. The rise of data-driven services and growing connectivity leads some to worry of a dystopian, Minority Report-style future in which our course in life is mapped out for us, eroding our ability to make free choices. Imagine your health insurance being automatically canceled because you had a burger last night? And weren’t you supposed to work out? Some universities have already started tracking students’ physical activity levels with outcomes affecting their grades. If technology predicts our life, big corporations, and data savvy criminals might be the ones most benefitting from all that information. Online fraud, identity theft—but also stalking, bullying, and other offenses—might become even more prevalent when our complete behavioral profiles are stored online.
So, what will the Internet look like in 2033? We don’t know. But it is most likely to fall somewhere in between these extremes.
Bibliography
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2009). Predicting social security numbers from public data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (27), 10975-10980.
Anderson, M. (2017). Key trends shaping technology in 2017 (Fact Tank). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/28/key-trends-shaping-technology-in-2017/
Anderson, M, & Perrin, A. (2016). 13% of Americans don’t use the internet. Who are they? (Fact Tank). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they
Berghel, H. (2017). Oh, What a Tangled Web: Russian Hacking, Fake News, and the 2016 US Presidential Election. Computer, 50(9), 87-91.
Bor, S. (2013). Using social network sites to improve communication between political campaigns and citizens in the 2012 election. American Behavioral Scientist, doi:10.1177/0002764213490698.
Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and individual Differences, 67, 97-102.
Cannarella, J., & Spechler, J. A. (2014). Epidemiological modeling of online social network dynamics. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4208v1.pdf.
Craig, G. (2016). Performing politics: Media interviews, debates and press conferences. Austin, Texas: John Wiley & Sons.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 7(1), 0-0.
Davis, K. (2013). Young people’s digital lives: The impact of interpersonal relationships and digital media use on adolescents’ sense of identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2281-2293.
DeFleur, M. L. & Dennis, E. E. (2002) Understanding mass communication: A liberal arts perspective. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Duggan, M.. & Smith, A. (2016). The Political Environment on Social Media. Pew Internet and American Life Project (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/the-political-environment-on-social-media/
Eloqua, & Kapost. (2012). Content Marketing ROI: Why content marketing can become your most productive channel. [eBook] Retrieved from http://marketeer.kapost.com/.
Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50-61.
Fox, S. & Rainie, L. (2014). The web at 25 in the U.S. Pew Internet and American Life Project (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/27/the-web-at-25-in-the-u-s.
Freelon, Deen. “Deen Freelon: Watching From Afar: Media Consumption Patterns Around the Arab Spring.” Policy 2016 (2018): 2014.
Geiger, A., & Livingston, G. (2018). 8 facts about love and marriage in America. Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/02/13/8-facts-about-love-and-marriage/
Gillies, T. (2017). In ‘swipe left’ era of mobile dating, eHarmony tried to avoid getting ‘frozen in time.’ CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/11/in-swipe-left-era-of-mobile-dating-eharmony-tries-to-avoid-getting-frozen-in-time.html.
González-Bailón, S., & Wang, N., (2016). Networked Discontent: The Anatomy of Protest Campaigns in Social Media. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2268165.
Gottfried, J., & Shearer, E. 2016. “News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016.” Pew Research Center, May 26. http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016.
Hong, S., & Kim, S. H. (2016). Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 777-782.
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assignment Names and Numbers (2010). Accessed from http://www.icann.org/.
Internet Live Stats (2018). Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/
Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebæk, D., & Enjolras, B. (2017). Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European journal of communication, 32(3), 257-273.
Lai, C., & Gwung, H. (2013). The effect of gender and Internet usage on physical and cyber interpersonal relationships. Computers & Education, 69, 303-309.
Lenhart, A., Anderson, M., & Smith, A. (2015). Teens, Technology and Romantic Relationships. Pew Research Center (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/01/teens-technology-and-romantic-relationships.
Lenhart, A. & Duggan, M. (2014). Couples, the Internet, and social media. Pew Internet and American Life Project (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from www.perinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media.
Markow, W., Braganza, S., Taska, B., Miller, S. M., & Hughes, D. (2017). The Quant Crunch: How the Demand for Data Science Skills is Disrupting the Job Market. Retrieved from https://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/im/en/iml14576usen/analytics-analytics-platform-im-analyst-paper-or-report-iml14576usen-20171229.pdf
Matakos, A., Terzi, E., & Tsaparas, P. (2017). Measuring and moderating opinion polarization in social networks. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 31(5), 1480-1505.
Mesenbourg, T. L. (1999). Measuring electronic business: Definitions, underlying concepts, and measurement plans. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/epdc/www/ebusiness.hum.
National Cyber Security Alliance, 2012. (2012). NCSA / McAfee Online Safety Survey. Retrieved from http://staysafeonline.org/stay-safe-online/resources/ [Accessed October 12 2013].
Parr, B. (2011). IPv4 and IPv6: A short guide. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2011/02/03/ipv4-ipv6-guide/.
Perrin, A. (2015). One-fifth of Americans report going online almost constantly. Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/08/one-fifth-of-americans-report-going-online-almost-constantly.
Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2015). Americans’ internet access: 2000-2015. Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015.
Pew Reseach Center. (2018). Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband.
Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., Madden, M., Duggan, M., Brown, S., & Dabbish, L. (2013). Anonymity, Privacy, and Security Online. Pew Internet and American Life Project (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/.
Rainie, L. (2016). The state of privacy in post-Snowden America.(Fact Tank). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/21/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/
Rainie, L. & Anderson, J. (2017). The Internet of Things Conenctivity Binge: What Are the Implications? Pew Internet and American Life Project (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinter-net.org/2017/06/06/the-internet-of-things-connectivity-binge-what-are-the-implications/
Rainie, L., Anderson, J., & Albright, J. (2017). The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online. Pew Internet and American Life Project (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/03/29/the-future-of-free-speech-trolls-anonymity-and-fake-news-online/
Rainie, L., & Duhhan, M. (2016). Privacy and Information Sharing. Pew Internet and American Life Project (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/14/privacy-and-information-sharing/
Rainie, L., Smith, A., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. & Verba, S. (2012). Social media and political engagement. Pew Internet and American Life Project (Report). Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Political-Engagement.aspx.
Rainie, L. & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd Edition. New York, NY: Free Press
Sahni, N. S., Wheeler, S. C., & Chintagunta, P. (2018). Personalization in Email Marketing: The Role of Noninformative Advertising Content. Marketing Science.
Slater, D. (2013). Love in the Time of Algorithms: What Technology Does to Meeting and Mating. New York: Penguin Group.
Shirky, C. (2010, December 20). The political power of social media. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media.
Silverman, C. & Singer-Vine, J. 2016. “Most Americans Who See Fake News Believe It, New Survey Says.” BuzzFeed News, December 6.
Smith, A. (2014). Cell phones, social media and campaign 2014. Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/03/cell-phones-social-media-and-campaign-2014.
Smith, A. (2015) U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015. Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/
Smith, A. (2016). Online dating usage by demographic group. Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/02/11/online-dating-demographic-tables.
Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2016). 5 faces about online dating. Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/5-facts-about-online-dating.
The Digital Future Report. (2017). The 2017 digital future report. USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future (Report). Center for the Digital Future. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.digitalcenter.org/wp-content/up-loads/2013/10/2017-Digital-Future-Report.pdf Wu, M., Lu, T. J., Ling, F. Y., Sun, J., & Du, H. Y. (2010, August). Research on the architecture of Internet of things. In Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE), 2010 3rd International Conference on (Vol. 5, pp. V5-484). IEEE.
_______________
* Bor is Adjunct Professor at the University of Denver (Denver, Colorado). Chelbi is a graduate student at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC