Over the last three decades, the rapid development and adoption of digital technology infrastructures, tools, and practices, has given rise to a new communication environment that is more interactive, networked, and participatory. This environment has become a central force driving political, cultural, educational, and economic transformations in contemporary societies, especially the post-industrial and advanced capitalist ones such as the USA. Concepts such as “network society” (Castells 2001), “convergence culture” (Jenkins 2006), “networked information economy” (Benkler 2006), and “network culture” (Terranova 2004; Varnelis, 2008), describe a more interconnected, decentralized and information-rich world where people has more opportunities to participate in various societal realms.
However, despite the fact that the new communication environment is more open and participatory, and that young people is highly engaged with new media tools and networks, its emergence in the historical context of a stratified society has had repercussions for the reproduction of social inequality. Beyond the metaphor of an existing “digital divide” between “have” and “have-nots,” rich and poor, several scholars have been pointing out since the 2000s that inequalities are way more complex than simple access to a computer and an Internet connection. (Warschauer 2002; DiMaggio et al. 2004; Selwyn 2004; van Dijk 2005; Chen and Wellman 2005; Hargittai 2008; Stern et al. 2009; Schradie 2011; Watkins 2012) There are gradients not only in the quality of access to technology, but also in the sociocultural practices and skills that people develop, and the information they consume and produce. (Hargitai 2011; Schradie 2011; Jenkins et al. 2006; Van Dijk 2005; Watkins 2012) As van Dijk has explained, there are in fact successive kinds of access (motivational, material, skills, and usage) that vary according to the positions and resources that people have. (van Dijk, 2005)
Social stratification matters in terms of media technology because it constraints how people experience the new media environment, the practices that they are able to do, and their dispositions and attitudes toward new media. (Schradie 2011; Seiter 2008; Couldry 2012; Hargittai, 2008) Even though there are more opportunities for participation today, uneven power relationships and deep social, economic, educational, and historically rooted inequaltities persist. Such disparities determine different kinds of material accesses, technical and sociocultural skills, usages, and motivations that people have. Some researchers have demonstrated, for instance, that digital information usage and quality varies according to digital skills and social networks.(Hargittai, 2008; Mossberger et al., 2003; Van Deursen and Van Dijk, 2010). Others have described a “participation gap” related to the disparities in sociocultural practices and the skills for sharing and crating online content. (Hargittai, 2007; Hargittai and Walejko, 2008; Jenkins et al., 2006) Others have focused on the nuances of different kinds of material access and its relation to uses. (DiMaggio et al., 2004; Selwyn, 2004; Van Dijk, 2005; Witte and Mannon, 2010). Still others have examined how socioeconomic status is strongly associated with the skills and motivations for Internet use and with the production of online content. (Hargittai, 2002, 2008; Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Mossberger et al., 2003; Schradie 2011; Van Deursen and Van Dijk, 2010; Warschauer, 2003; Zillien and Hargittai; 2009) All of these studies have consistently contributed to reveal the evolving nature of digital inequalities and have identified some of the challenges ahead for building a more inclusive and particitipatory society.
A quick look at large scale survey data on the Latino/Hispanic segment of the U.S. population and its material and usage access, provides a macro picture about how digital inequalities are correlated with structural social and economic disparities. Although recent reports show that there is an increase in Internet use among Latino/Hispanics, they continue to be bellow other population groups. A Pew Hispanic Center study from 2011 revealed that Latinos (55%), and blacks (58%) are significantly less likely than whites to have a home internet connection (75%). (Livingstone, 2011) As regard to the quality of the internet access, only 45% of Latino/Hispanic households have broadband Internet access, compared to 65% of non-Hispanic White and 52% of non-Hispanic black homes. (Livingstone, 2011). In the case of immigrant youth, this inequality in material access and usage is even bigger. A study from 2010 reveals significant differences of Internet use persist between foreign (51%) and native born Latino/Hispanics (85%), as well as between English language speakers (87%) and spanish speakers (35%). (Livingstone, 2011) However, material and usage access gaps seem to be closing in recent years and there are studies that have found that differences between groups disappear when education and income variables are controlled. (Livingston, 2010, 2011; Zickuhr & Smith, 2012; Fox, S. and G. Livingston 2007; Livingston) This fact reminds us that both native and foreign-born Latino/Hispanics are not a homogeneous population and that despite the fact that these groups appear in the wrong side of many structural divides according to large scale quantitative data, there is diversity inside them.
