How does the Internet affect social capital? Do the communication possibilities of the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement interpersonal contact, participation, and community commitment? Our evidence comes from a 1998 survey of 39,211 visitors to the National Geographic Society website, one of the first large-scale web surveys. We find that people's interaction online supplements their face-to-face and telephone communication, without increasing or decreasing it. However, Internet use is associated with increased participation in voluntary organizations and politics. Further support for this effect is the positive association between offline and online participation in voluntary organizations and politics. Internet use is associated with a sense of online community, in general and with kin. Taken together, the evidence suggests that the Internet is becoming normalized as it is incorporated into the routine practices of everyday life.

A computer network is a social network The network revolution We find community in networks, not groups. Although people often view the world in terms of groups (Freeman, 1992), they function in networks. In networked societies: boundaries are permeable, interactions are with diverse others, connections switch between multiple networks, and hierarchies can be flatter and recursive. The change from groups to networks can be seen at many levels. Trading and political blocs have lost their monolithic character in the world system. Organizations form complex networks of alliance and exchange rather than cartels, and workers report to multiple peers and superiors. Management by multiply-connected network is replacing management by hierarchal tree and management by two-dimensional matrix (Berkowitz, 1982; Wellman, 1988; Castells, 1996). Communities are far-flung, loosely-bounded, sparsely-knit and fragmentary. Most people operate in multiple, thinly-connected, partial communities as they deal with networks of kin, neighbours, friends, workmates and organizational ties. Rather than fitting into the same group as those around them, each person has his/her own

Results from a national representative telephone survey of Americans in 2000 show that Internet and mobile phone usage was very similar, and that several digital divides exist with respect to both Internet and mobile phone usage. The study identifies and analyzes three kinds of digital divides for both the Internet and mobile phones—users/nonuser, veteran/recent, and continuing/dropout—and similarities and differences among those digital divides based on demographic variables. The gap between Internet users and nonusers is associated with income and age, but no longer with gender and race, once other variables are controlled. The gap between mobile phone users and nonusers is associated with income, work status, and marital status. The veteran/recent Internet gap is predicted by income, age, education, phone user, membership in community religious organizations, having children, and gender; for mobile phones, age, work status and marital status are predictors. The gap between continuing and dropout users is predicted by education for Internet usage and income for mobile phone usage. Finally, cross-categorization of Internet and mobile phone usage/nonusage is distinguished (significantly though weakly) primarily by income and education. Thus, there are several digital divides, each predicted by somewhat different variables; and while Internet and mobile phone usage levels in 2000 were about the same, their users overlap but do not constitute completely equivalent populations.

The term ‘digital divide ’ reached popularity in the mid-1990s as a way to describe the disparity between those who have access to the Internet, and those that don’t. Initially, use of the term took on a simplistic definition, with access defined solely as technical access, for instance, to computers and telecommunication services. Later, definitions of the digital divide encompassed more complex