Is Going Online a Privilege for the Young? How Digitally Disadvantaged Groups Can Reconnect with the World

Did you know? Even in Taiwan—where overall internet penetration is close to 90 percent—there are still people who feel as if they’ve been forgotten by the digital world. They can see the line that separates them from it, but they can’t quite cross it.

According to the Taiwan Internet Report, internet usage among people in their 60s who have retired remains relatively high, at around 80 percent. However, once people reach their 70s and beyond, that figure drops sharply to just 50 percent. The gap is significant—and deeply revealing.

So beyond age and access to devices, what other barriers are we overlooking? And what are the areas where we still need to do more?

Host: Ethan Liu

Speakers：

Chi-Yin Wu, Research Fellow, Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica

Chen-Chao Tao, Professor, Department of Communication and Technology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University

Meeting Minutes

The Digital Divide Isn’t Just About Internet Access—it’s a Multi-Layered Structural Issue

In most policy discussions and public conversations, the “digital divide” is often reduced to a simple question: Can someone get online? Do they have a device? Some even assume the problem can be solved simply by filling hardware gaps and expanding network infrastructure. But as digital technology has become embedded in nearly every aspect of daily life, this explanation no longer reflects reality.

What truly shapes the experiences of digitally disadvantaged groups is no longer limited to access to devices or connectivity, but rather a deeper set of interconnected structural factors—skills, comprehension, institutional design, and the ability to translate digital use into tangible real-world benefits.

In a highly digital society, the internet is not merely a channel for information. It has become a gateway to public services, social participation, economic activity, and resource distribution. From filing taxes and booking medical appointments to applying for benefits, job hunting, and everyday communication, digital systems have become the default pathway. For those who can navigate them smoothly, this shift represents efficiency and convenience. For people who lack the necessary skills, understanding, or confidence, however, it can mean new barriers—and, over time, exclusion from essential systems.

Researcher Chi-Yin Wu explained that the digital divide can be understood across at least three levels. The first is the access divide, referring to whether individuals can obtain devices and internet connections. The second is the use divide, which concerns whether they have the practical ability to operate, understand, and apply digital tools. The third is the benefit divide, referring to whether digital tools actually help improve people’s lives, enable access to resources, or support meaningful social participation.

He further noted that in Taiwan today, the first level—the access divide—has indeed narrowed. However, the second and third divides continue to widen. Many disadvantaged groups may already own smartphones and have internet access, yet still struggle to benefit from digital services due to unfamiliarity with processes, lack of understanding of system logic, or insufficient opportunities for stable practice and support. The result is a condition that appears inclusive on the surface but functions as exclusion in practice.

Committee member Chen-Chao Tao added that digital technology has become a critical threshold for participation in modern society. Digital capability affects not only daily convenience, but also whether individuals can access public information, complete administrative procedures, take part in public discussion, and even be visible within society. For this reason, the digital divide is not merely a technological issue—it is a structural gap tied to social visibility, civic participation, and the allocation of rights and opportunities.

Digital Disadvantage Is Not a Fixed Identity—It’s a Contextual and Shifting Condition

In public discourse, digital disadvantage is often associated with specific groups, such as older adults, low-income households, or residents of rural areas. However, the program repeatedly emphasized that digital disadvantage is not a fixed identity. Instead, it is a condition that shifts depending on institutional design, technological change, and life circumstances.

As digital systems grow increasingly complex, the issue is no longer simply whether someone can use a smartphone. It is whether they can navigate processes that institutions have designed as the default. Digital disadvantage may emerge suddenly in specific moments—or accumulate gradually through repeated frustration—eventually leading individuals to withdraw from digital environments altogether.

Chi-Yin Wu pointed out that even highly educated, capable professionals can lose their sense of control when encountering unfamiliar digital systems, such as government platforms, hospital appointment systems, online tax filing tools, or multi-step financial verification processes. That experience—not having been disadvantaged before, but suddenly becoming so—highlights just how context-dependent digital disadvantage truly is.

He cautioned that when society frames digital disadvantage as simply a matter of “certain groups failing to keep up with technology,” it risks overlooking the exclusion produced by institutional and system design. When responsibility is shifted excessively onto individuals, meaningful institutional reflection and reform become far less likely.

Chen-Chao Tao added that rapid technological change has made “falling behind” a common experience. As interfaces, rules, and operating procedures are updated frequently, even users who once navigated systems smoothly may be pushed out due to high learning costs, time pressure, and psychological burden. Digital disadvantage, therefore, should be understood as a fluid condition, not a fixed category.

Institutions and Technology Design Are Often the Root Causes of Digital Exclusion

Many forms of digital exclusion are not caused by a lack of effort or willingness to learn. Instead, exclusion often begins at the design stage, when institutions and technologies fail to account for diverse users and real-world conditions. As a result, certain groups are effectively excluded before they ever enter the system.

When systems assume that all users can understand interface language and complete processes smoothly, they quietly exclude individuals with different educational backgrounds, language abilities, or cognitive conditions. This exclusion may not involve explicit discriminatory language, yet it continues to occur daily through routine operations.

Chi-Yin Wu noted that when governments and large institutions digitize services, they often assume users can read complex instructions, handle multiple layers of verification, troubleshoot errors independently, and seek assistance when needed. For older adults, migrant workers, or individuals with lower levels of formal education, these assumptions themselves become significant barriers.

He emphasized that digital exclusion does not arise only at the usage stage—it is often embedded in systems from the design phase onward. When systems are built around an “ideal user,” disadvantaged groups are excluded quietly and systematically.

Chen-Chao Tao further explained that technology is not a neutral tool; it reflects the values and assumptions of its designers. Interface language, workflows, and verification mechanisms often favor younger users with higher education and extensive digital experience. When efficiency and convenience become the sole metrics of success, inclusivity is easily sacrificed—and digital disadvantage is amplified as a result.

True Digital Equity Is About Choice—Not Mandatory, Universal Digitalization

In many digital transformation initiatives, success is measured by indicators such as “full online integration,” “paperless systems,” or “single-entry platforms.” Once systems are built and processes digitized, public services are often assumed to have improved automatically. However, the program repeatedly emphasized that without accounting for user diversity, such approaches can become new mechanisms of exclusion.

True digital equity does not require everyone to use digital tools. Instead, it ensures that people—across different life stages and ability levels—retain meaningful choices in how they access public services and participate in society. When not going online becomes something people are penalized for, digital transformation ceases to be empowering and instead becomes coercive.

Chi-Yin Wu stressed that digital equity is not synonymous with forcing everyone online. When public services are available only through digital channels—such as applying for benefits, scheduling appointments, or completing administrative procedures—those unfamiliar with digital tools are effectively excluded from the public system. Maintaining in-person service counters, phone support, or human assistance is not a step backward in efficiency, but an act of inclusive institutional design.

He further emphasized that truly equitable systems allow citizens to choose between digital and non-digital channels, rather than forcing them into a single format. This freedom of choice lies at the heart of digital equity.

Chen-Chao Tao added that efficiency-driven digital policies, if they fail to consider diverse user needs, will generate new forms of inequality. Many governance metrics focus on whether processing speeds improve or costs decrease, but rarely assess who remains within the system and who is pushed out. When policy prioritizes speed and convenience alone, social inclusivity is often sacrificed—and disadvantaged groups may gradually disappear from public systems.

Digital Empowerment Is Not About Teaching Features—It’s About Building Confidence and Safety

In many digital education and empowerment programs, success is measured by whether learners can use a particular app or complete a specific sequence of steps. However, the program emphasized that this feature-driven approach often overlooks users’ psychological states and risk perceptions, resulting in a common gap: people may learn the steps, but still hesitate to use them.

For many disadvantaged groups, digital tools are not simply new skills to acquire—they represent uncertain and potentially high-risk environments. Without a sense of safety and a supportive system, even those who understand the process may abandon digital use entirely after a single setback.

Chen-Chao Tao explained that the greatest barrier for disadvantaged learners is often not a lack of comprehension, but fear of making mistakes and triggering potentially irreversible consequences. These may include accounts being locked, data being lost, or funds being deducted incorrectly. While experienced users may view such risks as manageable, beginners often experience them as severe psychological stress.

He emphasized that empowerment programs focused solely on “learning it once,” without providing space for repetition and error tolerance, may actually heighten anxiety. Sustainable empowerment requires environments where learners can experiment, fail, and try again without blame.

Chi-Yin Wu added that digital capability develops over time and requires ongoing accompaniment, support, and practice—not one-off training sessions or short-term workshops. Many disadvantaged users who fail in their first attempt withdraw from digital systems entirely, not because they lack ability, but because there is no supportive environment to help them recover from setbacks.

Communities and Intermediary Organizations Are the Most Critical Spaces for Digital Connection

Between individuals and institutions, the most effective drivers of digital connection are often not large-scale technological systems or singular policy initiatives, but trusted intermediaries. Community organizations, nonprofits, and frontline workers frequently determine whether digital connection can truly occur.

Compared with formal institutions, community settings are closer to everyday life and better able to understand real needs and usage contexts. As a result, they become essential spaces for cultivating digital capability in practice.

Chen-Chao Tao noted that with support from community hubs, nonprofits, and frontline workers, disadvantaged groups are more willing to experiment with digital tools. This “someone guides you and someone stays with you” model lowers technical barriers while easing psychological pressure, turning digital learning into a shared process rather than an isolated struggle.

He emphasized that digital connection often emerges from familiar networks and local trust, not one-way institutional pressure. When learning occurs in a familiar community environment, users are more willing to ask questions, admit uncertainty, and gradually build confidence for continued use.

Chi-Yin Wu also stressed that digital capability should be cultivated through real-life scenarios rather than abstract instruction. When digital tools solve concrete problems—such as staying in touch with family, accessing public information, or completing daily tasks—motivation and sustained engagement naturally follow.

The Ultimate Goal of Digital Connection Is Helping More People “Stay in the World”

The purpose of digital transformation should not be limited to improving efficiency or reducing costs. Its deeper goal should be ensuring that everyone remains connected to social systems and is not excluded due to technological thresholds. As digital capability becomes a basic condition for participation in society, failure to address digital disadvantage will gradually evolve into broader challenges involving democracy, governance, and social trust.

Chi-Yin Wu warned that ignoring digital disadvantage over the long term will undermine both the accessibility of public policy and the fairness of democratic participation. When certain groups are unable to enter digital public spaces, their voices and needs gradually disappear from policy agendas.

Chen-Chao Tao emphasized that the success of technology should not be measured solely by how fast we can move, but by whether we can bring more people along. Truly successful digital transformation ensures that people of different abilities and backgrounds can still find a place in digital society—rather than being forced out.