It would be interesting to see the number influenced at all by internet ads, although you should then first point out to people that there are many kids of ads, like for instance a monthly filling of a tech site with articles from the 'intel developer forum' to fill people's mind with the company's name, and if they actually read any article, their products and 'wonderfulness'.
(intel is just a random example, many companies pay review/tech sites to mention them or 'test' their products obviously.

And yes the absence of any mention of sex in a survey about internet use is in fact a noticeable omission.
"making them perfect targets for advertisers"

Au contraire, the more net-savvy user will be more aware of how to block all those unwanted ads and will seek out ad-free sources of information. Less ad-supported drivel on the net can only be a good thing.
Pointless study, most important issue not addressed
"In more ways than one"

That is a point which the study does NOT show.

First, let's not confuse the World Wide Web (WWW) with the Internet. The Internet is far more than the WWW. The WWW is a subset of the Internet.

The study does not show what people can actually do with their Internet access. It does not show whether they can run their own e-mail server, their own web server, game server, etc., or rely on third parties to provide this service. Making information or a service available on your own computer is quite different from having to ask a third party to do that for you.

For instance, who owns the copyright over a picture if you put it onto a third party's web server? May a third party put ads into your mail messages if you have to rely on the third party's mail server?

I think defining "Internet access" needs to be done first. IMHO people do NOT have Internet access if the traffic is partly blocked, or even completely from the Internet to the customers computer to prohibit the Internet user from providing services over the Internet.
It would be interesting to see the number influenced at all by internet ads, although you should then first point out to people that there are many kids of ads, like for instance a monthly filling of a tech site with articles from the 'intel developer forum' to fill people's mind with the company's name, and if they actually read any article, their products and 'wonderfulness'.
(intel is just a random example, many companies pay review/tech sites to mention them or 'test' their products obviously.

And yes the absence of any mention of sex in a survey about internet use is in fact a noticeable omission.
"making them perfect targets for advertisers"

Au contraire, the more net-savvy user will be more aware of how to block all those unwanted ads and will seek out ad-free sources of information. Less ad-supported drivel on the net can only be a good thing.
I find it amusing that no where in this article did they mention pr0n- the most sought-after 'resource' on the intranetz.
"In more ways than one"

That is a point which the study does NOT show.

First, let's not confuse the World Wide Web (WWW) with the Internet. The Internet is far more than the WWW. The WWW is a subset of the Internet.

The study does not show what people can actually do with their Internet access. It does not show whether they can run their own e-mail server, their own web server, game server, etc., or rely on third parties to provide this service. Making information or a service available on your own computer is quite different from having to ask a third party to do that for you.

For instance, who owns the copyright over a picture if you put it onto a third party's web server? May a third party put ads into your mail messages if you have to rely on the third party's mail server?

I think defining "Internet access" needs to be done first. IMHO people do NOT have Internet access if the traffic is partly blocked, or even completely from the Internet to the customers computer to prohibit the Internet user from providing services over the Internet.