No, they highlight some problems with IP4: Bad distribution of IP4 ranges and bad usage of those ranges. So the graphs show the US has way too much IP actresses, some under used/unused and some overused. The blog post they are from is pretty clear about this.
These graphs do not give an indication of how many users per country there are. There are in fact statistics on that which expectedly show China and India on top. These however do not take into account that social media use way more popular in the U.S. for now.
The closest stat may be Reddit users by country which seems to indicate that about every 2nd user is from the US. (Not sure if Russian/Chinese bot accounts also count towards these though).
These graphs do not give an indication of how many users per country there are. There are in fact statistics on that which expectedly show China and India on top.
Well sure, but people from those countries are far less likely to be speaking English, which is why I said:
It is entirely rational to assume that an English-speaking person on the Internet is from the US, given no other information.
The prevalence of internet use in countries with primary languages other than English has no bearing on this statement.
The point of using the IP address statistics is to show that the vast majority of websites on the Internet were created in the US for the US market, and that is still true today.
On a side note, the distribution of addresses is unbalanced but it isn’t “bad”. It is a consequence of a system growing over time. Communications infrastructure cannot pop into existence everywhere all at once, and realistically not many people outside the US had any interest in the internet in 1983.
Sorry, are you trying to prove beyond a doubt that you are dishonest and statistics-illiterate?
which is why I said:
It is entirely rational to assume that an English-speaking person on the Internet is from the US, given no other information.
No, you wrote:
**The US has more allocated IPv4 addresses and more users per allocated IPv4 address than any other country, by wide margins **- and IPv6 adoption is not that widespread yet. It is entirely rational to assume that an English-speaking person on the Internet is from the US, given no other information.
So your assumption is based on a gross misinterpretation of the statistics you presented. Your incorrect interpretation of the graphs would put US participation at about 99,99%, which is obviously ridiculous.
Also according to Wikipedia the percentage of English speakers located in the US is lower that 20%. Does this mean that only 1 in 5 users is from the US?
The point of using the IP address statistics is to show that the vast majority of websites on the Internet were created in the US for the US market, and that is still true today.
That’s not at all what these graphs show though.
Also, while I agree that most websites might be US targeted towards the US calling that ‘vast’ is bit of a stretch.
… and realistically not many people outside the US had any interest in the internet in 1983.
I gather you’ve not been around then. Almost none had any interest in “the internet” until the mid 90s - this includes the US. Partly because what you refer to as “the internet” was called WWW back then and started only 1989. People had been very anal about this until about 2005 - I guess you haven’t been around then either.
No, they highlight some problems with IP4: Bad distribution of IP4 ranges and bad usage of those ranges. So the graphs show the US has way too much IP actresses, some under used/unused and some overused. The blog post they are from is pretty clear about this.
These graphs do not give an indication of how many users per country there are. There are in fact statistics on that which expectedly show China and India on top. These however do not take into account that social media use way more popular in the U.S. for now.
The closest stat may be Reddit users by country which seems to indicate that about every 2nd user is from the US. (Not sure if Russian/Chinese bot accounts also count towards these though).
Well sure, but people from those countries are far less likely to be speaking English, which is why I said:
The prevalence of internet use in countries with primary languages other than English has no bearing on this statement.
The point of using the IP address statistics is to show that the vast majority of websites on the Internet were created in the US for the US market, and that is still true today.
On a side note, the distribution of addresses is unbalanced but it isn’t “bad”. It is a consequence of a system growing over time. Communications infrastructure cannot pop into existence everywhere all at once, and realistically not many people outside the US had any interest in the internet in 1983.
Sorry, are you trying to prove beyond a doubt that you are dishonest and statistics-illiterate?
No, you wrote:
So your assumption is based on a gross misinterpretation of the statistics you presented. Your incorrect interpretation of the graphs would put US participation at about 99,99%, which is obviously ridiculous.
Also according to Wikipedia the percentage of English speakers located in the US is lower that 20%. Does this mean that only 1 in 5 users is from the US?
That’s not at all what these graphs show though.
Also, while I agree that most websites might be US targeted towards the US calling that ‘vast’ is bit of a stretch.
I gather you’ve not been around then. Almost none had any interest in “the internet” until the mid 90s - this includes the US. Partly because what you refer to as “the internet” was called WWW back then and started only 1989. People had been very anal about this until about 2005 - I guess you haven’t been around then either.