First of all that number is shrinking fast. Secondly, as your articles points out nearly all of those 13% are either seniors. The rest are very likely either unemployed, or living below the poverty line.

Are you seriously trying to say that seniors don't function in a civil society simply because they are uncomfortable with new technology?

The GP was (rightly) calling out the over-the-top assertion that anyone who isn't on the internet is of no value. If that's not condescending and hyperbolic, I don't know what is.

>Are you seriously trying to say that seniors don't function in a civil society simply because they are uncomfortable with new technology?

To a certain extent, yes. Lack of internet access is a serious form of social exclusion, similar to having limited literacy or lacking a bank account. You'll have problems accessing government services and essential information, you'll be unable to find or apply for many jobs, you'll pay a premium for many goods and services.

My town has no brick-and-mortar travel agents or bookstores. Most of the bank branches have closed. Our local housing association only advertises vacancies online. People who don't use the internet are now effectively an underclass; our government is quite rightly working towards 100% internet access.

That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that internet has become (read: "is considered by most to be") a basic requirement for participating in society. In other words, if you are not on the internet, you are not effectively participating in the function of society, because so much of that activity occurs over the internet.

Literally no one made that assertion. You are deliberately going out of your way to be offended by making things up to be angry about. And frankly, if that's how you live life, you deserve to be miserable.