Doug Dawson recently asked a deceptively simple question in his post, “Smartphones and Digital Literacy”: If someone can do everything they need to do on a smartphone, are they digitally literate in the same way a computer user is?

I think the answer is: smartphone literacy is absolutely a form of digital literacy—but it is often a different layer of literacy than what many schools, employers, and institutions quietly assume.

That distinction matters for broadband and digital equity work, because “access” is increasingly being met (at least superficially) by mobile connectivity—while opportunity still frequently depends on computer-centric skills.

Smartphones are incredible… and still constrained

Dawson’s core observation rings true: smartphones tend to teach people an app ecosystem—tap, swipe, search, authenticate, share. That’s not “less than.” It’s a powerful, modern skill set.

But many of the foundational competencies that show up in work and school are still more “computer-shaped”:

  • Writing and editing longer-form content quickly (keyboard fluency)
  • Creating, saving, naming, finding, and organizing files
  • Navigating an operating system and multiple windows
  • Basic troubleshooting when things don’t behave
  • Security habits that extend beyond “don’t click suspicious links”

The fact that a smartphone can technically do some of these things doesn’t mean the experience teaches them. The default interaction model (apps, sandboxes, and simplified file surfaces) often hides the underlying mental model people need when they move into a computer-based environment.

The digital divide isn’t one gap

In my post on Bayesian networks and the digital divide, I framed the divide as a multi-factor system: availability, aspiration, relevance, quality, and affordability.

“Availability… Aspiration… Relevance… Quality… Affordability…” — Finding the Digital Divide with Bayesian Networks

Smartphone-only access can improve availability and affordability for many households—but it can still leave the relevance and opportunity pathway underdeveloped if the jobs, education, and services in a community require computer-centric skills.

That’s why I’m wary of using “mobile-first adoption” as a proxy for “digital readiness.” It’s a real win, but it can also mask what’s missing.

A broadband lesson: technology amplifies what’s already there

This is where I keep coming back to Kentaro Toyama’s “Law of Amplification”: technology tends to magnify existing capacity rather than create it from scratch.

“Infrastructure builds the road, but digital literacy and skills support determine whether communities—and ISPs—succeed.” — Beyond the Last Mile

Smartphones amplify communication, social connection, access to information, and a lot of day-to-day productivity. But if someone hasn’t had a chance to develop keyboarding, file management, or desktop problem-solving habits, adding broadband to a smartphone doesn’t automatically produce those skills.

That’s not a criticism of people or of phones—it’s just a reminder that skills are built, and the tools we use shape which skills we build.

A practical model: layers of digital literacy

If we treat “digital literacy” as one monolithic thing, we end up talking past each other. A more useful framing is to treat it as layers:

  1. Navigational literacy (often smartphone-strong): search, accounts, basic settings, communication, forms, media, apps.
  2. Productive literacy (often computer-strong): documents, spreadsheets, structured writing, multi-step workflows.
  3. System literacy: files/folders, OS concepts, permissions, updates, backups, printers, peripherals.
  4. Security literacy: phishing awareness plus device hygiene, password managers, recovery, privacy controls.
  5. Workplace literacy: tickets, collaboration suites, shared drives, versioning norms, and “how work moves.”

Most people don’t need all layers at the same depth. But the moment we tie broadband outcomes to workforce participation, education pathways, and civic access, those layers start to matter.

“Teach a computer” is also “teach a person”

One reason I liked Dawson’s question is that it points to something educators and workforce groups have known for a long time: skills develop through doing.

In The First 5 Things to Teach a Computer, I wrote about foundational concepts like communication, sequencing, and play. Those ideas apply here, too—except the “curriculum” is the set of tasks people repeatedly perform in their daily lives.

If daily life is mostly app-based, we should expect app-shaped skills.

If we want computer-shaped skills, we need to create safe, relevant opportunities for people to practice:

  • joining a video meeting (Zoom/Meet/Teams) and using chat, mute, and screen share
  • sending an email with an attachment (resume, scanned document) and organizing messages into folders/labels
  • completing an online course or job training module and submitting assignments
  • filling out real job applications on a laptop, including uploads and multi-step portals
  • using a spreadsheet for household budgeting, inventory, or basic recordkeeping
  • using spreadsheets/templates for farm logs (inputs, yields, maintenance, fuel) and sharing them with a co-op/partner
  • using ag or equipment portals to download manuals, register warranties, schedule service, and request parts online
  • working with map-based tools (parcels/trails/lake access) and exporting/printing maps or sharing links with others
  • scheduling a telehealth visit and completing pre‑visit forms in a patient portal
  • paying a bill or completing a transaction online (banking, utilities, permits) and saving receipts as files
  • saving, finding, and sharing files using a cloud folder (Drive/OneDrive) so “file skills” become normal
  • booking recreation/tourism plans online (campgrounds, permits, charter trips, lodging) and keeping confirmations organized
  • troubleshooting WiFi/account issues with support nearby (passwords, updates, browser basics)

What this means for digital equity strategy

This is also why I’ve been interested in the idea of a “policy learning machine”: not just measuring access, but measuring which interventions reliably move people from connectivity to capability.

If a community has lots of smartphone-only households, that’s not a deficit—it’s a signal about what kind of support infrastructure might be most valuable next: device access, training, digital navigators, workplace-aligned practice, and wraparound supports.

Closing thought

Smartphones didn’t “dumb down” digital literacy—they changed it. For many people, a phone is the first truly personal computer they’ve ever owned, and that matters.

But if we’re serious about digital equity as opportunity, we have to be honest about the skills that opportunity demands, and then build systems that make those skills learnable, local, and relevant.