just belonging to a politically marginalized group can translate to poorer access.
That's not terribly suspicious. First and foremost, the internet exists to serve the privileged. From those who had/have the time to make it, to those who use its existence to better their own situation in life. Who's worrying about - let's say - it's impact on the education of the young? Clearly not very many people, since ordered, graduated, high-quality writng and tools to access it with are certainly not a substantial part of what's here (apart from, for example, -some- college professors to put -some- of their materials onlilne). It's largely dedicated to insubstantial entertainment for the masses (like the old mass media), as well as specialist forums for the already-educated.
There once existed an FM pioneer who complained "look what you've done to my child!" That early complaint has developed into a perennial pattern seen all across implementations of technology. While it's new and fun, people like Alan Kay and Seymour Papert have big, substantial dreams for it. And then the promise is dissipated, diluted to serve the same old mundanities. We had a chance to keep that from happening, but once again we're stumbling into the same old mental pitfalls that made the 20th century possible.