Kings County

Kings County (Brooklyn), New York — key demographics Source: U.S. Census Bureau (primarily ACS 2023 1-year; 2020 Decennial Census noted where used)

Population

• Total population (ACS 2023): approximately 2.64 million
• 2020 Census count: 2,736,074

Age

• Median age: about 35–36 years
• Age distribution: under 18 ~22%; 18–34 ~27%; 35–64 ~36%; 65+ ~15%

Gender

• Female ~53%
• Male ~47%

Race and ethnicity (mutually exclusive; Hispanic/Latino can be any race)

• White, non-Hispanic ~35%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic ~27%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race) ~19%
• Asian, non-Hispanic ~14%
• Two or more races and other, non-Hispanic ~5%

Households and housing

• Households: about 960,000–980,000
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~58% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~28–29%
• Tenure: owner-occupied ~32%; renter-occupied ~68%

Insights

• Brooklyn is majority‑minority, relatively young, and predominantly renter‑occupied, with a sizable and growing 65+ population segment.

Email usage snapshot: Kings County (Brooklyn), NY

• Estimated users: ~1.95 million adult email users. Basis: ~2.12 million adults (of ~2.73 million residents) with ~92% adult email adoption (Pew).
• Gender split of users: ~53% female, ~47% male, mirroring the county’s population.
• Age distribution of adult email users (estimated):
  • 18–34: ~34%
  • 35–49: ~19%
  • 50–64: ~30%
  • 65+: ~17%

Digital access and connectivity:

• Computer and internet: ~90% of households have a computer and ~84% have a broadband subscription (ACS).
• Mobile dependence: Roughly mid‑teens percent of NYC households are smartphone‑only; Brooklyn’s rate is similar, indicating meaningful mobile‑centric email use.
• Public access: 61 Brooklyn Public Library branches provide free Wi‑Fi and computers; all NYC subway stations offer Wi‑Fi and cellular service, supporting on‑the‑go email.
• Density/connectivity context: Population density ~37,000 people per square mile facilitates extensive network coverage but highlights affordability gaps as the main barrier rather than availability.

Insights: Email is effectively ubiquitous among adults, with strongest penetration in working‑age groups. Broadband adoption is high but not universal; mobile‑only households underscore the importance of mobile‑optimized email. Public Wi‑Fi and transit connectivity sustain high engagement throughout the borough.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Kings County (Brooklyn), NY — scale, users, demographics, and infrastructure, with how it differs from New York State

Headline scale and user estimates

• Population and households: 2,736,074 residents (2020 Census); roughly 1.02 million households (ACS 2022).
• Estimated smartphone users (2024):
  • Adults: 78% of residents are 18+ (2.14M). Applying recent U.S. adult smartphone adoption (~90%), Brooklyn has about 1.93 million adult smartphone users.
  • Youth: Of the under‑18 population (22%), about 13–17-year-olds are ~6% of the total (≈0.17M) with ~95% smartphone adoption (0.16M). Ages 8–12 are another 6% (≈0.17M) with ~43% adoption (0.07M).
  • Total estimated smartphone users: approximately 2.15 million Brooklyn residents use a smartphone.
• Connectivity at home (ACS, “Computer and Internet Use,” 2022):
  • Any broadband (wired or cellular): roughly mid‑80s percent of households.
  • Cellular data only (smartphone or hotspot, no wired plan): about one in five Brooklyn households, versus closer to one in ten statewide.
  • No home Internet subscription: low‑teens percent in Brooklyn vs high‑single‑digits to ~10% statewide.
  • Insight: Brooklyn residents are materially more likely than the New York State average to rely on mobile connectivity as their primary or only home internet.

Demographic breakdown of mobile usage and reliance

• Age: Brooklyn skews younger than the state median; youth and working‑age adults are core to very high smartphone penetration. Seniors (65+) comprise roughly mid‑teens percent of the population; with U.S. senior smartphone adoption now in the 70s percent, Brooklyn has several hundred thousand senior smartphone users, but senior adoption remains below younger cohorts, sustaining a residual digital gap.
• Race/ethnicity: Brooklyn’s diversity (roughly one‑third White non‑Hispanic, just under one‑third Black, about one‑fifth Hispanic/Latino, and low‑teens Asian) tracks with national findings that Black and Hispanic adults are more likely to be “smartphone‑only” internet users than White adults. This, plus neighborhood income variation, helps explain Brooklyn’s higher mobile‑only rates versus the state.
• Immigration and language: About one‑third of Brooklyn residents are foreign‑born, and well over two‑fifths speak a language other than English at home. That demographic composition correlates with heavier use of mobile messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp, WeChat, Telegram) and prepaid or bring‑your‑own‑device plans, reinforcing mobile‑first usage patterns compared with older, more suburban statewide populations.
• Income: Median household income in Brooklyn is below the statewide median. Lower‑income households are more likely to prioritize mobile plans over wired broadband and to participate in affordability programs; the 2024 wind‑down of the federal ACP subsidy disproportionately impacts Brooklyn’s mobile‑reliant households compared with the state overall.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (Brooklyn specifics)

• Mobile networks:
  • All three national carriers provide dense 4G LTE and wide mid‑band 5G coverage across Brooklyn’s neighborhoods; mmWave 5G is concentrated in high‑traffic nodes (downtown Brooklyn, around major venues, business districts).
  • The borough’s high density has driven one of the state’s heaviest deployments of small cells on street furniture and rooftops, improving capacity but making performance sensitive to streetscape and building geometry.
• Transit and public connectivity:
  • Subway connectivity is substantially built out across Brooklyn stations and tunnels as part of the citywide 5G/4G program, shifting a meaningful share of mobile usage to underground environments during commuting hours—an advantage over most of the state.
  • LinkNYC kiosks and other municipal/public Wi‑Fi assets are concentrated along commercial corridors, offloading traffic and providing zero‑cost access points that reduce barriers for mobile‑only households.
• Fixed broadband alternatives that shape mobile usage:
  • Verizon Fios and Optimum (Altice) are the primary wired ISPs, with building‑by‑building variation; fixed‑wireless home internet (5G) from major carriers is available in many ZIP codes and is adopted as a lower‑cost alternative, especially in buildings without fiber.
  • The combination of widespread 5G, fixed‑wireless home internet, and public Wi‑Fi creates a richer mobile‑centric access environment than typical for the state.

How Brooklyn’s trends differ from New York State

• Higher smartphone reliance:
  • A larger share of households are cellular‑only or smartphone‑only for home internet (about one in five in Brooklyn vs roughly one in ten statewide). This is driven by income mix, housing stock (MDUs with uneven wiring), and robust mobile coverage that makes mobile‑only viable.
• Denser 5G build and utilization:
  • Brooklyn has materially denser small‑cell and mid‑band 5G deployment than most of the state, with meaningful mmWave pockets and comprehensive subway coverage, supporting higher urban mobile data consumption and better peak‑hour capacity relative to upstate metros and suburbs.
• Stronger prepaid and OTT messaging footprint:
  • Relative to the statewide average, Brooklyn sees higher usage of prepaid plans and international OTT messaging among multilingual and immigrant communities, which, combined with public Wi‑Fi, drives distinct traffic patterns (more messaging/video calling, less traditional voice).
• Wider intra‑county disparities:
  • Compared with statewide averages, Brooklyn exhibits sharper neighborhood‑level contrasts in mobile dependence and affordability. Areas with lower incomes or older housing stock show markedly higher mobile‑only rates and greater sensitivity to changes in subsidies (e.g., the ACP wind‑down), even as wealthier tracts approach near‑universal multi‑device connectivity.

Key takeaways

• Roughly 2.15 million Brooklyn residents use smartphones, and mobile phones are the primary internet on‑ramp for about 20% of households—significantly above the statewide norm.
• Brooklyn’s younger, more diverse, and more immigrant‑rich population, combined with dense 5G deployment, public Wi‑Fi, and strong transit connectivity, sustains a mobile‑first usage pattern that is distinctly more pronounced than the New York State profile.
• Policy and market shifts that affect mobile affordability or capacity (e.g., subsidy programs, spectrum availability, small‑cell permitting) have outsized effects in Brooklyn because of its higher mobile‑only dependence and denser day‑to‑day mobile usage.

Social media usage in Kings County (Brooklyn), NY — concise snapshot

How these figures were derived

• Population baselines from ACS/Census; platform percentages from recent U.S. adult benchmarks (Pew Research and similar 2023–2024 studies). Where county-specific platform shares are not published, estimates apply national urban rates to Kings County’s age mix; ranges reflect that uncertainty. Brooklyn’s younger, immigrant-heavy profile tends to lift Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, and Snapchat a few points above the U.S. average.

User stats

• Population: ~2.6 million residents
• Adults (18+): ~2.0–2.1 million
• Adult social media users: ~1.45–1.55 million (roughly 72–76% of adults)
• Teens (13–17): ~0.16–0.18 million; social media penetration ~95%+

Age breakdown (share using any social media; adults)

• 18–29: ~84–90%
• 30–49: ~80–86%
• 50–64: ~70–76%
• 65+: ~40–50%
• Teens 13–17: ~95%+ (YouTube ~95%+, TikTok and Instagram each ~60%+; Snapchat ~55–60%)

Gender breakdown

• Population: ~52–53% female, ~47–48% male
• Usage tendencies: women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on X (Twitter), Reddit, and slightly on YouTube. Overall user mix roughly mirrors the population (about 51–53% female share of users).

Most-used platforms (adults; estimated share using platform)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 64–69%
• Instagram: 48–55% (upper end likely in Brooklyn)
• TikTok: 33–38% (upper end likely in Brooklyn)
• WhatsApp: 25–35% (notably above U.S. average given large immigrant/diaspora communities)
• Snapchat: 25–30% (higher among under-35s)
• LinkedIn: 27–32% (concentrated among 25–49, professionals)
• Pinterest: 28–32% (skews female)
• X (Twitter): 20–24%
• Reddit: ~18–22% (skews male, 18–34)

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Messaging-first communities: Heavy reliance on WhatsApp (plus Telegram/WeChat in specific language groups) for school, tenant, mutual-aid, and neighborhood coordination.
• Video-first consumption: Short-form dominates discovery (TikTok, Instagram Reels); YouTube for deeper research and connected-TV viewing.
• Local discovery and commerce: Strong use of Instagram and TikTok for restaurants, nightlife, arts; Facebook Groups/Marketplace for buy–sell–trade and community swap; event spikes on weekends.
• Multi-platform stacking: Under-35s typically run IG + TikTok + YouTube; 35+ center on Facebook + YouTube, adding WhatsApp for coordination.
• Private sharing norms: High use of Stories/Close Friends on Instagram and ephemeral posts on Snapchat among younger adults.
• Activism and civic use: Mobilization via Instagram Stories and X; WhatsApp broadcasts in diaspora networks during elections, school, and public-safety events.
• Creator-driven influence: Dense creator ecosystem in Williamsburg, Bushwick, DUMBO, and Downtown; cross-posting to Reels/Shorts extends reach for local businesses.
• Language diversity: Multilingual content and captions perform better; WhatsApp/WeChat/Viber clusters enable rapid information spread across linguistic communities.
• Customer engagement: DM-based customer service is expected for SMBs; fast response times and clear call-to-action links improve conversion.

Notes

• Figures represent best-available, locality-adjusted estimates grounded in nationally vetted data; exact platform counts at the county level are not officially published.