There are libertarians who are concerned about corporate control of these interactions, and they’re not necessarily commies for using the word “collective”. In a lot of ways, Google profits at my (site’s) expense (bandwidth from GoogleBot, to begin with) and it’s correct to point out that just because somebody’s making money off of it doesn’t mean people are empowered in equal fashion (because we don’t live in a free market and the world isn’t fair).

Besides, I really don’t expect an establishment mouthpiece like Time to be honest about my empowerment.

There are libertarians who are concerned about corporate control of these interactions, and they’re not necessarily commies for using the word “collective”. In a lot of ways, Google profits at my (site’s) expense (bandwidth from GoogleBot, to begin with) and it’s correct to point out that just because somebody’s making money off of it doesn’t mean people are empowered in equal fashion (because we don’t live in a free market and the world isn’t fair).

Besides, I really don’t expect an establishment mouthpiece like Time to be honest about my empowerment.

And there certainly is no gain to empowering the fools who lobbied for the DDT ban.

And there certainly is no gain to empowering the fools who lobbied for the DDT ban.

One of us has to be wrong. Which one? DOES IT DEPEND ON EVIDENCE??? Or what’s more popular or appealing?

This is why there’s no great gain in certain areas from the Internet. Because “fools” are “empowered” as much as experts, and there’s more of the former than the latter.

One of us has to be wrong. Which one? DOES IT DEPEND ON EVIDENCE??? Or what’s more popular or appealing?

This is why there’s no great gain in certain areas from the Internet. Because “fools” are “empowered” as much as experts, and there’s more of the former than the latter.

The EU backed off its DDT ban in October, see the Heartland Institute.

So here we have an example of “empowered individuals” doing what they do best, flogging destructive public policies because some Pied Piper has talked them into it, in the name of keeping those rapacious corporations from polluting our air and water.

Where is it written that the “empowered” but still ignorant individual is a better source of sound public policy than the expert, whether said expert works for an evil corporation or a saintly non-profit?

Of course, we’ve seen this dynamic many times before: the whole net neutrality scare was another example of ignorant people rising up to protest an essentially beneficial evolution in Internet services. Fools have always found ways to make themselves heard, and it’s sad that the Internet makes it so much easier.

The EU backed off its DDT ban in October, see the <a href=”http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19127
” rel=”nofollow”>Heartland Institute.

So here we have an example of “empowered individuals” doing what they do best, flogging destructive public policies because some Pied Piper has talked them into it, in the name of keeping those rapacious corporations from polluting our air and water.

Where is it written that the “empowered” but still ignorant individual is a better source of sound public policy than the expert, whether said expert works for an evil corporation or a saintly non-profit?

Of course, we’ve seen this dynamic many times before: the whole net neutrality scare was another example of ignorant people rising up to protest an essentially beneficial evolution in Internet services. Fools have always found ways to make themselves heard, and it’s sad that the Internet makes it so much easier.

Express *what* and *how*? Empowering marketers to sell better, and data-miners to find the buzz, is not very helpful in *building* *civic* *society*. Confusing these senses of the word, making the former seem to stand for the latter, is a very profitable profession.

Richard: What you claimed about DDT is completely wrong. It’s not even debatable. It’s a right-wing Urban Legend. Here’s a comprehensive DDT ban refutation.

Now, in terms of empowerment, did that do any good? You’re empowered to spread nonsense, and I’m empowered to post the correction – but what’s the result? Does the myth or the truth spread faster?

Express *what* and *how*? Empowering marketers to sell better, and data-miners to find the buzz, is not very helpful in *building* *civic* *society*. Confusing these senses of the word, making the former seem to stand for the latter, is a very profitable profession.

Richard: What you claimed about DDT is completely wrong. It’s not even debatable. It’s a right-wing Urban Legend. Here’s a comprehensive DDT ban refutation.

Now, in terms of empowerment, did that do any good? You’re empowered to spread nonsense, and I’m empowered to post the correction – but what’s the result? Does the myth or the truth spread faster?

So it’s not about your reviews on Amazon. It’s about how we as a community of Web users choose to exercise our collective wills and forge collective consciousnesses. So far, we have declined to do so. We have not harnessed this communicative power to force the rich and powerful to stop polluting our air and water or to stop the spread of AIDS or malaria. We have not brought down any tyrants. We have simply let a handful of new corporations aggregate and exercise their own will on us.

Sounds like a communist to me.

BTW, I understand that DDT will be used once again to combat malaria in Africa. That’s good news because it’s the only effective tool for stopping malaria mosquitoes, but it was discontinued after The People of the West determined it wasn’t fashionable (Rachel Carson, the US enviros, etc.)

This is case where the people were wrong and Dow Chemical was right. Millions of African babies have died because of this exercise of “Collective Will Forcing the Rich and Powerful to Toe the Mark.”

So it’s not about your reviews on Amazon. It’s about how we as a community of Web users choose to exercise our collective wills and forge collective consciousnesses. So far, we have declined to do so. We have not harnessed this communicative power to force the rich and powerful to stop polluting our air and water or to stop the spread of AIDS or malaria. We have not brought down any tyrants. We have simply let a handful of new corporations aggregate and exercise their own will on us.

Sounds like a communist to me.

BTW, I understand that DDT will be used once again to combat malaria in Africa. That’s good news because it’s the only effective tool for stopping malaria mosquitoes, but it was discontinued after The People of the West determined it wasn’t fashionable (Rachel Carson, the US enviros, etc.)

This is case where the people were wrong and Dow Chemical was right. Millions of African babies have died because of this exercise of “Collective Will Forcing the Rich and Powerful to Toe the Mark.”

Thanks for taking the time to comment, and I apologize if I misunderstood your article. The line about knee-jerking and old fogeyism was uncalled for, and I should have left it out. And I think you’re right that we have much about which we agree.

But I do think that there’s an ideological divide of sorts here. I tend to see empowerment in individual terms. So while Time certainly engaged in a bit of hyperbole, I think that their point is basically right–enabling the individual to express him or herself more effectively is inherently empowering. You seem to see the community, rather than the individual, as the unit of empowerment.

I also think I’m less worried than you about the effects of corporate control over the means of online communication. Although MySpace, YouTube, et al are certainly making a healthy profit, it seems to me that their control over the content they host is quite limited. It’s not obvious that those sites would be much different if they were organized more like Wikipedia or Craig’s List. And because there is such a proliferation of alternative communications channels, I think there’s less and less reason to be worried about concentration of the mainstream media.

Your books are on my list of books to read, and I’m looking forward to doing so. Unfortunately, it’s a rather long list, so it will probably be a while before I get to them.

Thanks for taking the time to comment, and I apologize if I misunderstood your article. The line about knee-jerking and old fogeyism was uncalled for, and I should have left it out. And I think you’re right that we have much about which we agree.

But I do think that there’s an ideological divide of sorts here. I tend to see empowerment in individual terms. So while Time certainly engaged in a bit of hyperbole, I think that their point is basically right–enabling the individual to express him or herself more effectively is inherently empowering. You seem to see the community, rather than the individual, as the unit of empowerment.

I also think I’m less worried than you about the effects of corporate control over the means of online communication. Although MySpace, YouTube, et al are certainly making a healthy profit, it seems to me that their control over the content they host is quite limited. It’s not obvious that those sites would be much different if they were organized more like Wikipedia or Craig’s List. And because there is such a proliferation of alternative communications channels, I think there’s less and less reason to be worried about concentration of the mainstream media.

Your books are on my list of books to read, and I’m looking forward to doing so. Unfortunately, it’s a rather long list, so it will probably be a while before I get to them.

Noel and Seth have done a very good job explaining my column in response to your comments. But I am afraid that you still misunderstand it.

I hope you did not deliberately misread my article to score some points against liberals like myself.

I was complaining about Time’s simplistic hyperbole about the “you” revolution. My criticisms were of Time, not Google. I am no enemy of Google (albeit I remain a critic). And I am certainly no enemy of capitalism, market relations, or — for heaven’s sake — the Internet!

I laughed when you accused me of “knee-jerk liberalism and old-fogeyism.” I recently turned 40, so I should have cried, I guess. No, real “knee-jerkers” don’t agree with me on much. And I suppose growing up with the PC and the Internet and programming hangman on a Commodore Pet computer in 1982 qualifies me as an “old fogey.” Following technology for 25 years certainly has made me allergic to hyperbole and ahistorical bombast.

You and I concur about the potential liberatory effects of the Internet and social production.

We agree that being able to keep in touch with friends is remarkable and important, but it has had effects that are both positive and negative. “Empowerment” is debatable. I would like to see it rather than merely hope for it or declare it.

You can read my views at some length in my books. I think you would find we agree more than we differ.

Noel and Seth have done a very good job explaining my column in response to your comments. But I am afraid that you still misunderstand it.

I hope you did not deliberately misread my article to score some points against liberals like myself.

I was complaining about Time’s simplistic hyperbole about the “you” revolution. My criticisms were of Time, not Google. I am no enemy of Google (albeit I remain a critic). And I am certainly no enemy of capitalism, market relations, or — for heaven’s sake — the Internet!

I laughed when you accused me of “knee-jerk liberalism and old-fogeyism.” I recently turned 40, so I should have cried, I guess. No, real “knee-jerkers” don’t agree with me on much. And I suppose growing up with the PC and the Internet and programming hangman on a Commodore Pet computer in 1982 qualifies me as an “old fogey.” Following technology for 25 years certainly has made me allergic to hyperbole and ahistorical bombast.

You and I concur about the potential liberatory effects of the Internet and social production.

We agree that being able to keep in touch with friends is remarkable and important, but it has had effects that are both positive and negative. “Empowerment” is debatable. I would like to see it rather than merely hope for it or declare it.

You can read my views at some length in my books. I think you would find we agree more than we differ.

Now, maybe you’re not as impressed with those forms of empowerment as I am. But then our disagreement doesn’t have anything to do with whether I’m “fanatically fixated” on business. We just evaluate the value of these services differently. I happen to think that being able to keep in touch with friends who live a thousand miles away is pretty empowering.

But I don’t think they’re empowering because they’re commercial companies. I’m equally excited about commercial sites like MySpace and YouTube and about non-commercial sites like Wikipedia and Craigslist. I’m excited about them because I think they let users do some extremely useful things that they could never do before.

Now, maybe you’re not as impressed with those forms of empowerment as I am. But then our disagreement doesn’t have anything to do with whether I’m “fanatically fixated” on business. We just evaluate the value of these services differently. I happen to think that being able to keep in touch with friends who live a thousand miles away is pretty empowering.

But I don’t think they’re empowering because they’re commercial companies. I’m equally excited about commercial sites like MySpace and YouTube and about non-commercial sites like Wikipedia and Craigslist. I’m excited about them because I think they let users do some extremely useful things that they could never do before.

Maybe you sould add an ad to this site. Then people like Seth wouldn’t post their incomprehensible, pointless diatribe because they’d think that you’re also in this to make pots of money rather than facilitate and cultivate intelligent discussions.

It’s a poor man who blames the tools for the results of how they are used.

Maybe you sould add an ad to this site. Then people like Seth wouldn’t post their incomprehensible, pointless diatribe because they’d think that you’re also in this to make pots of money rather than facilitate and cultivate intelligent discussions.

It’s a poor man who blames the tools for the results of how they are used.

The whole point of SV’s article is that those companies are the ones empowered, not “You” (as in civic society) – but this just isn’t getting across.
Because the *concept* isn’t there.

The whole point of SV’s article is that those companies are the ones empowered, not “You” (as in civic society) – but this just isn’t getting across.
Because the *concept* isn’t there.