> People made the same arguments against printing 500 years
> ago. It seems
> rather obvious (to me, anyway) that printing technology
> brought a net gain
> the world, freeing people from getting all their
> information about the world
> beyond their immediate experience from a single source, the
> church, which
> was deeply corrupt.
> Yes, there's a lot of crap being distributed via the
> Internet and very
> likely, the majority of people aren't seeing their
> lives *directly* improved
> by it. It was much the same when printing changed so many
> things. Printers
> printed whatever sold well, regardless of its accuracy and
> truth. Yet the
> impact it had on the literate minority was profound and
> they in turn
> transformed the world for the better for everyone -- if
> only because it
> profoundly demonstrated that people can be trusted with
> information!
> Surely it is ultimately good to have advertising-based
> media lose its
> stranglehold on information. We've lived with
> essentially one point of view
> for decades. Despite the negatives and abuses, I can't
> believe that it is
> not a good thing that access to more viewpoints is not a
> good thing.
> Nick
the information revolution certainly did not begin with computers, the printing
press, the written word, clay tablets, theater, or even the oral tradition.
humans have always tried to define, manipulate and distort the truth.
most of what we call history (another social science) reflects sturgeon's law.
the problem i have with the internet is it is overwhelmingly "too much
information"!~)
another problem i have is now, whenever i apply for a job, i have to arduously
type out on-line applications (pdfs, etc.) when before i could just mail a
resume to get an interview.
jon
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
