I'm glad to hear it

I admire very much

Your liberty and fraternity spirit

"Luddism has always been a lame and deep-down hypocritical option"?

The Luddites were not hypocrites -- they were starving. The knitters' livelihoods had been destroyed by the machines, and the only safety net offered was a noose. Byron commented

Some folks for certain have thought it was shocking,
When Famine appeals, and when Poverty groans,
That life should be valued at less than a stocking,
And breaking of frames lead to breaking of bones.
If it should prove so, I trust, by this token,
(And who will refuse to partake in the hope?)
That the frames of the fools may be first to be broken,
Who, when asked for a remedy, sent down a rope.

The benefits of new technology must not go only to the rich and powerful. I'm a techie, but would side with the frame breakers unless we can spread the wealth around.

Stands tallest

In all the land

For any anti-evolutionist seeking irrefutable evidence look no further than any internet discussion forum. Darwin wasn't only wrong, he had it backwards.

I just love me

Some multi-millionaire Bat

That Bruce Vain dude's

Got Blue-Ray

An entertainment center

An Armani Sweater

And All I got

Was a few rocks

'O Batcrack...

how about Batman on blu-ray?

well maybe not

"Childhood's End"

But this Brin dude

Just keeps trippin' off

The Deep End...

The printing press was the greatest invention of the last millennium. Books brought knowledge, history, religion, art to the general population.

Let's hope the internet lives up to it's predecessor.

How cool! The author actually tells most of us were just too stupid to read his stuff. Good for him.

I agree with Mr. Steele below that there are too many false dichotomies in this article. I also do not see much Darwinian evolutionary thinking in it. Essentially, will the Internet help the species survive? Ah, or will the internet help the gatekeepers, like Mr. Wantabe Gatekeeper, Brin, survive?

Yes. It allows more and more people to communicate, even if only in alleged 'stupid' ways. Even drunks at a dinner party sometimes say wonderous things. The internet is truly weird, as weird as humanity. Perhaps you don't like humanity, though?

But on to that 'evolution' thing. If the internet allows us to communicate and organize to defeat global warming, to stop war, to limit religion, to overcome peak oil, to crush the financial rulers of the world, in essence - then it will HELP human evolution by preserving the species. Evolution's aim is survival - and anything that leads us down the path of environmental, social or financial destruction acts against survival.

I see, however, no social concerns from Mr. Brin. So what is his real interest in 'evolution'? Perhaps something far more subtle. Like we are becoming 'enlightened' beings, drifting on seeds of air. But I do agree on that monster Plato.

Ultimately, the ability of Critical Thought is the only thing that can save humanity from the worst of the doomsday scenarios while driving us towards the more positive possible outcomes.

The same has been true of every single mass media format that has come along since the Greek theatre. Those who can absorb, examine and seriously consider material with which they are presented are less likely to be guided exclusively by those materials.

Of course, one could look at the continuing devolution of our mainstream culture and see that this ability is in great danger.

Critical thinking skills have been continuously stripped from public education for years now and the resultant consumers of mass media are less equipped to actively engage and interpret the continuous bombardament of data thrown their way.

If we're really so worried about the implications of new(ish) media, we need to start with education. The more educated the consumer (be it cars, food, clothing or information), the less likely it is that they will be mindlessly herded from one pre-set agenda to the next.

including the author of this letter, to read Lawrence Lessing.

"The truth lies somewhere between "Google is making us stupid" and "the Internet will liberate humanity." "

No, it lies outside this dichotomy. As Buckminster Fuller said, there is always a “structural more.” This binary way of thinking is an effect of our modern technological society, especially of our media: everything has “two sides.” No, everything has as many sides as your imagination, intelligence, and creativity can give it. The two sides paradigm of thought is a mind-prison, and one that works very well if you want to be controlled.

New generation of multi-taskers? Multi-tasking is a modern-day phenomenon, thrust upon us by the corporate world in order to increase the productivity of the American worker. It is not a virtue, it is a labor intensifying device. It does not make for any benefits to a serious craftsman, scholar, or whatever. It has nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with quantity.

"A related and even more worrisome trend is the decline of rigorously vetted expert knowledge. … But the very freedom that makes the Internet so attractive also undermines the influence of gatekeepers who used to sift and extol some things over others, helping people to pick gold from dross."

Decline? How many Masters and PhDs are there in the world today as compared to 50 years ago? Decline? I would wager not. The influence of gatekeepers should be undermined, in a liberal, open, democratic society. The gatekeepers should be at our disposal, not the other way around. If I want rigorously vetted expert knowledge, then I know where to go. If I want free and open discussion, and wish to rely on my own powers of judgment, then that should be just a click away. I think the assumption in this paragraph is that we need vetted knowledge for our own good, because we cannot be trusted to vet it for ourselves. Ironically, this is probably more and more true as people become less and less able to think, due mainly to the internet and modern day technology.

"Prioritization is personal, and facts are deemed a matter of opinion."

Yes, they are, by multi-billion dollar corporations staffed with highly educated journalists and reporters. It’s called FOX News. Heard of it? I think they would fall under your category of “gatekeeper.”

"Carr and others worry how 6 billion ships will navigate when they can no longer even agree upon a north star."

What is this “north-star” you speak of? Truth? The ability to distinguish fact from opinion? The ability to distinguish reasoned arguments vs. unreasonable assertions? Or, rather, is this star you speak of a worldview? A New York Times worldview? A Western, U.S.-centric worldview? A pro-capitalist worldview? A Judeo-Christian worldview? I wonder. I wonder what star you are speaking of, because the answer matters. Because personally, I don’t want 6 billion people navigating towards one star. I don’t want an Applebees in every major metropolitan area on the face of the planet. I don’t want 6 billion people believing there is only one valid economic system, there is only one valid political system, there is only one valid historical narrative.

"No, let's make the challenge simpler: Can Shirky or Huffington point to even one stupidity that has been decisively disproved online? Ever?"

Gee, that’s a tough one. That Iraq was a threat the the U.S. (thank your gatekeepers for that stupidity); that GW Bush won the election(s); that Israel wants peace.

"But still, the nutty things never go away, do they? Debunking only serves to damp each fever down a little, for a while, but the infections remain. Every last one of them."

The infections remain, and the nutty things don’t go away, because that is human nature. And often the infections remain, because they started in and remain supported by the mainstream media. Al Gore said he invented the Internet, right?

I am so sick of hearing about markets solving problems. Markets can kiss my ass.

You want a tool that will “test, compare and actually reach some conclusions?” You want a tool that offers “critical appraisal and discourse?” We already have that. It’s called the human mind.

After finishing this article, it just seems to be a paid announcement for the marketization and commoditization of everything on the internet. It is completely disempowering to the individual. Gutenberg invented the printing press, so let’s create a commission of valid pamphlets. Marconi invents the radio, so let’s create the FCC. Television comes along, so let’s monopolize the airwaves with politically-connected owners. Which model do you propose for the internet?

How about we revamp the education system, so that people can write and post and publish whatever the hell they want, and we can relax and rest assured because we have a population of educated, intelligent, critical thinking individuals who can see the wheat from the chaff? Oh, wait, we can’t have that. Then they might not vote for a moron. Then they might realize they are being shafted by their companies. Then they might actually DO SOMETHING.

I grew up with the Great Books in my home, I read the Dancing Wu Li Masters in the sixth grade, and I majored in Computer Engineering in college. I love technology. I love science. I love progress. But we are losing something. That is why I am teaching myself ancient Greek, so I can read Homer in the original. And I will learn to do so with my computer off, not multi-tasking. And I will feel in my hand what it is like to write the ancient letters; I will feel in my throat the words as I speak them; I will feel in my heart the meaning of the poem.

We are losing context. The internet gives you information, not knowledge. The world is not a stream of data, and for those who see it that way, I feel sorry for them, because that world has no soul.