> But still we praise the internet for everything, from mobilising global protests to creating the latest trends
Except that's true and it's much more apparent today than in 2003. What happens throughout the world is that the mass-media is basically owned by oligarchies, with journalists being sellouts shaming their profession.
And for example, what happened in my country for several times has been mass censorship of opinions and facts that went contrary to the whims of the established power. Not by any decree mind you, it's not that kind of censorship, I'm talking about major television and newspaper channels simply ignoring events or twisting facts in gross manipulation attempts. Imagine 30,000 people protesting on the street with no media coverage. Imagine people standing in line for 8 hours to vote at the London embassy, while the major television channels and the government's spokesman were reporting that there are no lines.
And so in my country at least, the only channel for reaching the truth really is the Internet. And it may be full of shit in general, but that goes with its open nature, as an Internet that isn't full of shit is not the kind of Internet I want.
As to the points raised, those kind of scream "first-world problems". If you have public libraries within reach, stuffed with useful material, you may not realize it, but you're lucky.
I think you are right and the OP comparison is not very relevant.
She (?) compares a library (so a place that stores only the relevant / interesting books) to the internet in general. I mean 90% of everything ever written is probably shit too, it's just not in the library.
However I observe a kind of "wikipedia I know everything" generation, I think it is somewhat connected to the article and it's very sad.
Except that's true and it's much more apparent today than in 2003. What happens throughout the world is that the mass-media is basically owned by oligarchies, with journalists being sellouts shaming their profession.
And for example, what happened in my country for several times has been mass censorship of opinions and facts that went contrary to the whims of the established power. Not by any decree mind you, it's not that kind of censorship, I'm talking about major television and newspaper channels simply ignoring events or twisting facts in gross manipulation attempts. Imagine 30,000 people protesting on the street with no media coverage. Imagine people standing in line for 8 hours to vote at the London embassy, while the major television channels and the government's spokesman were reporting that there are no lines.
And so in my country at least, the only channel for reaching the truth really is the Internet. And it may be full of shit in general, but that goes with its open nature, as an Internet that isn't full of shit is not the kind of Internet I want.
As to the points raised, those kind of scream "first-world problems". If you have public libraries within reach, stuffed with useful material, you may not realize it, but you're lucky.