As a friend of mine has pointed out to me repeatedly, the quality of the Economist's reporting has decreased substantially since they vamped up their online offerings, often pushing stories before they are ready and without the reflection that was the signature of the Economist. This piece is especially disappointing.
The Economist has been pushing out shorter pieces on their website which generally aren't as good as the longer ones that find their way into print. It is possible the need for increased production has stretched the staff and made quality drop across the board; I'm not sure. In some ways it is symptomatic of all web media: greater quantity, shorter time to market, but generally less attached reflection and quality. I see it as akin to Americans general preference for filling their houses with many cheap things instead of fewer better things. I'm not sure if this is a function of the local culture or the capitalist system; either way one hopes to help the web evolve in a better way.
One other deficiency, IMHO, is the slipping ethical standards. One recent Economist article on Mao's management style concluded with an incredibly pessimistic couple sentences about how it doesn't really matter how many unethical things you do, so long as you aren't caught and forced to reckon before you die.
In any case, I stopped reading the Economist cover to cover about a year ago.
"Peer-to-peer applications account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management equipment."
In other news, 90% of internet traffic was found to be dissemination of agenda.
Actually, I have to apologize... I have been using 90% of the internets. I left on my internets switch when I left the house last year. Sorry everyone.
