I do agree with the general sentiment here, that people should try to historically put their lives in context: our instant access to information is unrivaled in

I do agree with the general sentiment here, that people should try to historically put their lives in context: our instant access to information is unrivaled in any history of which we are aware. However, I've written before on the important difference between information and facts (http://tumbledry.org/2009/11/20/when_information_overwhelms http://tumbledry.org/2009/11/20/when_information_overwhelms) -- when the filter for publishing and disseminating bits becomes so low, the onus transfers from the distributors to the consumers for important tasks like fact-checking, context, and bias-hunting. Furthermore, "any piece of knowledge, ever created, accessible literally at our fingertips" is still a stretch -- some of the most valuable information (untranslated, undiscovered diaries, research, historical texts) those remain offline. To tell people that "Google can access any piece of information you can ever think of in 0.15 seconds" is to narrow their understanding of sources for true knowledge and understanding. It's a good article, but one that needed a few caveats. I hope I've provided those.