I think that at issue is not the intentions involved, but the side effects. What many people are actually doing when they think they are "spreading knowledge" i

I think that at issue is not the intentions involved, but the side effects. What many people are actually doing when they think they are "spreading knowledge" is just glorified gossip[1]. Not because people intend to, but because it's just as easy to do so as to spread more important information. The network won't stop you. The people won't stop you. If your intent is to do something more or other than gossip, you have to stop yourself. (As with any number of other things.) That is, if you care to. I don't think anybody should feel obligated to care at all about any given issue. But it seems like a lot of people feel trapped between feeling bad about not caring and feeling bad about not doing anything, and squeeze out of that by feeling good about talking about it a lot on the internet. It's one thing to be informed, and to make informed decisions--to do some verb with that information--but if you consider echoing or spreading to be a valid verb for a given kind of information, then you will never have enough. At that point you're just a memetic router somewhere between Maine and Texas[2], busy being idle. [1]:Or scuttlebut, chit-chat, small talk, bull sessions, chatting around the water cooler, bar, or bong. It's a vital part of human social interaction, but as Winer says, not a revolutionary act. [2]:http://www.bartleby.com/73/1540.html http://www.bartleby.com/73/1540.html