Agree with all. > The Internet is revolutionary, but not Utopian. Yes and: This isn't quite right. In political science terms, I want an adjective stronger t

Agree with all. > The Internet is revolutionary, but not Utopian. Yes and: This isn't quite right. In political science terms, I want an adjective stronger than "revolutionary", in the same direction. "Radical" has more punch, but wrong direction. The Internet accelerated consolidation, not challenge it. Back in 1998, I had no awareness of "preferential attachment" and "winner takes all". I currently believe that reducing transaction costs accelerates consolidation and therefore inequity. Many technotopians thought the Internet would be the great liberator, toppling the gatekeepers and elites. Disintermediation! That certainly happened. But what happened was gatekeepers killed off the old guard, feasted on their corpses. The larger trend was a massive consolidation, an unprecedented power grab, and ridiculous transfer of wealth. And previously inconceivable command of our collective attention. Masquerading as personalization, mass customization. Also true is that more heterodoxy is sneaking into the zeitgeist (popular awareness) than ever before. Paradox. How can both phenomenon be simultaneously true? David Graeber in The Democracy Project might have the crucial insight. He's the "We are the %1" guy. He rejects revolution and advocates opportunistically sneaking in reforms in the margins, beyond the awareness and control of the power elites. He claims that authorities cannot control all uses of their mediums. That the very levers of power become the means of dissent. The only metaphor I have for this paradoxical situation is the hands of power trying to grasp fistfuls of sand. The tighter the grip, the more sand leaks out. (Thanks Princess Leia!)