> The developers of hypermedia must reassert the possibility of rational and conscious control over the shape of the digital future. The article was a bit long

> The developers of hypermedia must reassert the possibility of rational and conscious control over the shape of the digital future. The article was a bit long-winded and opaque, but the thesis is strong: Those developing technology often place too much uncritical faith in it. Technology is a means to bettering human life, not an end in itself. We shouldn't be blinded into thinking that there's virtue in progress for progress's sake. There's virtue in progress to the degree that such progress makes our lives more meaningful or better. For example, for the sake of argument imagine that the "natural" endpoint of technological development is a super-powerful weapon that can be constructed by anyone with minimal resources. Then it would be the case that unfettered technological development would lead to the progress trap of the end of civilization. So there's value in not deifying technological progress, and reflecting critically on its impact on humanity. Whatever drives current development of technology (massive defense spending, pressure to automate, academic incentives to first movers) need not lead to good outcomes for humanity in the long run. In particular, the current environment is for haphazard development of technology without questioning its effects. The main idea is that we can and should question technology and technological development -- just as we do any other system of our society. Blind faith in any system is a bad thing, whether it's undue faith in the invisible hand of the market or over-rosy views about technological development.