This article deals with Carr's in only the most superficial manner. Carr clearly wasn't saying, 'these two people had mobile technology, therefore people with m

This article deals with Carr's in only the most superficial manner. Carr clearly wasn't saying, 'these two people had mobile technology, therefore people with mobile technology are heartless.' The two people in his examples used mobile technology in the same way, and were both enabled and (according to Carr), motivated by 'citizen journalist' technology to act unethically. You can argue that link, or even argue that it doesn't apply in all cases, but Carr clearly argued for a substantive causal link, a meaningful thread running through: the sort of technologies that involve instantaneous broadcast, the sort of audience and expectations that grow up around those technologies, the behaviors that people develop to fulfill those expectations (and to satisfy their own desires regardless of any audience---the look-at-me-looking-at-this syndrome), and the people who acted unethically in his examples. You may agree or disagree (myself, I think the issue is more cultural, and it may just as well have been a Fox News crew rushing to get a great shot of the suffering)---but Winer is being deeply disingenuous by claiming that Carr's thesis is as simple as his absurd, clumsily constructed Christian-British-Homosexual analogy. I won't claim he's being disgusting, because the step from logical criticism to righteous moral judgment is a precipitous one.