Am I Nazi?

And so I got Truthified by Colbert. First of all, the Truthificator got me to confess publicly, in front of Colbert-nation, that I'm an elitist. Then he got me to acknowledge that the Internets (sic) is worse than the Nazis.

But Colbert didn't take the next  logical step that would have revealed my real identity.  The grand Truthpoobah failed to ask me the all-important question, the one that would have the most appalling truth about me. If I'm an elitist and the Internets (sic) is worse than the Nazis, then doesn't that make me a full-blown National Socialist -- maybe a senior level SS officer or even a member of the Fuhrer's inner circle, an anti digital Goebbels or Himmler?

So am I really a Nazi?

I'm not saying -- not here, not on a sad little blog (even if it's my own sad little blog). But if Colbert has me onto his show again, I'll tell him. He can ask me anything; I'll confess all to the Truthmonster.

What a pathetically ingratiating way to worm another invitation onto the Colbert Report, eh?

And in such poor taste.

Comments

[Hector Torvisque]

You didn't come across very well. I don't think your argument stands up to scrutiny. Have you really thought it through? Are you just hoping to make some money out of being a gadfly? And you got a pretty thorough dressingdown on BookTV...

[Anthony Licari]

I just saw the rerun interview and I really don't think it's the amateur that's doing this. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur. I think, to get more specific, it's the pretentious amateur's that are killing the internet. The internet feeds everyone's existential ego and people demand to be listened to, without earning that position.

All I'm saying is there are two types of amateurs. All professionals were amateurs at one point. I agree and disagree. If we are still here in 30 years in your logic there would be no new journalists to replace the dying ones.

Pretentious amateurs vs. gifted amateurs.

[The Random Artist]

Andrew,

Your blog, work, and image is destroying our culture. You make claims that the internet is destroying the work of artists around the world yet you own AndrewKeen.com? You make claims about blogs and the destruction of the modern day artist, yet you sit behind your monitor and type on your little stupid keyboard plugging away at your blog? You make me sick. I also saw you later on the Colbert Show. While I initially thought I couldn't be more upset with how you represent our country, I have to watch you drag the entire country through the mud, with your elitist type behavior. Bah!

Being this blog is registered, and you don't want to be exposed for exactly what you are I'm sure I'll never see this comment appear below your blog. There is no way possible that I could have stronger beliefs in that you lack ANY reputable knowledge of the internet.

[James]

So let me get this correct, the internet is killing out culture and economy, correct? But then you allow your book to be sold on the internet which will more than likely judging from previous sales account for roughly 80% of your sales. Also, I'm making this comment directly onto your "sad little blog" which is on the terrible internet that you have proclaimed is responsible for "online poker, child pornography, identity theft and betraying "Judeo-Christian ethics."" So you yourself are contributing to the big bad internet that acts like a monster practically according to your judgments.

Judging from your demeanor and your ideals I would say you are a modern day nazi.

[TRS]

Internets... that's Bushism.

When you decide to go to Colbert City, you better be prepared, don't fight him, join the ride.

[Ryan]

I am curious as to Andrew Keen's definition of Art? It seems to me that all he is preaching that "Artists" are complaining about not getting their cut because they believe they are the only ones allowed to publish any art once so ever. That is why I am curious as to what exactly is Mr. Keen's true definition because I believe the real definition of art is human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas and if you look closely you will find no mention of money nor anything regarding the fact the only the "Real" artist is only allowed to publish. I am sorry sir I believe that your ego has surpassed your logical processes.

[Justin Davey]

It's sad that Mr.Keen attracts more attention for his abrasive personality than his ideas. The more I look at his blog, which has become an argument in the correct definition of his person, rather than an intelligent conversation, the more I can see where his ideas put forth in "The Cult Of The Amateur" can ring true. His being sucked in to the trend of publishing useless content on the web, however, I find greatly discredits his thinking.

[Paulo]

Why did you do this, Mr Keen?

I thought your book is important - but now you're the guy who said "The Internet is worse than the Nazis" !

Nobody will remember anything else.

Pity.

[BobbyJohnson]

You know, this is a pretty good strategy, making a sh!tty blog like this shows why there should be know blogs. If you hate teh internetz, get off of them.

[Torris]

Well I just saw the episode like 10 minutes ago. I actually have several problems with your debate. First of all how can the internet be a bad thing? It gives millions of people that wouldn't otherwise have money or a job money and a job. It saves lives each and everyday. Yes, there are many people who lose money because their work is being traded freely over the internet, but often that is just good publicity. I know of several people that will test out music online and then go buy the CD. Even if not as many people are buying their music, they are still making a ton of money. Also the internet gives people who have no money to advertise their work a way to show people what they can do. Another thing is that when looking for facts on the internet there are official sites where you can find the actual facts that are written in books. If you are looking for information it's generally not a good idea to go to an unoffical site. Even Wikipedia is a bad place to go for information cause it can be changed by anyone. Anyways, you are a nazi. You want there to be seperate classes, and since there aren't any on the internet you whine about it. Good luck being an "Elitist"

[Azukaimon]

I just watched your interview with Colbert on another blog, similar to yours, and I found it interesting, as well as the comments following it. You make an interesting argument, in fact one that I've made before, but I have given up on for the same reason yours did not do well on the Colbert Report. Namely, it couldn't stand up to the scrutiny of our own culture, the culture of the individual. Sorry, but I have a habit of referring to my culture, American, as world culture. The internet is bringing down cultural walls, and I'm actually excited to see what will happen once our current societies fall in the wake of a unified society.

Quenton, 16, Indiana

[Tobias Koeck]

I´ve watched your interview with Steven Colbert.

As an Internet/IT expert I can´t see where you´ve got any idea about the Internet?

You globally blame Web 2.0 for Poker and child pornography - it´s absolutely ridiculous.

The Internet has expanded culture over the world. People can communicate and create art in a team (or improve their skills). All the old literature and art (like Shakespeare) is freely available in the Internet.

Surely you can find a lot of crappy stuff in the Internet. But this is the same for books and music.

Greetings
Tobias

PS: For an 'Internet Expert' you should at least got your website running (bio and contact link doesn´t work) - or get out of the (evil) Internet completly ...

[Joe]

You have an incredibly narrow view of things. The biggest boom of worldwide communication and idea sharing in history is killing our culture?

You sir are an idiot. Please don't feel large for this 5 minutes of attention either; I only came here to post this from a link by someone flaming you on (you guessed it) YouTube...

I don't really care if you don't publish this -- it was to you alone.

[Adam Gresty]

You certainly seem to have set a cat amongst the pigeons. For me, your central thesis strikes a very real chord and I appreciate you being brave enough to pull the pin and throw it at people. I'll be reading the book.

Experience wise I'm a bit of a jack of all trades. I've worked alot in the music industry but also quite separately in the print magazine industry. And, in the last year or so I've been working almost 100% online.

Whether Web 2.0 evangelists admit or even realise it or not, I can add testimony to your observation on social sites like Digg and Reddit. Spending any time on these sites and a trained nose will notice the increasingly strong scent of press releases, negative PR campaigns and stories which read an awful lot like advertorials.

The single biggest, most important and most diffcult part of my day job as a magazine editor and publisher is policing the line between editorial and commerical content. Commercial clients are always looking to cross that line, always looking for more real estate within the publication that will deliver them increased ROI. They see advertorials as some kind of trojan horse. But to a reader having an editor you can trust to minimise these kind of incursions into editorial territory is everything. So a "creative friction" arises that is often not for the faint hearted editor. That line has to be policed forcefully at times and BEFORE the magazine goes to print. Readers are too time poor with too many other choices of what to pick up and read for you to expect them to edit out any conflicts of interest after they've finished reading.

But, despite promising an environment where user power polices that same line for us, that's not quite how web 2.0 works as an experience. "Oh come back in a day or two, and if the story was actually just some clumsily disguised press release or even just badly written it'll have gotten buried", "Trust in the wisdom of the crowd".

Well, I'm not sure people have TIME to trust the wisdom of the crowd. Perhaps if there was only half as much content out there to launder the crowd would be able to rinse away the crap a bit quicker, but as Keen points out the other "benefit" of Web 2.0 is that the amount of content to be edited is growing exponentially. Lots of content being produced, very quickly, but not alot of editing being done, and not quickly enough.

Which is why I agree with your call for a re-dedication to the value of professional editors and other mediators along the value chain. They act as filters and users retain their voting power by choosing which editors to trust. Or not. Whilst enjoying the benefits of digitised everything.

My last point is by way of example. The British Broadcasting Corporation is, I think, many people would concede one of the most independent, most respected and most awarded television and radio broadcasters in the world. It's breadth and depth of output is rarely matched in terms of quality or consistency. Whilst it is very successfully growing it's revenues from the syndication and distribution of it's content digitally, traditionally the majority of it's funding comes from UK viewers paying an annual television license fee. This model is increasingly rare in media, with no line between editorial and advertising to police. Which creates a real trust in the BBC. As a user you know there is no commercial client holding the BBC to ransome over running advertorials. And the subsequent quality of the BBC's ouput is no coincidence. The BBC has to deliver to it's users, but it's content isn't generated by them. Imagine how that would be...the BBC becoming a community cable channel.

So how much of YouTube's traffic is driven by it's fantastic content and how much is driven by the seductiveness of access to a potential worldwide audience. The seduction that you talk about. Will one day YouTube offer the kind of quality that the BBC does? Can a search algorithm offer the same kind of editing discipline for time poor users that heads of programming, commisioning editors, producers, directors and whole teams of trained technicians and professional marketers can?

[rhetoric assassin]

that's right and you even censor your comments also. I knew you would never post mine, because you could not even back up your own statements without inherently seeing your own fallacies in your arguments...

so yeah, you are digital hitler.

pathetic, are you afraid of the amateurs? If you are such big, tough journalist (ha) and failed musician why don't you leave the comments that us so-called amateurs that have a successful career whilst your only recourse is bogus sensationalism claiming that our culture is being destroyed by more intellectual people than you?

well I am glad Colbert made you look like the total ass you are, a pretentious pseudo-elitist. Your body language gave it all away. You would not even show the man who gave you your platform to sell your drivel the respect he deserved by even facing him. Your self-aggrandizing attitude and holier-than-thou demeanor was obvious to people who read real information from books from acclaimed professionals that should have taken your spot on Colbert's show.

so i dare you to even post this, and bring back the comment that I posted. But you are a wuss, who would not be able to stand on his arguments in a real debate, instead the show that is mainly derived for entertainment.

so good luck selling your book, i am sure you wont even get the chance to sell as many as your failed records.
I hope your fifteen minutes was worth, I am sure your little blog traffic you f-ing hypocrite thanks you.

[Dr. Tobias Broffingdock]

You sir are a nazi. You claim the internet is destroying our culture yet you have a blog and a website. You claim that the internet is worse then the nazis however you use the internet as a stepping stone to get your message across to the masses. You also claim the internet is stealing art and putting artists out of business. The internet produces more original content a day then any other form of media. I find it sickening that you make such claims, as a veteran of the internet yes i have seen things stolen but is it putting artists out of work? No. If anything the internet is spreading the word about the artist and encouraging people to do more research and support the artist. Your claims have no backbone and are to be quite frank preposterous.

Thank you for time,
Dr. Tobias Broffingdock

[Sandy Wall]

Bravo Andrew,

Your book is first rate and I salute your iconoclasm. The fact that a majority of the talkbacks are ungrammatical flames proves your argument in spades.

Keep giving `em hell!

[Mike]

Some artists made it through with the Internet when other so called elitist editing companies wouldn't recognize their talent. I run a French webcomics festival where lots of young amazingly talented authors got to reach an audience thanks to their blog, then managed to quit their job and live from their art (and they also made money with advertizing and merchandizing, you know kinda like with tv and magazine and radio... the ones you're used to)
Do you know anything from the Internet ? Don't you know the differences between using Internet to steal and just using Internet ? If it's destroying our culture, why do so many members of the elite you describe have their sites and blogs ? If it's ruining the economy why do major corporations invest billions in it ?

No I'm not gonna buy your book to find out... hope you'll sell a lot on Amazon...

[Eric Gauvin]

Mr. Keen, sir!
I have one thing to say 2 u, sir!
u SIR r an "elitist"!!! (and you have a BLOG!!!???)

SIR!

[robert]

Hey i read your book. I am a musician. Thus making me an artist. Being an artist is about expressing yourself via whatever medium you choose. I have always believed that being an artist has never been about making money or living some kind of famed existence. its about having a chance for someone who shares your ideas or sentiment to have a chance to share your experience. the net does that whether its moronic or not it gives the people a chance to say if they like it or not and pass it on into our culture.

[Seth Finkelstein]

Candidly, I think you were out of your league on Colbert's show. It was very evident. It's extremely easy to take a sharp stick the Web 2.0 beehive and jab them with roughly "You're all a bunch of THIEVING COMMIE PIRATES!". But Colbert specializes in parodying populist blowhards. So you go through your poking routine, and what would create fireworks at the, forgive me, amateur-level blog circuit, just dies in the TV comedy environment.

I don't think I can tell you how to "improve your game" - but I can definitely see where it doesn't work.

[Frank]

Andrew;

I saw your interview on Colbert and it surprised me a bit because it was so inconsistent with my own reality. A long-time "netzien" since 1992, I have found the www to make art far more accessible to me - and yes, that includes BUYING art. Be it original artworks, lithographs, novels or photography, I could list out an enormous catalogue of art that I have _purchased_ and been introduced to by my peers on the web. Unlike in years past when a brilliant but unrecognized artist could struggle for a liftime in obscurity, the www offers a means to connect the artist and a potential audiece - even a world away.

Further, I think your argument that Colbert's content is being "stolen" is spurious in that the clips of Colbert/TDS that you see on YouTube and its ilk do in fact enrich Colbert & Stewart. They serve as advertising and a promotional vehicle to drive ongoing interest and develop new interest in the shows - building audience and therefore enabling Colbert/TDS to command higher prices from advertisers.

To judge by the interview, you seem to think that everyone is stealing all the art to be found on the web, which is also inconsistent with my own experience and that of those around me. I'm not ashamed to say I download "stolen" music, but I also _purchase_ the music if I listen more than a handful of times. Would I have bought that same music had I not the ability to "try before I buy"? Probably not. Do I think that the record companies effectively rape artists and hope that the internet will continue to erode their distribution? Absolutely! let the artists be compensated _fairly_ for their work!

But, what do I know? I've only managed a $1B/yr ecommerce site.

I think you did a wonderful job of utilizing the promotional opportunity that Colbert presented you with but in my case you effectively neutralized any interest I may have had in your book.

Frank

[Eric Gauvin]

@Seth

How would you have liked it to play out?

I don't think it was so bad. I thought the "loath" part was slightly cute... I don't think it was "very evident" he was out of his league. I think Stephen Colbert interviewing any thoughtful author would be a very awkward situation. If anybody is "poking the web 2.0 beehive" it's the Colbert Report, which is obviously looking for something outlandish and simple to grasp to titillate his excitable and loyal fans. I think it's easy to see that this was all fun and games.

[Ole Christian R]

Sadly you strike me as the biggest kind hypocrite; a published amateur. It's rubbish books like yours' that wash out our culture and hinder good writers getting published.

Furthermore; your blog is too pretentious, you should leave blogging too for the benefit of more talented writers. The way I see it now - you are the biggest kind of amateur!

[Brandon LaRocque]

I saw your interview, and I thought, you know, this guy isn't no fool. I'm not used to seeing idiots blathering on about something that actually helps many societies come together as one, and it does, because here, from my computer, I can correspond with friends and partners from halfway around the world, and the different accents can't get in the way of conversation.

I don't understand how you can claim to know about the internet more than anyone else, although, reading about you and reading your blog, you were part of some circle of some sort, I'm not sure, because I still haven't had my coffee. (haha).
Anyways, I'm just wondering, why do you claim that the internet is such a bad thing, if you have a blog, a website, and you sell your books online? It just seems a tad too ironic that you'd do that and claim such things.

I really do hope you contact me, because I'm seriously puzzled. I would love a mind-refreshment (and a coffee.). Please, e-mail me at tcoffeep@hotmail.com

[Seth Finkelstein]

@Eric

I'm not going to do gag-writing for Andrew Keen (for that, he needs professionals! :-))

The point is that the Colbert Report is a satirical show, and the sort of cheap pompousness that gets up the noses of Web 2.0 boosters, looks pretty pitful playing off someone who is an expert at honing a whole comedic character based on the supposed target.

OF COURSE Colbert makes fun of Web 2.0 darlings. But it's the difference between a dull knife and sharp one. In the skit, he was actually probing a lot of the themes touched on "Cult Of The Amateur", and just getting a kind of one-note smarm in response.

[Toon]

I hope you can still watch yourself in the mirror, this whole sham is a rather embarrassingly transparent attempt at causing controversy to make a quick buck. Come on, you're writing a blog about how bad blogging is, how retarded can you get. Nobody takes you seriously, you're the village idiot.

[Justin Bradley]

You, sir, are the worst kind of person. You believe that only the educated upper class deserve a say in what gets published and what gets swept under the rug. That's the way it's been for years and that's exactly what's so great about Web 2.0: people are sick of it and they're now pioneering an exciting new alternative. There are true artists on the internet, and your lack of understanding for that fact makes me think you're not the "internet expert" you so smugly pride yourself on being. It's true that there is garbage content on YouTube. Such content gets rated with one star and falls into obscurity. At the same time, there are true artists creating original content. Comedy troupes post their shorts, musicians post songs they wrote and performed themselves. If these things are of high quality they will receive high ratings and praise for their work, inspiring them to create more free content and get noticed by the mainstream media you idealize so much. The democratization of the internet means that the people can finally get a direct say in what kind of content they enjoy and would like to see more of. I truly wonder why you place so much importance on art created by professionals. You claim the greatest content comes from those who are paid for their work. Have you forgotten that many of the biggest contributors to our culture were literally starving artists at the time, only receiving widespread fame long after their notable works were created? In my very amateur opinion it seems you are simply bitter. You feel betrayed by the internet and now you are seeking your revenge. You are truly petty, Mr. Keen. I will not call you a Nazi because comparison to you would just belittle what the Nazis were. You're not nearly on the same level as the most evil people of the last century, you're just a little boy in a man's body who likes to pretend he knows more than everybody else.

[REPETITIVE ANONYMOUS TRUTH]

You, sir, are the worst kind of person. You believe that only the educated upper class deserve a say in what gets published and what gets swept under the rug. That's the way it's been for years and that's exactly what's so great about Web 2.0: people are sick of it and they're now pioneering an exciting new alternative. There are true artists on the internet, and your lack of understanding for that fact makes me think you're not the "internet expert" you so smugly pride yourself on being. It's true that there is garbage content on YouTube. Such content gets rated with one star and falls into obscurity. At the same time, there are true artists creating original content. Comedy troupes post their shorts, musicians post songs they wrote and performed themselves. If these things are of high quality they will receive high ratings and praise for their work, inspiring them to create more free content and get noticed by the mainstream media you idealize so much. The democratization of the internet means that the people can finally get a direct say in what kind of content they enjoy and would like to see more of. I truly wonder why you place so much importance on art created by professionals. You claim the greatest content comes from those who are paid for their work. Have you forgotten that many of the biggest contributors to our culture were literally starving artists at the time, only receiving widespread fame long after their notable works were created? In my very amateur opinion it seems you are simply bitter. You feel betrayed by the internet and now you are seeking your revenge. You are truly petty, Mr. Keen. I will not call you a Nazi because comparison to you would just belittle what the Nazis were. You're not nearly on the same level as the most evil people of the last century, you're just a little boy in a man's body who likes to pretend he knows more than everybody else.

[Devil's Advocate]

You're not a Nazi; you're just wrong.

You make several flawed assumptions:

1) The mainstream media (including newspapers & network television) is made up of objective journalists/ reporters who report the truth accurately.

2) The "Experts" make accurate predictions when they are proven wrong again and again on subjects such as politics, the economy, etc.

3) limiting reporting to "experts" will increase literacy and truth.

While these assumptions are not exclusive to your theory of the Internet Destroying our Culture, they are very important baseless assumptions of which you thesis is founded.

[SJ]

I'm fairly convinced that what is destroying our precious culture are all the fame-seeking, fear-mongering narcissists that have benefited from the democratization of book publishing-- that started a couple hundred years ago.

Damn printing press.

This is so very formula. A cultural apocalypse will be brought on by __________ (insert technological, religious, racial, sexual, medical development). We're all going to suffer ______________________ (horrible, never-before-seen fate that will destroy all that is good and pure) unless ____________ (author or leader) is heeded.

The reason hypotheses like this don't survive Colbert is because it depends on fear and anger to make an impact. Satire doesn't really leave much room for that. Skilled, well-executed satire clears out the emotional clutter.

That's it's beauty.

[Dracmus]

Your arguments have so many flaws, it's like Swiss cheese. Here are eight of them (there are probably many, MANY more, but these are the ones that leapt out at me and clawed at my face while I watched the Colbert interview).

1) You seem to equate talent with how much money comes in. Not true. Walk through almost any big city and check out some of those street musicians that live on what gets dropped in the coffee mug -- many are just as talented than the performers at some pretentious, stuffy theater two blocks away.

2) You seem to equate ART itself with how much money comes in. The whole point of art is not money at all. Never was. I'm a musician, and I regularly participate in parades and stuff -- none of which I'm paid for. I'm paid in per diem for marching band trips, the only reason I make a few (circa $10) extra bucks off it is because I know how to be very stingy with it. I don't continue to play music for money at all -- quite the opposite, I've blown a lot on instrument care and private lessons over the years. I continue to play it because I love doing it, and people enjoy hearing it (except when I practice at 2 AM and my roommate gets mad).

3) You seem to think amateurs are a bad thing. Where the heck do you think the professionals all come from, the bloody sky? We're all amateurs until we get the hang of it, and the only person to ever skirt around the necessity of painstakingly learning how to do it was Mozart. And let's face it. Mozart was just awesome like that.

4) You seem to think amateurs threaten the position of professionals and their making money. You're actually right! Of course they do. It's called competition, welcome to the free market. With new talent always joining the fray, you've gotta stay on your game to stay in business. If you and the stuff you sell can't compete in terms of quality with a Newgrounds cartoon created and distributed for free by someone with a better grasp of art than you...well c'est la vie, that's the profession you willingly cast yourself into. If you want to be the only thing available to the public, then yes you are a Nazi.

5) _insert humorous witticism concerning the obvious and oft-referenced incongruity of claiming the evilness of the Internet and blogs ON said Internet and blogs_

6) _same, but concerning the sale of the book about said topic online, because a very good chunk of book sales are indeed online_

7) You seem to think the Internet can only harm professional artists. And to an extent, yes, people do share music and movies a bit more freely than legally intended. However. When files are shared, that functions just as well as free advertising. It's a double-edged sword -- yes, you lose some money in slightly less sales, but seriously; how many advertising companies will let you get six million hits for free? And how many of the usual advertising companies will your average amateur (who you apparently don't want competing with you) be able to afford? Not everyone who downloads content cackles evilly, basks in their theft, then bakes a cake with the words "stickin' it to the MAN!" inscribed on it with icing. A good deal of normal, not-stupid people who download a snippet of music or video think "hey, cool," and go buy the original work!

8) You seem to think, in a bewildering self-contradiction of the assumption in 7), that only the exact opposite will happen for absolute morons; that they will somehow get glorified when they post garbage on the Internet, while only "professionals" suffer its frightening wiles. That doesn't tend to happen, because of a little instinct we humans have that lets us recognize when something really sucks. In reality, morons get ignored. They continue to post garbage, but they continue to get ignored. That's the beauty of a completely free market: consumers don't tend to willingly consume what others defecate out.

Let's apply 7) and 8) to your conversation with Colbert, which you stated would likely get placed on Youtube (it did). The interview gets six million hits. But here's the difference in what happens. The way Colbert smoked you gives him free publicity worldwide (re: 7)). But the way you presented an argument riddled with holes big enough to steer a weather balloon through, whilst simultaneously presenting yourself as a pompous blowhard, convinces many people NOT to buy your book (re: 8)).

So who's the amateur now?

[Larry Sanger]

Hi Andrew,

I just had a look at the Colbert Report video, and I thought it was hilarious. Contrary to Seth, I thought you handled yourself pretty well under the circumstances. I'm sure I'd be absolutely terrified--the man is a comic genius, and he'll make anybody look like a stick in the mud. Actually, it seems to me you were playing the role of the "straight man" pretty well, and that just made it all the more hilarious.

As to the comments above--I mean, wow. I think there are levels of acrimony there that I have never personally experienced. I'm impressed. What makes these reactions and the Colbert appearance hilarious is how much people are taking you seriously (or pretending to). Having read the book and talked to you a fair bit, it's fairly obvious to me that you're sensationalizing--you're fairly transparently setting yourself up as a straw man, so to speak. It's very amusing that people don't actually understand this, and that they take you seriously (or pretend to--but I think most of them really do!).

[John]

Hi Andrew. Your premise regarding all of the background noise on the web is so true. I think that a large part of the answer, in terms of eliminating many of the social ramifications associated with anonymity, will eventually shake itself out as the larger ISP's consolidate. While Net Neutrality may appear on the surface to be objective, society has always benefited by the services resulting from combining resources of large conglomerations. Eventually, priority will be granted to the masses that retrieve data from providers that have the access granted for their traffic, as dictated by market conditions. All in all, content will continually stream toward the center as a result of market economics. Keep up the good work!

~John Galt