steven streight — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:47 GMT

I don’t see “information overload” as any problem whatsoever. There are filters that we use mentally, individually, called web savvy. Thinking and judging is good for the mind and society. Why should information always be easy, simple, and limited?

Information wants to be, and always already is, infinite. There is some increase in information, but also increase in hunger for information, and increase in new ways of distributing and accessing information.

To bewail the abundance of content, to regret the influx of garbage, is not the best use of our time and effort. All communication channels, including fully present speech, is loaded with noise. Not just blogs and YouTube.

steven streight — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:47 GMT

I also take exception with the very dangerous wording of “democratic to a fault” which strongly implies a distrust of “too much” democracy, like “too much” civil rights for blacks, or “too much human rights”, “too much education”, “too much happiness”, or “too much political freedom”.

How is something taken “to a fault”? Is the fault pre-arranged, pre-existing? Or is the fault an outstreaming of a contamination inherent in a corrupt system? Is democracy such a system?

What does it mean to be distant from a fault, and is there safety in distance? If something can be taken “to a fault”, is there not the assumption on the part of the author that that democracy is already “faulty”, since it was vulnerable, perhaps secretly wishing, for this fault to come along and seduce it?

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by steven streight