Being the cutting-edge, techie geek that I am, I read Wired magazine for the first time about six months ago, only about a decade after the damn thing started. I discovered that this is generally a very good magazine, mainly because not every article is about computers, iPods, and cell phones like I always assumed from its name. It's got lots of short articles about random, cool technological shit, and the it's one of the few halfway intelligent magazines not about politics.
The magazine's problem is that it's written by people who think they're libertarians. In reality, they're left-leaning libertarians. Call it "libertarianism light". To prove that I really am a geek, I'd describe Wired's writers as "chaotic good" in Advanced D&D terms. Meaning, at heart, they're basically self-sacrificial conformists, but that doesn't stop them from pretending they're rebels.
Hence, their love of the "D" word. In every issue, you are guaranteed at least one form of the word "democratize". Every cool, new technology, in Wired writers' opinions, is "democratizing". From file sharing technology specifically, to the Internet in general, it all gives power to the people. And to the extent that they define their terms, I think what they mean is that every individual is empowered through "democratizing" technologies to impact and effect change in society. They tend to keep the "D" word as a floating abstraction, though. I guess they think it sounds cool enough that everybody will agree with it. Who doesn't like power, right?
I don't. And I don't like other people having power over me. I find it scary to think that other people are fine with the rule of the majority and the oppression of the minority, which is what democracy is. Most people are so enamored with the philosophy of the group hug, the philosophy that says if we all just come together right now, we'll achieve a nirvana of collective feel-good truth, "every voice will be heard", and the resulting soup which has been seasoned by ten million chefs will taste so much better than if it had been seasoned by just one.
This is not to say that technologies such as the Web are, in fact, "democratizing". This is just another example of people equating political power with economic power or social influence. Political power is distinct in that it involves force.
As Francisco d'Anconia said in Atlas Shrugged:
"The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide - as, I think, he will."
I think the essential virtue of the Internet is its mind-boggling functionality as a tool for trade. Its foundation is the trade of information, which allows for the possibility of the trade of goods. As in a system of capitalism, not democracy, Internet users offer one value and take another.
Not everyone gives the value they receive, but neither does everyone who listens to radio or TV purchase the products advertised. Some get a deal. And I'd guess that most people who don't provide much value on the Internet are the ones surfing the conspiracy theory/celebrity gossip/stupid video clips sites, so the disparity in the trade isn't very great. These sites don't offer much to people who don't take much. At the very least, most pay for Internet access.
Except to the extent the Internet provides online voting for political office, the Internet doesn't democratize. If there were such a word form, it would be "capitalize". It facilitates trade.
