No, I don't agree with it. Yes, I do find it shrill. I responded to a separate issue, here are some more comments:
It also will mean the public can get hit with the nastiest virus, phising scam, p*rn, etc. without protection.
The automobile offers us "freedom". But we can't drive any way we feel like -- we must drive on prescribed roads (not across fields) per motor vehicle laws. Our vehicles must meet safety standards. Back in the 1950s the automakers fought safety standards and lots of people were killed until they were made mandatory in the 1960s.
"Freedom" is a very loaded word. It sounds good on the surface, but one must look closer.
Given the abuses on the net perhaps we do need a gatekeeper. Real life has gatekeepers.
Without doubt the Internet is a powerful tool just as the automobile and chain saws are powerful tools. But all tools must be used with care and built with safety standards. The Internet is no different.
I do work as a community activist and the value of the Internet as described above is vastly overrated. It does help, but not to the extent above. First, a great many citizens do not have a computer at home at all. Second, those who do limit their Internet work (presuming they even do so) to very specific things; they don't sit there all night and surf away. Third, the easy way to create web pages and talk means that everyone and anyone is creating web pages. To the end user, it is nothing but a lot of noise (mixed in with p*rn, scams, and the like). Fourth, a lot of web sites are poorly maintained -- put up once but never updated or supported. Having the Internet will not fix a sloppy organization.
Go look at the newsgroup of alt.prisons. You'll see it dominated by one poster's tirades. Legitimate discussions of prison issues are nowhere to be found. Other unmoderated newsgroups have similar problems with outside trolls. Open access is open access, and will bring in people you don't want.
Let's discuss the reality of functional "free speech". At a town meeting, a citizen inquired about a recent fire, he wanted to know if it was arson. The town council assured the citizen that the fire marshall had checked and found the source (accidental discarded cigarette) and there was no arson. But the citizen said it could've been arson and thus the town had an arsonist in its midst. Again the council assured the citizen that wasn't the case. The citizen persisted. This went on for a few more rounds when finally council thanked the citizen for his comments and moved on to the next agenda. The citizen was cut off from further staements.
On the unmoderated Internet, there is no one to say "ok, we have to move on now". The passionate and persistent will keep posting their issue, drowning out those not as vocal. That's not free speech, that is mob rule and much of the Internet is mob rule.
Nonsense! It will take years before each and every house has an affordable broadband connection. There is no way today's existing cable and telephone network could support every household and business pounding away on broadband connections, doing streaming video downloads, etc. No where near enough capacity.
Further, not everyone _wants_ such connections. I fear the writers of these articles are isolated in their own little techie world and don't understand there are plenty of people out there who get by with rabbit ears and POTS. Those that have cable get it only for better reception (cable's original mission). Those who do have the Internet have it only to get emails to their grandchildren. Just because these technies are willing to stay out all night to buy the latest Windows or Flash or whatever upgrade doesn't mean the rest of society is too. They're not.
That is not always a good thing!
For an article that rants against big corporations, this "innovation business" is exactly the General Motors model of planned obsolesense of the new model year. Got Win 95 on a Pentium 120? My goodness, you're old fashioned! Buy new! Buy new! Buy new!
Success has NOTHING to do with "innovation". A successful website is so for the same reasons anything else is successful--it works properly, is easy to use, and serves the customers needs. This may or not may not make use of the latest and greatest features.
How often have you wasted time in a bank or store because the "new" computer system didn't work right to handle your transaction? Every time I buy clothes the clerk tries to scan the tag, it doesn't work, so the clerk then has to key in 16 digits of a product code. Error prone and time consuming. Annoying when they ring up a $300 suit when I bought $3 pair of socks. This is 2006 and they still don't get it.
My comments are based on my observations of 35 years in the technological, government, and business worlds. In these posts I have attacked 'technies' for the reasons described. If any techies want to respond, please do so.
Allow me to elaborate on this issue of "innovation":
There's a growing family owned department store chain that is doing well. In contrast, large national chains (ie Federated, May Co.) are consolidating. This small chain is buying up stores closed by the big guys.
How is this small chain thriving? The paper had a feature article on its President.
To be sure, they do use computer generated reports to track buying, trends, etc.
But the head guy and his mgmt staff does something else a little old fashioned: they visit the stores and see for themselves. They speak to the customers themselves. None of this can be done remotely by computers. No such "virtual visits" or virtual simualtions. They have the real thing.
Early in the morning a chartered bus picks up mgmt at the HQ and then goes to visit the stores. In each store they inspect the displays -- are they neat? Attractive? Are sales clerks on duty and helpful? Are the customers finding what they sought? Are the promotions bringing in people? How's the stock rooms?
I don't know if this would be called "innovative" since it's rather old fashioned. The computer trade press promotes remote visuals through cameras and the like to automate this sort of thing a la 1984.
But this approach does work since this chain is flourishing. Because the visits are face to face, it's a two-way street. The clerks and customers get to talk and listen and the mgmt gets to talk and listen.
This is how the old time "merchant princes" built up their stores.
Computers can and do supplement this sort of thing but cannot replace it.
[public replies, please]