Reply to comment

Does technology favor democracy?  MSNBC's The Rachel Maddown show covers the role of social networking in the developing Iranian situation:

It would certainly seem technology is faciilitating dialogue and providing a platform for social organization.  Indeed, Teme is a set of technologies extending conversation and action on science among undergraduates. 

Varun Sharma notes in a recent blog post:

The only way to prevent monopolization of ideas is to create new ideas.  In this sense where is there is one large influence, there must be another.  Google proves to be such a candidate, yet the blogging community also has its due.

Technology is a tool.  We all know: Guns don't kill people.  People with guns kill people.  Technology merely make it easier for us to achieve our goals.  And when we port death to a remote control, it's as easy as pushing "mute."  While guns are also used to keep the peace, we only see it's bias towards destruction.  I highly doubt Google has sufficiently consolidated the Internet (nor that enough people even use the Internet) for enough time to allow the institutionalization of heirarchies.  Coming to Google's defence is Google's ever-optimistic Eric Schmidt 

Techology owes its existence to its usefulness. It wants to infect us, to merge with our efforts in achieving our wants.  But does technology have any wants?  What of the notion that technology is enabling democracy?

I am honestly skeptical.  If technology, when viewed as an intelligent entity, has any wants, it's top-level goal is certainly to replicate.  To the extent technology favors any meme iis correlated to tech's affinity to technophiles .  This correlation does not imply technology itself is pushing towards some particular ends; technology can aid distopia. 

If you are concerned with any technological bias, neo-Luddism, ironically, is counter-productive.  Merge your wants with technology, and as you build aa community around your agenda,  the technomeme will spread, and it will grow to favor you.