I think Al Gore’s point was that it easy for a person to get his voice out using internet. For example, anyone can create a blog, but only the huge companies can afford to broadcast on television. This means that the opinions and messages on television might not be what people really think about. In less democratic countries, it is easy for the dictator to control television and radio, but it’s harder to silence opposition’s websites or leaflets.

Well, it seems like we’re going to that way that internet communication is more and more commercial. The huge media companies are more and more involved in the internet. Gore just wants to keep internet open for all opinions. If internet is controlled by huge media companies (like television is), this isn’t possible. Does this make individual’s chances to get his voice out more difficult? I don’t know, but I hope it doesn’t.

As for Sofia and Gates, Gore doesn’t discuss commerial ideas or copyrights or anything like that on his book. His focus is on keeping democracy alive in a globalized environment where (especially in US), commercial interests and small groups might have too much power. He doesn’t say that there shouldn’t be patents or copyrights, what he means by “free” and “open” is possibility for discussion and democracy, not commercial ideas.

Of course, in your example, the society as whole benefits in either case.

About EU, The problem is, what are these “Individual Rights”. For example, in Germany and France it is illegal to say that holocaust didn’t happen. Nazi symbols are illegal in Germany. In UK, the libel and slander laws are much more looser than elsewhere. In Finland, the police has censored access to suspected childporn sites (even though they might just be normal porn sites that someone has reported incorrectly as child porn). Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, it is hypocritical to talk about “a tool of transparency” and at the same time try to censor the internet on EU-level because of some country’s laws (that other countries think is stupid).

And finally about behvioral aspects of internet, hard to say. What I and Al Gore hope is that on the internet, ideas would be favoured not because who tells them (heroes or collective maturity or whoever), but because everyone agrees they are good ideas.

“Gore also believes that internet, unlike television he says only exists to sell stuff, is more like printing press in its availability involve people in discussion and reasoning of ideas”

Does Al Gore dissociate these two (communication / commerce) on internet ?

I agree with you that on internet communication is falling into commerce in search of organizational patterns or sponsors (organized and mature commercial nodes magnetize individual, chaotic, communication)

Openness and freedom are cool, risky though to manage. For example:

My aunt Sofia is communicating (citizen) and Bill Gates is doing commerce (merchant)

Sofia and Bill can share the same or a different idea (or ideology).

One of their ideas is a relative success (more supporters).

If they share the same idea, Bill will get the credit because he has more influence.

If they share a different idea, the looser will pick the winner’s idea and we arrive to the situation that they share the same idea (i.e. creative capitalism)

On this situation, I am neither optimistic neither pessimistic, rather neutral like the networks.

“For European Union citizens, this book shows what things we should look out for and fix in EU before they become widespread problems.”

Vivian Reding (http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/index_en.htm ) is herself optimistic, naming internet a “tool of transparency”, a “democratic enabler”, a “free information flow channel” in Davos’ World Economic Forum. A problem for EU according to her might be the protection of Individual Rights (?for both the roles of a consumer-producer & citizen? maybe/not clear) on the internet.

“For everyone, this book shows that democracy doesn’t work if the people feel disconnected from the decision-making.”

Another idea from the same webcast (http://gaia.world-television.com/wef/worldeconomicforum_annualmeeting2007/default.aspx?sn=19781): democracy as expressed by digital rights is protected by influential behaviors and/or technology and/or policies.

I feel that decision-making seems more accessible on the behavioral axe while distance from people is bigger on the other two.

On behavior patters do you think that internet favours heroes or collective maturity? Is it a question of technology and policy maybe? Oops, into a loop…

About commercial interests. This is a very tricky question.. At least when you’re commercial, it’s out on the table. When someone’s not commercial, it’s hard to see if there’s a hidden agenda or not. Everybody needs to make money, and I prefer to see where it’s coming from.

There’s also such a thing as journalistic integrity. I know it’s not respected by all, but many quality publications do have such a structure. The reason is, I think, because they’ve been commercial for a while and have developed a set of guidelines to separate political/commercial interests from objective reporting.

Anyway, maybe I’m derailing the original intent of your post.

So no adverts on tech it easy then? :-p *runs for cover*