???

Wow. Just wow. I've had twelve beers tonight, and this is crazy, even to me. I don't even know where to begin, except to say that a well educated and well connected population will surely overcome "crazy people finding out crazy stuff".

In case you haven't looked already the crazy people are already using the internet. Hitler got into power without the internet, and if we are dumb enough to elect people who are facist we deserve everything we get. The internet has so far been a moderating force on the political sceane so I say bring it on.

I believe the Internet is more of a threat to centralized power than it is something that will lead to centralized extremism (which is what the Nazis, and most other evil governments in history, were). I do think it's going to have profound long-term effects on human society, but it's not going to be what this loon thinks it's going to be. More likely, we're going to see an increasing irrelevance of nation-states and governments as gatekeepers of information, and ultimately, power. The Internet connects groups of people in ways that differ from the traditional geography-based divisions. And I don't think we quite know yet what that will mean.

Um - people have been finding out crazy stuff from, oh, I dunno...books...for years. But I guess those things aren't as popular anymore.

I'm not sure where the correlation stands... give crazy people access to information and they'll encourage crazy behavior? Who says the crazies are the ones who don't have access to broadband? There are plenty of neo nazis who have internet access, just like there are plenty of PhDs who do.

This is not a smart-ass comment, but the first Twittered, Facebooked or Flickred pictures from a concentration camp would have saved countless lives.

If the internet was available in 1933, Hitler would have been little more than a failed politician with a lunacy-filled Geocities page.

So no, I don't see how the global dissemination of readily available communication can in any way, shape or form be a "bad thing".

OH JOY - can we take out DHS and TSA first?!?

If anything, the computer geeks and hackers and /b/tard annonymous will be the ones to help save the world not tear it down.

@Charles Mousseau: can you imagine the myspace pages of the hitler youth?
"dude, this guy wants me to turn in my parents because they went to dinner last week at the goldberg's. wtf is that shit man?"
heck, they would have been too busy leaving crass comments on each other's pages and checking out the pages of the 'league of german girls' to ever learn to lockstep.....
not that i am saying being shut up in your room with a computer for a social life is the best way to head off a war...

i've been using/observing the internet since i helped beta test prodigy... the crazy people were the early adopters anyway. the internet has been getting SANER over time

Apparantly, you just can't win. Too many contradicting opinions! GAAAAAH!

What do you mean, "Second Holocaust?" We're up to, what, three, four now? Cambodia? Rwanda? "Never again!" they said. And yet they don't intervene.

@Charles Mousseau: You're wrong. The United States government and people (who bothered to read newspapers) knew about the Holocaust as it was happening, quite probably before many of the Germans knew. I suggest you read David S. Wyman's "The Abandonment of the Jews" or Arthur Morse's "While Six Million Died."

@Jesse in Japan: You're wrong as well. Never did I say that the Americans didn't "know". But the way they knew, it was sanitized and from a safe distance away. As the photographers of the Vietnam era can tell you, there is an immense difference between "knowing" of atrocities and having them thrust, graphically and directly, into your daily media consumption.

So yes, I mean what I said -- if fully graphic images were available freely and openly on the internet, a 1930s version of the My Lai photographs, countless lives would have been saved, *especially* because the workaday Germans would have found out so much sooner.

@humphrmi: Yes!! The twelve pack challenge. Your next task is to tackle 18, and then 24. I have yet to do the latter.

"The article argues that letting crazy people use the internet will lead to other crazy people finding out crazy stuff."

one site: 4chan

@Jesse in Japan:

How far back in history do you want to go? Rest assured you can find a whole lot more than three or four.

@Charles Mousseau: That certainly did wonders in Rwanda. And the Vietnam War did not end with the My Lai photographs, either.

The internet used as a medium for social change?! no way.. (sarcasm)

The internet will increasingly be used towards social development of minority groups as long as those groups remain the minority. Any social medium, (radio, tv, intenet, etc) will be used to promote the minority opinion regardless of the interests involved. The fact that this article highlights the "next" forum for the minorities to use is irrelevent unless you were unaware to how society has pushed us...

Posting this online showcases the future in both the knowledge of the article as well as the forum to which display this knowledge. Those online are mildly aware of the potential to online activities.

And I'd also like to say - that clown on the cereal box? Extra creepy...

I just watched his interview with Stephen Colbert and would like to point out that he says that the internet is the reason some still believe the WMD story about Iraq. He later goes on to say that we need professional journalists because of falsehoods like that. But...

It was the overwhelming majority of supposedly-professional journalists that helped sell the WMD lie in the first place. It wasn't sold on the internet, it was sold in the "old media" -- places like Meet the Press, CNN, MSNBC, in various newspapers, and of course on the Fox "news" channel. All were essentially being government mouthpieces. They were cheney's megaphone. And this douche wants to blame the Internet and bloggers?

The situation hasn't changed. When was the last time you heard something on TV or read something in a newspaper that dared to question the government? Remember the Protect AT&T Act? The amnesty program for the big phone companies and in turn the bush admin for felonies? The corporate news helped sell that too. There wasn't much journalism to be found. You couldn't get the truth about it... unless you went on to the Internet and read Glenn Greenwald.

Keen wants more of it. And then he throws the word fascism around. What we saw in 2002 with the selling of the invasion of Iraq -- where the corporate news marched in lockstep with the government -- THAT is fascism.

@downwithmonstercable: I just finished 18, and it still doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not sure if 24 will help, but I'm willing to try.

@Charles Mousseau: You are far too optimistic. There are countless photographs, videos, and blogs about the genocide in Darfur and Congo, yet it barely registers headlines in the mainstream media.

@humphrmi: Have fun with the hangover bro.

I'm so glad we have experts like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity (and for ideological balance) Mike Malloy and Art Bell on commercial radio and television.

We might be overrun with *amateurs*!

And we can't have sites like this telling people that Monster Cables aren't worth much more than the copper that's in them, you can work with customer service reps to reduce fees, and that bailed-out banks and insurance companies waste taxpayer money on ivory backscratchers.

I think many of the criticisms of Keen's position are a little glib.

The internets [sic] do allow people to chose to read what they want to read. Sure, this is tautological, but it's important.

We've already seen Keen's schism erupt in cable television. I invite the reader to reconcile any hour of Fox News with any hour of CNBC...q.e.d.

Still doubt? Try bouncing between any generic NYT story and world net daily, or further afield in the internets [sic] and contrast Daily Kos to SeanHannity.com or one of the 2nd amendment gun-centric sites (i'm looking at you arfcom).

These trivially obvious examples only illuminate the left-right axis. There are plenty of other ways to carve up interest groups. Race, gender, religion, wealth...

So, then, if the media so badly messed up... whom were we to listen to? Which one of a thousand different voices? How can you trust them? Who is that "guy" who writes that blog? Is he a person? a committee? Exxon? a Hamas propagandist? A DoD lobbyist?

What makes a blogger, errr indie media, type more trustworthy? My experience shows that a lot of them consider "fair and balanced" (i use the term advisedly) to be "my side".

I don't want advocates and ideologues reporting the news.

Tell ya what... lets see counterexamples. How is the internet forging consensus among disparate groups? Bueller?

Oh, and what about that Obama Birth Certificate thing? Used to be the Constitution meant something. How Come the Media is covering it up?

in re: the obama birth certificate thing -- that is knee-jerk bait. I don't, in fact, think there's a problem there.

It is a superlative example of balkanized media reporting.

But several million - 1,000,000's -- of americans believe in it, and so that "story" will very likely lead us to a grave national tragedy.

There's your independant media.

"The article argues that letting crazy people use the internet will lead to other crazy people finding out crazy stuff." No less than the esteemed Scott Adams put it another way: ""You've probably noticed that opinion pollsters go out of their way to include as many morons as possible in surveys ... I think it's dangerous to inform morons about what their fellow morons are thinking. It only reinforces their opinions. And the one thing worse than a moron with an opinion is lots of them." I gotta tell you, I'm in full agreement with Mr. Adams here...

Since when was half the Dictators Crazy?

Last I checked Hitler was not crazy, some argue a genius. Obviously he was eccentric, as many would argue many geniuses are, but crazy??

I think the guy that wrote this wears Tin Foil Hats.

@LeafOnTheWind:

And, oddly, the neo-nazis who DO have access to the internet (Stormfront) are far more rational (can that word be used?) than their non-connected counterparts.

I mean, the Stormfront "white nationalists" weren't even all that upset about Obama. Their reaction to Obama was akin to the wackos on the far-left who proclaimed that they would "leave the country" if Bush was re-elected in '04. Just, you know, on the other side of the bus.

I'd much rather deal with cleaning up after an email-bomb than the physical counterpart, too. The most violence internet skinheads seem to get up to is character assassination.

@metaslugx:

4chan was actually pretty sane. You've obviously never seen 2chan.

@betatron:

"Trust in allah, but tie your camel tight."
"Trust, but verify."
And, just for shits and giggles:
"We report, you decide."

Sure, it *is* up to the "reporter" to verify the facts in their article... but in the same way I don't want anyone trusting Fox implicitly, I don't want them trusting any other source implicitly.

WRT "forging consensus," you don't WANT consensus on a majority of topics. Most things aren't simply black-and-white.

Take my earlier comment about Stormfront. Are they a community of racists? Certainly! But the fact that they are a *non-violent* community of racists who can voice their opinions in an overall intelligent fashion speaks volumes about the "power of the inernet." The individuals who run the site even ban those who try to incite violence. That's a long way from the KKK of yesteryear.

That's where the real power lies... the internet gives people a place where they can voice their opinions without fear of "what the neighbors might think." Secrecy and repression breeds organizations like the KKK and the Weather Underground. When you can distribute your statements to millions of people without violence (media spectacle), it makes it much easier to choose that option.

Note that the politically-motivated violence today occurs primarily in countries with the most heavily regulated/monitored, or least implemented, communications infrastructure.

Well...

If you've ever stumbled across the creepier parts of the internet, you may have noticed that people do encourage each other to adopt ever stranger ideas -- and by "ideas," I mean "fetishes" -- so technically there's something to the argument that internet social interaction fosters extremism.

On the other hand, I'm not certain that internet fascists will end up having any more political influence than, say, furries.

@Skankingmike: Nope, Hitler was a paranoid lunatic even before the meth and the syphilis kicked in. And he wasn't much of a genius, either.

@Andrew Johnson:

Some people are blessed with the inability to get a hangover.

@HooFoot: Again - remember that I'm talking about bringing the internet back to 1933, not bringing the Holocaust to the modern internet age.

I don't know if it's his somber head-tilting avatar or the fact that you can link to another one of articles, " In Defense of Sleazy Lobbyists", but all I can do is laugh instead of coming up with the logical response this deserves.

I think that there is one difference between the internet and previous technologies - porn. Americans will be far to busy spanking it to internet porn to care about rising up or promoting conspiracy theories.

@humphrmi:

This doofus might want to have a little chat with the (current) rulers of China,North Korea,Cuba. There is NOTHING that they fear any more than unfettered access to the internet and the democratizing aspect of the free flow of information ,ideas ,etc...Kim Jong Il and Raoul Castro and their ilk know that all of the propaganda that their governmnet can gin up will be drowned out by the 'net.

This guy is just a publicity hound looking for his 15 minutes.

@Charles Mousseau: No, but human nature doesn't change just because the technology is there. Hitler had just come to power in 1933. He had written Mein Kampf (which anyone who had bothered to read didn't take seriously) and made some speeches, but he hadn't really done anything bad yet.

We had the Internet in America in 2000, but that didn't do us much good, did it?

@Charles Mousseau: Again, remember that in the 1930s, antisemitism was respectable. And the internet goes both ways. The Nazis would have posted propaganda pictures of "happy" camp inmates and denounced the rest as lying, Jewish propaganda.

@Eldritch: I'm with you on the first two, but please do not lump anyone who uses the Internet with /b/tards.

So if Gawker is your ex-stepbrother, does that mean you can fool around together?

Keen has figured out that a good way to 15 minutes of fame is throwing "the Internet sucks" and "Holocaust" in the same sentence. Why are we paying attention to him?

Andrew Keen is a self-centered individual who's intensions revolve around promoting the topics best suited towards his survival, financially speaking. After failing at several music and media sites, he has taken the role of "most hated person on the internet" as a tool towards making a name and money for himself. publishing articles relating the growth of broadband internet access to the second coming of Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust is irresponsible journalism aimed at promoting exactly what he is attempting to prevent.

The beauty of the internet and development of faster connections is the potential for good and useful features. No longer are we force fed news and information from one source. There are so many avenues to challenge these opinions and news stories. If this feature makes you believe that lies, hate and destruction will be spread; you must realize that for every "evil" idea out there, there are additional ideas countering that point. The responsibility will be on the individual to review their material and challenge ideas. If this idea startles you, perhaps its best you also ban the ability to print articles, books, magazines, leaflets etc unless "government approval".

The internet's future as a source for information is here. Any writer, musician, actor, director must not only have content that the audience desires but also must make it readily available and up to date with the demands. It can be scary for some to make this trend if their format, style or content doesn't translate to success on these new mediums. Andrew Keen has taken his niche as being "the internet's most hated individual" by feeding lies and propaganda in an effort to promote his dying medium. It's a shame that he has taken this role; but when you fail at so many attempts for business you become desperate to find something to hang your hat on.

Some billyun years ago I had the privilege to be part of a fight against stupidity at a University, where sex-themed Usenet groups were banned for the most moronic reasons ever quoted by people who claimed to be running an institute of "higher learning."

Without getting into the ridiculous stunts within, I'll share some of the main protest points:

- 'bad' things that are driven underground are harder to deflect
- smart people will recognize stupidity for what it is
- most people are far smarter individually than the groupthink makes them

These remain true for any stupidity out there, whether in a newspaper, a website or a flyer left on your windshield.

Can you imagine if, instead of trying to pass laws requiring schools to teach 'intelligent design', schools just started teaching it on the sly, or slipping stuff in? (Yeah, this is kinda strawman, I know.)

One of the long-standing problems with neo-nazi movements is that they have operated almost underground, making it harder to publicly denounce their words and show an alternate viewpoint. Today with the INTARRWEBS that playing field has been leveled out.

Heck, look at the fights on places like Facebook and Livejournal about pictures of breastfeeding [both have at some time declared them "obscene" if a nipple is showing]. Before the 'web, if print media said, "We're not going to publish your picture," that was (usually) that.

Today it's easier than ever to gather troops and fight a perceived injustice, even if it's mundane or trivial.

So, yah, you get stupidity as the web grows. But you get stupidity everywhere, and stupidity in your face is easier to fight than stupidity under a rock.

(does this make sense? cripes, i'm short on sleep. sorry )-: )

@mythago: Anonymity, even faux anonymity, is key. /b/tards have no central leader that tells them what to do, but they are legion, and will mobilize by an outsider in order to accomplish something so long as that outsider understands that they can't/won't control /b/.

@RvLeshrac: Or 4chan spinoffs.