This conversation is closed.
The Internet (in it's current form) is more of a pacifier for people who want to do good than a facilitator of synergistic accomplishments.
I'd rather have put that more as a question but the character limitation left me no alternative but to make that a blunt charge. But this is a debate section and opinions about the topic (not about me for making it tyvm) are encouraged.
Many people see the Internet as this wonderful "free speech" vehicle and argue it should be a right to have access to at an artificially capped price. It is not however a "broadcast medium" but instead analogous to a huge file cabinet where you can place some bit of speech but no one need read it and almost no one will even find it unless you spam the world with e-mail telling them where to look. And even then it is questionable that it can get any serious consideration even if it happened to be the key to, say, saving the world from climate change.
Do you think the Internet, as it is, is an acceptable facilitator of cooperation between like-minded people, or is it more of a "pacifier" that let's people who want to influence others or hasten change just unload and feel like they've done something when in fact they've just sent yet another flare into a day-lit sky full of smoke from other flares where little if anything influences anyone?