The web was going to make the world a better, freer, more open and just place to grow and create and participate. Or something like that. FP recently posted a couple points meant to burst that bubble. It is an important argument to make and I’m glad I read it.  The web is an important thing because a lot of people opine about it.  On the internet.  The medium is the message.

The article linked above describes all the things the internet is not.  Or not yet.  Correlation does not equal causation; so if the Islamic Republic of Iran becomes a Westernized democracy, then Andrew Sullivan would feel proud (or happy or whateversomethinggood).  But we can’t fully credit Twitter or his blog for facilitating that revolution.  Nor can we disqualify their effects.  It’s a complicated argument that I can’t write and don’t want to write and can’t write and nobody reads anyway.

The internet’s revolution is not on the screen.  It is not manifested by another site – but a concept that information can be organized on-demand.  This can revolutionize the way we seek and share information.  When information stops flowing top-to-bottom it effects the old clunky infrastructures that depend on that hierarchy.  Elevators are now on-demand.  They don’t just go up and down and catch you if you’re there or not.  They wait to find out where you’re going and take you on the most efficient route.  Network TV is now also on-demand.  Gardens are now on demand (even if you don’t have any land).  Let’s not stop there – let’s make busses on demand.  Let’s make buildings on demand.  The internet is teaching us how information flows – and good design facilitates that flow in the most efficient way possible.  I don’t think I’m inventing this argument.  The medium of the net is not on the computer screen or phone screen but in the mind of the reader/listener who links and shares and distributes or finds and seeks the think they crave and can now get but have to build first and where do I find the how-to’s about?