>The main reason I see a
>need for minorities to get
>on is because the powers
>that be are. But the
>powers that be are, not
>because of consumer demand or
>particularly out of necessity -
>it tends to be another
>tool to foster consumerism, another
>method to reach a broader
>audience.

That is how big business is using that. But there are parts of the net that are sufficiently free of that type of top down control. (usenet, irc, free servers..) How much the gen public knows about that, might be a function of big business promotion and the need for such thing by the public.

>Having access to the internet is
>not that different than having
>access to a mall bookstore
>or direct tv.

The net is more than that. It's not just new age optimism talking.

Its not
>just about getting online, its
>about what's there when you
>finally get on. Its about
>who controls the content, who
>controls the search engines, who
>controls the tolls for the
>highway, who sets the rules
>& regulates the highway, etc.

In it's current form you can avoid the control. How savvy you have to be to do this, is another question.
- usenet - no controls content
- search engines - bots are free
- charges - there is still a lot of free info, if you have access
- regulation - hopefully none, but I have a feeling we will see that end in the next 10 years.

>I'm not saying shouldn't or wont
>be involved in the internet
>but there's this idea floating
>around that the information highway
>& access to it, can/will
>be the great equalizer. That's
>just not true. We will
>have the same issues, different
>format.

No doubt, but access to information is a far better weapon than we've had before.

k. orr