>Or just a different method of
>getting at the same old
>material

Napster is a good example. Everyone has a record store, but few people have the funds to afford everything that they want to hear. But I won't go down this path today.

>True but at some level, big
>business or government still plays
>a role in providing the
>ability to use those services.

The back bones yes. But folks are already putting together guerilla networks. For about 2 grand, you can set up a your own wireless nodes for a network. There are projects in the North West, in which Mac Airports have been hacked, and the folks are setting up their own private nets. Again this ain't for everyone, but there are folks working to get outside of those parameters.

>In what way? It can
>be more than those things
>in some areas but it
>also can be LESS.

For instance?

>I'm taking it a little further
>than that, I think.
>Its not about free search
>engines or newsgroups...

>its about who controls those groups,
No one controls the usenet. As long as you have access to a newsserver...

>who controls the the fiber,

Fibers are vulnerable. You can operate outside of fibers though. You can operate computer networks wirelessly. It's not as efficient, at this point though.

The idea of the net is very dangerous for the power structures. The information to opt out of the net is in it's infancy stages, but it will happen.

>Its also about awareness....as more &
>more people gain access &
>more & more people develop
>a web presence, the quantity
>of the information limits individual
>visibility.

It depends on how you view it. Instead of having to recieve my news from 1 newspaper, 2 wire services, and 3 net works, I now have the option of getting it from a myriad of sources. Principle wise, it can't really be stopped. Tech wise is another question.

>The information can be
>there but whats the point
>if no one knows.

Zero link sites. I feel you on that. But it's the same way it is now. Most folks don't know what they're state rep is doing, or how they are voting, with our without the net.

You
>still are tied to the
>standard principles of marketing &
>promotion - you just have
>a larger audience.

Wrong direction. We shouldn't be trying to build a large well organized and defined structure. There should be no central meeting place for Af Am's online. www.black.com/militant or www.black.com/sell_out...

Yes, we'll
>have faster & more access
>to information but faster &
>more are only relative to
>those running along side us.

So the disconnect is me telling my folks who aren't online what is going on?

>>I have a feeling we will see that end in the next 10 years.
>
>Yes, not to mention, we can
>& some are being monitored
>today.

FBI's Carnivore. I'm sure they've got a file on me now. But it's not different than it was before. FICO #'s (a way to calculate credit ratings) is far more deterimental to me and you than anything we say online. And that's a private net.

>>No doubt, but access to information is a far better weapon
>>than we've had before.
>
>Yes, if we can find it,
>trust it, and control it.
>There isn't a plan in
>place for that.

It, is us. Which is where I'm coming from. You can put your info up, and connect with other like minded heads.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/