http://disqus.com/by/AsTrepp/enTue, 11 Aug 2009 10:41:41 -0000http://blog.jakerlevine.com/post/160226416/the-free-debate-rages-on#comment-14635957<p>Someone as plugged in to technological development as you will certainly seek out someone whose online reputation is strong, for example the purveyor of a niche blog with 10,000 posts. What I wonder is whether online reputation will gain credibility in the eye of the general public before those with the biggest megaphones come to dominate the discussion of the networks relied upon by your everyday user. </p>AsTreppTue, 11 Aug 2009 10:41:41 -0000http://blog.jakerlevine.com/post/160226416/the-free-debate-rages-on#comment-14634021<p>Having read the (brilliant) article, one immediate question comes to mind. Hopefully I'll have more to add once I have time to digest the arguments, but for starters this tangentially related hypothetical.</p><p>Given the arguments articulated above, it is easy to imagine a world where networks price according to the reputation of those contributing insight. Attention and time have already become scare assets, and as that trend develops further, a clear incentive to profit from that scarcity emerges. Should that happen, do we risk mitigating some of the benefits of making information widely available by creating cadres of individuals who gain access to the most relevant insights or data simply because of their wealth? To the point, might class issues emerge online?</p><p>An important corollary might be whether we can establish online identities with enough speed that individual reputation can become currency on these networks before those with offline credibility are able to emerge as the dominant voices in the premium networks. If pricing for the most relevant content is adopted, I'd hope to see a community in which reputable individuals rather than exisitng media conglomerates, are driving the discussion. </p>AsTreppTue, 11 Aug 2009 10:00:46 -0000