On the history of the Internet, Interactivity and Democracy

This is taken from an email conversation between myself and the wondrous Alex Franzen about her podcast on Virtual Politics. I thoroughly suggest you download and listen to it, because it's a damn interesting audio-article about the new political equality afforded to the users of the Internet.

In response, my views on the history of the internet and its links to interactivity and democracy.

...
The Internet, in my mind, has gone through three distinct paradigms
over its history.

Originally there were the BBSs and usenet groups. These were, essentially, places were people would post information and talk to large numbers of people. They were precursors to the modern forum software you see so heavily across the internet. They were interactive and democratic to the extreme, as all the content was user generated. However, it only reached a small percentage of the population.

Then, once the Internet started spreading, there was the evolution into passive browsing. Information was presented to you. The Internet was interactive in the same way reading a newspaper isn't interactive. You went to websites and listened to what other people had to say. The people who made those websites. There was no free exchange of ideas. Sure there were little buttons you could click, and little things you could do, but it was essentially a pre-packaged experience.

And now we have the so-called Internet 2.0 phenomenon, where once again it's all about user generated content and everyone being on an equal footing, but now there's a user base large enough that this spreads universally. Like you said, a random YouTuber has just as much chance of getting their views heard as Kucinich. Everything is linked
through spider-ine networks of friends, memes and messages passing throughout the internet, and allowing for something resembling democratic conversations, warts and all.

I think I see parallels between the history of democracy in America to this as well. If you look at the early days of campaigning, where candidates actually had to travel to areas to get there votes, to actually meet the people, when there was no effective wide means of disseminating information. You had a chance for true discussion, but
only on a small and local level.

Then came radio and TV, where the advertising became passive, and you accepted the words without any real chance to debate them, except with those immediately around you.

Finally the two paths converge in the Internet, with something vaguely resembling equality of discussion.
...

-TB/AC