The novelty of Internet lies in all that Steve suggests, and a little more. Why, for example should not a change in scale (that is speed and outreach) result in a change in kind? After all, one cold virus is easily faught, whereas several may result in a real bad cold, that may develop into pneumonia... To add a qualitative difference: the opportunity to save messages (not only to copy them for forwarding) is also important. This is so much more easy than saving papers (have a look at your desk). Also, search for messages is easier than search for papers. Therefore, the ideas on those papers may be more penetrating, since you may see them more often. Again: quantity brings quality. However, I still hold that the opportunity to spread messages over the world fast and to a great number of people is decisive not only for a quantitative but also for a qualitative change. You certainly see characteristics of a cat in a tiger, but I am sure you wouldn't like to take the tiger on your lap. Further, the old knowledge that you may reach people you do not know through the Internet really IS a qualitative change. Of all people in the air-list I only know Steve Jones and Malin Sveningsson personally. To further support my argument, I can tell you that I have been e-communicating since 1976 or so. By then there were very few people online, and I could not see any difference from phoning or writing ordinary letters. Now, however, I would like to say that we have reached the "critical mass" people use to talk about. The source of this metaphor is another example of how quantity brings quality. All the best, Yvonne
To be the devil's advocate (or at least a media historian) is what we are describing a difference in kind or in scale? Most of us on air-l are probably aware of the use of the phone (landline, then mobile) and fax for organizing...and I recall reading about examples of the use of audio cassettes and letters for organizing (though obviously on a different timeline). So as I see it there are three fairly obvious things the internet brings that are different than media before it in this regard: One is the internet's relative instantaneity, another its reach to so many people, and another is the inherent "copy-ability" of internet communication (e.g., the ease of forwarding, posting). Which of these matters most, or are they all equal? And what I'd like to know more than that: Is there something else, something about the internet as a medium, that makes it more than a faster/broader medium in comparison to what has come before it?
Thanks, Sj
-- Yvonne Wærn, Professor em, PhD. Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University SE 581 83 Linköping