One of the difficulties that I have in discussion of how the development of the World Wide Web (WWW)/advent of the Internet/development of Hypertext is changing our world and how we both view that world and how we function within it, is that these changes are occurring too fast and too recently to adequately assess their effects on the world. McChesney, in this article, says that "[a]ny attempt at prediction during such tumultuous times is nearly impossible; something written about the Web as recently as 1992 or 1993 has about as much currency in 2000 as discourses of the War of Roses do for understanding contemporary European military policy." (page 6) However, McChesney then continues "[b]ut I believe enough has happened in cyberspace that we can begin to get a sense of the Web’s overarching trajectory, and a sense of what the range of probable outcomes might be." (page 6) I have heard people say that one should not write about a place one has lived until one has been there for 10 years – it takes that long to get a "grasp" of the place and to know how to portray it in words. I feel much the same way about the discussions regarding hypertext: we are too close to the changes and therefore not only cannot clearly see them, we most certainly cannot predict where they will lead us. I do not think that we can get a sense of "…the Web’s overarching trajectory" as changes are occurring far too fast, in both society and in technologies, to be able to see where these changes are going. Therefore, as I read The World Wide Web and Contemporary Cultural Theory and the other text for this course, Writing Space, I find myself thinking that the authors are making assessments and predictions that neither they nor anyone else has the authority to make. As a result, I tend to view these assessments and predictions as being nothing more than "guesses", and sometimes those guesses do not even strike me as being ones that are particularly well "educated." At the same time, though, I can see how my life is changing, rapidly, as a result of technological advances. Almost every aspect of my daily life, from work (which is primarily using computers) to school (where my classes have web-components, if not being completely web-based) to personal matters (writing email instead of "handwritten" letters, and paying bills on-line, using web-banking) is in a state of constant change. I cannot, though, predict where these changes will take me or the rest of the world.

All of this being said, I read Chapter 1 of The World Wide Web and Contemporary Cultural Theory, "So Much for the Magic of Technology and the Free Market: The World Wide Web and the Corporate Media System", thinking to myself "this article was written before the NASDAQ stock-market (which is based on technology stocks) began to dramatically fall, and therefore it is not very valid." That idea fairly-well sums-up my feeling about trying to predict what will occur as a result of the advent of the World Wide Web. McChesney writes, "…the rise of the Web threatens not only the market power of media giants but also the very survival of telecommunications and computer software giants." (page 8) I do not think that media giants are "threatened," at least not at this point in the evolution of technologies. After the terror attacks on September 11, many people throughout the world turned to the media for information about what was occurring, not just in the U.S., but across the globe. Although the Internet offered many "fly-by-night" websites devoted to "the latest breaking news," many others and myself turned to the "media giants," such as CNN, NBC, CBS, and CBC, for information. For myself, I wanted my information to come from a source that I felt was credible and that I knew had access to "the leaders" throughout the world. I did not want my news coming from someone who would spread rumors, disguising them as being concrete "facts." I feel that as the WWW develops, people will need to learn to filter their news, and will learn how to determine what is a valid source and what is not. It is likely that people will continue to turn to the giants of media for their information; after all, the media giants have a strong network of connections and reports, and ethically try not to report "rumors." Some people, though, will believe information presented on the WWW, or in other hypertextual formats, regardless of the credibility of the source (or even if the source is not known. As an example, after the TWA flight 800 crashed in 1996, a high-ranking American government official cited an email as being "proof" that the flight had been brought down by a missile. This email and "report" were later discredited.)

McChesney concludes his article by saying that it is likely media giants will continue to be the strongest forces on the WWW, and that the expansion of the Internet will not be a democratic process. I tend to think that the author is correct in both of these assessments, especially when looking at other "technologies" that were predicted to change the world. However, I still feel, quite strongly, that it is too soon to make any serious predictions about the WWW and how it will or will not develop. There are too many external factors that one must consider, and the changes are occurring too rapidly, to adequately assess where this technological revolution is taking the world.