The Net beyond its limits?

I often read some writings by Habermas and other authors about the limits of the Internet, notwithstanding its potential e.g. under authoritarian regimes.

I think that, when used for aims different from mere individualism/consumerism, and when fed by some real values guiding political initiatives, Internet can display great opportunities. Social networks could theoretically satisfy just materialistic needs, but, when a different attitude is adopted, they can serve the cause of democracy. What we have seen in the case of Tunisia and Egypt in the last months is clearly significant. But two days ago, also in Italy, which is formally a democratic country, we have maybe begun to fully perceive the effects of new media able to compete with TV and overcome it.

Even though it may sound paradoxical, the Italian individualism portrayed by Guicciardini centuries ago, which explains the huge diffusion of mobile phones (and cars in Italian streets), could also favour a more direct participation of citizens to a debate previously monopolized by public TV, making its content clearer and capable of aggregating consensus.

We just have to see what's going on.

The Economist and Berlusconi

Someone could say that left journals attacks on Silvio Berlusconi are the result of private interests and competition against a great businessman. Personally, I think that most negative comments on Berlusconi are the result of his own politics and conception of power. Anyway, which cause could lead the British Economist to run also legal risks in expressing strong views on the "lurid saga of Bunga Bunga" and on Berlusconi's financial shenanigans?

I think it's ethics. The Economist is a liberal journal, which underlines the importance of economic freedom, but I think that the moral nature of the liberal tradition, which we can find in the works of Adam Smith, may be the distant root of such approach. Maybe the greatest enemy of freedom is neither the State nor any egalitarian utopia, but the wrong use of power, which can increase the personal wealth of a single individual, but at the expense of the general interest. The market is a set of rules, so I guess that defending its virtues could not coexist with any form of indulgence for someone who "screwes an entire country", as The Economist writes.

The role of editors in our world

One of the reasons why I chose to start this blog was the desire to share my ideas without having to write a book and waiting for an editor to publish it.

I live in Italy and I was impressed by how the main editors in my country are located in Milan, in the financial heart, as if they had to constantly reflect the views of firms and the desires of their customers. Are the ideas themselves a product?

One of the possibilities given by Internet and social networks is the option to express one's views, waiting for the response of readers. On the other hand, traditional editors tend to follow what they think is the market trend, considering a book a mere product to be sold. How can new ideas be known when editors' marketing concentrates exclusively on potential demand and sales?

I would like to receive some ideas on this.

Not wanting to listen to Lady Gaga

It may sound superficial, but I do not think I will ever try to listen to a single song by Lady Gaga, as I am sure her commercial success is a sign of artistic decadence.

When I was a teen ager, Duran Duran dominated western music, and they had tons of fans. But their music was honest and their new romantic style had a connotation which went beyond pure music. The thing is: can music be any good in a world where Silvio Berlusconi is prime minister after so many years and social networks make us avoid real meetings?