Just like knowledge, everything is in context to use. The internet can increase our knowledge or make us dumb based on how we and the “market” use it. If “markets are truly conversations” then time will tell if the impact of open and fluid conversations end up changing how markets operate. If the change reveals itself then the knowledge of how the change occurred and its relevant meaning will indeed create new knowledge for those wanting it for good to use it for more change.

Then of course I could be wrong

Regarding the quote “Anytime I have a visceral reaction to something, I’ve learned that it’s usually because there’s some truth to the statement that threatens my own closely held beliefs.”

Assuming this is meant as any general lesson, it is complete and utter bilge. For example: racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc don’t generate visceral reactions because there’s “some truth” to them. They generate visceral reactions because they’re methods of oppressing people.

> “Being right is overrated.”

I agree, but not quite in the same way. Being right doesn’t mean good triumphs over evil. It’s entirely possible to be right and lose in various ways.

HOWEVER – where I serious disagree – is the problem that one can easily go way too far in the other direction, to be complicit in injustices inflicted by the powerful.

It’s a long issue, and I don’t claim to have a solution, so for a brief comment, I’ll leave the topic there.

> The Internet, as the open and generative thing its protocols like to support, is good for humanity, for human evolution, for society and for business. I would like that to be right, but it might be wrong, and I’m open to hearing that.

Umm, there’s been a whole intellectual critique, for *YEARS*, addressing this point. Oh, “The Internet” is just a tool – there’s a whole legal structure around it which is what matters.
(Note – I’ve been doing this argument for around 15 years now, to no evident effect except having hurt my life a lot – proof positive that being right is overrated!)