[Terr_]

Thirty-plus years ago when that book was published, people (or at least techies) were more optimistic about how personal-computing would empower individuals with tools they personally owned and controlled and configured for their own benefit.

Unfortunately it feels more like we've ended up in the era of being relatively-powerless subscribers or digital-sharecroppers instead: Your "more enjoyable" experience is incompatible with what the corporation believes will maximize its profits.

[brightlancer]

> optimistic about how personal-computing would empower individuals with tools they personally owned and controlled and configured for their own benefit.

That's happened. The issue is most people don't _want_ to control and configure these things; they want to outsource that to someone else.

And that's where "influences" and "creators" and such step in: they're offering to sit in front of the firehose and tune things for their audience.

> Unfortunately it feels more like we've ended up in the era of being relatively-powerless subscribers or digital-sharecroppers instead

We have more power now, not less. Businesses can be parasitic, but that's not new. Media lying to the audience isn't new. We shouldn't idealize generations past -- it wasn't all rosy.

[Terr_]

> And that's where "influences" and "creators" and such step in

The idea that we're still individually-empowered by personal computing and have simply outsourced some of it to "peers who care more" is a comforting thought... but it doesn't seem match the current reality.

Most of those influencers/creators/curators etc. exist at the pleasure of large service-owners, who have their hands on the controls to boost/hide/de-monetize them based on whatever makes investors happy. Not just in terms of news and opinion (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) but also tools themselves when it comes to the encroaching "app stores".

Following someone's self-hosted blog using a content-agnostic RSS reader is the exception now, not the rule.