But for the past 15 years the debate about the Internet has been dominated by discussions about the POTENTIAL of the Web, rather than the REALITY of the Web as we know it today. And the only way the potential will ever be realized is if we talk honestly and critically about the reality.

Ok, let's talk reality. Reality is that the largest generational cohort in history (Echo) isn't likely to subscribe Maclean's, a newspaper, listen to radio, and is at an alarming rate ditching television and what little television they are watching, they are using PVRs to skip advertising. That's reality. Try and tell these Echos 'The Internet Sucks' and let's see how that works out for you. Is the internet all peaches and cream? No. What communications and entertainment medium is? The Internet doesn't suck, it's just still very early in it's maturation process. There will always be pitfalls on the Internet and there's nothing wrong with pointing out all of it's shortcomings in one article. It's the notion that it 'sucks' or that 'it's gone terribly wrong' that takes away from the few intelligent points the article attempts to make. It's ironic that an article title which was so obviously chosen to bait discussion on the web, would subsequently slam the very medium and audience it's clearly pandering to. Whereas the same article titled 'The Internet Sucks' in a magazine, offers no ability to discuss the article or challenge the author. In magazine form you can just walk right by it, or throw it in the trash. I guess there's some simplistic beauty and justice in that too.