It is true. When Benkler states that in “Transparent culture, anyone
can innovate” and thus become “better readers,” this is correct, in
theory. For instance, random users may upload a video of a protest or
demonstration to YouTube, or a mashup video of something they found
online---they may make critical commentaries, subvert normative
journalistic channels, and gain more insight into how television and
mass media products are produced and assembled. But again, this does
not guarantee more perceptive readers, critical content, or an audience
for that material. As László Barabási
points out, the majority of internet traffic still flows through major
hubs—hubs like Amazon and Yahoo, wh...

It is true. When Benkler states that in “Transparent culture, anyone
can innovate” and thus become “better readers,” this is correct, in
theory. For instance, random users may upload a video of a protest or
demonstration to YouTube, or a mashup video of something they found
online---they may make critical commentaries, subvert normative
journalistic channels, and gain more insight into how television and
mass media products are produced and assembled. But again, this does
not guarantee more perceptive readers, critical content, or an audience
for that material. As László Barabási
points out, the majority of internet traffic still flows through major
hubs—hubs like Amazon and Yahoo, which means that online content
generally continues to rely on traditional media channels for
distribution. Even if an independent new media organization may gain an
audience, such as Boing Boing, or Rhizome, they may not be guaranteed
the financial support needed to sustain on a long-term basis (this was
the focus of Xeni Jardin’s talk at the conference, a reporter from Boing Boing)