But also agree with the criticism of snobbery. I think it’s a bit like when the language ‘prescriptivists’ get their teeth into language change and want everything to stay the same. In my view, language evolves and if people increasingly don’t know the difference between less and fewer, for example, then maybe there isn’t a difference any more. So be it – language is socially driven (though i do draw the line at the grocer’s apostrophe!) By the same token, i often don’t use capitals when i write emails and blogs. I know how to, i just don’t think it’s considered necessary in that form.

So similarly, who’s to say who guards ‘culture’ from the masses? What is ‘culture’? Who says what is and isn’t being eroded? As long as people are still reading ‘real’ books and watching ‘real’ films, what’s the problem with some people playing around with ‘inferior’ stuff online? We don’t have to look at it if we don’t want to. People have always written rubbish – the difference was it used to be in private diaries that no one else ever saw..

Which i guess leads me back to the opposite argument, which is yes, why should all that dross be posted online when it really isn’t that great? Yes, Web 2.0 will always lead to a reduction in overall quality. But i guess it’s part and parcel of a kind of democracy – free speech and all that – it’s just that people don’t always like having to look at all that free speech whenever they log on! But all the stuff about MySpace not being healthy – is it any more narcissistic than a group of friends chatting in the pub? Surrounding ourselves with like minded people is what we do as humans…

It’s a fascinating debate – i could go on, but i’d just be rambling narcissistically… and i need to do some ‘real’ work!