:Reliable?  For what?  When did opinion become something capable of being classified as reliable?!?  Is it advising us that we may and indeed should leave our reason at the door when we read such hallowed words?  The seeming homogenous applause of the classicists when it comes to technology foe me is made obscene by virtue of the intelligence of those concerned and their astonishing ignorance.  This article seems to be no exception.  No boundaries have changed in terms of the public's concerns regarding corporate activity.  The "evidence" provided for seems to me to be a cum sic ergo propter sic argument.  What HAS changed though is the nature, extent and degree of the power of the new ICT corporations.  Yet apparently this is either an insignificant issue or has simply escaped the writer's attention.  I first witnessed this technophilic "fawning of the classicists" when I watched Jeremy Paxman's obsequious interview of Bill Gates for Newsnight sometime in the 90's I think (no mention on Google).  He was like a little girl at a private audience with an adored pop idol.  There seems to be something about this technology stuff, from those dark arts of maths and physics from school days, that now makes them as adults react with mouths agog, like children at a magic show clamouring for more, like groupies, proudly hugging their back stage passes.  Now, with this elephant in the room seemingly invisible to calibre writers such as those at the NYT or the Guardian, Stephen Fry, et al., appears to be the time for despair.