And the criterion of egalitarian empowerment is breached if technorich cronies are empowered to telelobby senators, while technopoor neighbors are excluded from the circuit. However, that answer provides none of the necessary specifics. It also fails, for example, to grapple with the U.S. Constitution's requirement that amendments garner the support of a majority of elected federal or state legislators. In short, at a minimum one would confront a profound transition dilemma. If the prospect of telecommunity replacing spatially localized community ought to evoke skepticism or opposition, one can nevertheless remain open to the possibility of democratically managing the evolution of telecommunications systems in way that instead supplement more traditional forms of democratic community.
Caution is in order.
Senior managers had discovered that subordinates, including women executives previously isolated from one another, were spending coffee-break time on the system discussing and criticizing company policy. Moreover, even seemingly benign systems require ongoing scrutiny for social effects that may only emerge gradually as a system evolves. As has always been true in the past, the solution to democracy's woes lies in the hopes, struggle, and vigilance of real people, not in technical fixes or utopian fantasy. At present, the United States lacks any routine institutional forum for democratically guiding the evolution of new telecommunication systems. For the time being, the grounds for pessimism loom large.