Stowe Boyd says that I've gotten into a conflated muddle with thinking on why social media isn't socialism.
To Boyd's post, there's little "shared meritocratic ethos" in today's web; for example, I'm feeling a lot of heat around the idea of getting paid, e.g. Izea and Twply, not to mention Twitter phishing.
In contrast, Jon Burg gets straight to the point about why a complete shift of power to the people should and will not occur.
I wrote it before and I'll publish again – social media isn't socialism.
Socialism, from the wikipedia definition, describes a situation with (1) collective ownership of means of production and distribution along with (2) an egalitarian distribution of wealth.
(1) Each participant chooses their own publishing tools and distribution channels. Investing too heavily in a common system produces negative results, as pointed out by Steve Rubel describing Robert Scoble's diminished brand value.
(2) You and I may share content freely, but not for others to take credit for our thoughts and ideas. If an individual consistently produces valuable content, that person should be rewarded, not ripped off. Plagiarizers redistribute "wealth" by stealing from owners and claiming value as their own.
Individuals need incentive to participate. Competition drives innovation. Cooperation helps sub-groups succeed together.
Did I stutter?