So there are separate networks like AOL/AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo!, and others. But does bringing them together really matter? Sure you have users who coexist across them, but don't they do that as a choice? Users gravitate to where the friends/coworkers are and, at least in my own experience, you choose one network and then stick to it. Having separate networks enables you to be unique, at least in terms of your screenname. If an MSN user really wants to communicate with an AIM user instantaneously, then I'm sure that MSN user will sign up for an AIM account right away (and vice versa). Yes, I realize the argument for joining these networks is analagous to joining phone networks so you can always talk to someone in another country. But yet again it looks like separating existing reasoning from reasoning in an online community hits our decision making.
With the recent United Nations summit in Monterrey, Mexico, about foreign aid, Katz' comments are indeed valid. This article at the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/international/2 1GLOB.html) has more of Soros' comments. He certainly seems to be hittingly the nail on the head in terms of what's working and what's not.
Slashdot Mirror
So there are separate networks like AOL/AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo!, and others. But does bringing them together really matter? Sure you have users who coexist across them, but don't they do that as a choice? Users gravitate to where the friends/coworkers are and, at least in my own experience, you choose one network and then stick to it. Having separate networks enables you to be unique, at least in terms of your screenname. If an MSN user really wants to communicate with an AIM user instantaneously, then I'm sure that MSN user will sign up for an AIM account right away (and vice versa). Yes, I realize the argument for joining these networks is analagous to joining phone networks so you can always talk to someone in another country. But yet again it looks like separating existing reasoning from reasoning in an online community hits our decision making.
With the recent United Nations summit in Monterrey, Mexico, about foreign aid, Katz' comments are indeed valid. This article at the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/international/2 1GLOB.html) has more of Soros' comments. He certainly seems to be hittingly the nail on the head in terms of what's working and what's not.