My friend Emma Rainey pointed out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25internet-t.html

I surprised myself by reading all 10 pages and a couple pages of comments. The majority of the comments I read (which granted is only about 20/1000) question why the NYTimes even ran this article and shrug it off as a sad, trivial detour in the life of a telented young lady who is finally coming clean and getting on with her life.

I think these people miss the point. This article gives a glimpse within what is not the future, but already accelerating present. Emily, the writer and heroine of the story, is already 28. People older than her, and even Emily herself, may have trouble fully understanding the connected lifestyle. What we are going through is a societal transition of the magnitude of the agricultural or industrial revolution. Technology is only the catalyst. The real significance is fundamental changes in social organization and interaction. People will really only understand it in hindsite, and only people who have grown up in the coming new society will really life it. People living through the transition will view the new society as outsiders longing for the good old days.

High School kids regularly have 100's of friends linked to their facebook account. What has happened with text is happening with voice and video. Science fiction scenarios of societies with cameras everywhere are playing out now. Head this article well. A connected society with our lives electronically exposed is here. Emily at 28 is a superstar of this new world at the very beginning of her fame.

Although the technology is new, the principles are as old as humanity. Relationships and human attention are the fundamental stuff of real value.