The internet has changed the system of fame, and it certainly did not do it on its own. Time Magazine has named YOU as its Person of the Year for 2006 in light of YouTube, Blogger, Wikipedia and Google.  It seems that technology has spearheaded an all-new revolution: Digital democracy. 

Now, anyone can compete against the high-and-mighty of society thanks to this almost bottomless source of free media (and free media space). People have learned to keep themselves entertained and informed at the small cost of having an internet connection, evening out the playing field for those craving some limelight, and the entertainment and information industry now desperately need to step up if they don't want to lose this market.

However, as with every democracy, in order for it to stay true to its purpose, it requires that the good outnumber the bad.  Even though the internet has produced several remarkable testaments to its potential greatness, these several testaments only make up an infinitesimal percentage of the activities of the online community as a whole. But "the other side" of this digital world—where all the poseurs, child pornographers, homemade-bomb tutors, spammers, et al hang out--is colossal.  This is where every act seems to be a conscience—or a brain—short of being human, and absolutely everyone is unknown: hiding behind a username, or a "nobody" using his real identity. The option of virtual invisibility has been made available for anyone with enough access. 'Power without responsibility' stops being a prerogative exclusive to the harlot.

It is possible to say that making space available for anyone has democratized the Place (which must only be filled with the Thing).  Sartre's Roquentin quips that "[f]or the most banal even to become an adventure, you must (and this is enough) begin to recount it." The mere putting up of a blog, or video, or thing, for everyone to see seems to be a beginning.  In truth however, this is an end.  The creator of the blog, or video, or thing, is "already the hero of the story" which could be why a new blog easily looses steam:  The desire for attention will have already been fulfilled the minute the first entry has been published. 

Unfortunately, the blogger who reacts defensively about the contents of his blog along the lines of this-is-my-space-and-you-have-no-right-to-attack-it has forgotten that aside from the fact that not all attention is to be desired, if a thing is put in a space so that it can be given attention, those who would come upon this space may consider this a Place (and therefore expect a Thing to be there). In the perception of the user, free (without charge, and for whatever use) space has helped fill a void, when actually, it makes the Void materialize by being indiscriminate about who gets to have it, thereby drawing attention to the absence of the Place—and effectively, the Thing. And TIME Magazine pushes it even a little further as it bestows the responsibility of the democratization of the Void upon Nobody.