Nathan Jurgenson recently wrote an article about why Chomsky is wrong about Twitter

Like (apart from his use of the term 'nonwhites' (ouch!!!)

Its time for Chomsky to wise up.
Twitter has affordances for froth-groupies, and even froth-mobs, but it also has affordances for flash-mobs, and even 'flash evensong' (I kid you not) - the parishioners at St Paul's Cathedral in London organised a 'flash evensong' last night (24th October 2011) at the site that the #occupy protesters have taken over - the steps of the Cathedral - way to go.

You can use Tiwtter to 'get in touch' with your 500 most intimate friends/ groupies, or you can use it to organise something more 'real' like 'flash evensong'.

to wit ... here is an extract from a fortcoming chapter on the new political ecology:
"Webworld and Rights The interesting question about the new political ecology is the question of who is in and who is out of what might be called ‘webworld’. The threshold for whether a country is a member of Webworld, or not, can be defined by whether the country is irrevocably committed to being ‘switched on’ to technical functions, as well as to political and constitutional guarantees, in some of the following areas (listed, loosely, cumulatively) ...

Constitutional Rights: Constitutional rights have not caught up with the Internet. Countries that are radically changing their constitutions (e.g. Egypt, in 2011) might consider whether to include, in some way, the provision not only of general rights, but also of ‘digital rights’. For instance, freedom of speech, of the press, and more interestingly, of assembly, could be formulated to expressly guarantee rights such as the right to ‘digital assembly’"