This is a rather fascinating thread. I'm somewhat surprised there is not as much of a divergence of opinion as there is, even though I'd be surprised if people were to argue, "No, TV is unequivocally good!" without being facetious.

But then I ask myself -- who's participating in this debate? Every last one of you is surfing RinkWorks for at least part of your amusement time. Time which, unless you're on a coffee break or lunch hour at work, could have been spent watching TV. So obviously you've all made the conscious decision to use SOME of your free time away from the tube. I'd like to laugh, but some people don't.

So the question that arises is, is the Internet bad? Of course, my immediate response would be, no, not inherently. But I'm sure the Internet has good things and bad and can be abused just as television can. It offers some good things, but unfortunately can also be erroneously relied upon to be a baby sitter for kids when parents don't have the urge or inkling to spend time together with them.

On the plus side, the Internet is more of a social medium than its creators probably predicted it would become. No longer are computers these anti-social boxes one fires up and hacks away on to the exclusion of the rest of the world. (For some, computers were never like that, but I'm speaking generalities.) Now it is normal, natural, and common for people to interact with others over the Internet, as is happening right now in this message forum. Even if you're lurking and not participating in this discussion, you're interacting on a social level with other people. I have to think this is mostly a good thing -- television is anti-social in the worst way -- but the con side is that you don't know who the heck you're interacting with. The visual clues you get when you meet someone in person are not present. (As a society, we have trained ourselves to think that making conclusions about the appearance of a person is wrong, but we all do it anyway. Let's face it. Neatly groomed gentleman in a business suit is not so intimidating to us as frowning teenager in torn clothing and carrying multiple baseball bats, and although it's conceivable that neatly groomed gentleman is a serial killer and frowning teenager is a saint, I can't say this reaction can particularly be reproached.) It's hazardous to admit the influence of a faceless anonymous stranger into your life, but hazardous, too, at least in the long run, to refuse it continually. (Avoiding situations where you are presented with the question is not bad, but I can't help but think a continuing refusal to accept or trust anyone without proving themselves first is an ultimately destructive form of social conditioning for all concerned -- like anything, there has to be a happy medium that works.)

Disregarding the social aspect, I wonder how analogous the Internet is to TV? There are a gazillion different web sites out there, each with its own "programming." One of the differences between experiencing the programming in the two mediums is that on the Internet, you need to take a more active role -- you navigate through web sites yourself and choose, at every moment, whether to continue reading or to move on, and if to move on, where. I have to think that's good, too. A lot of the problem with television is that it's passive by nature. We slump in front of the TV and shut down. Might as well go to sleep and get real rest. The thought just occurred to me -- maybe that's why I appreciate movies that make me think so much, like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Pleasantville" and "Barton Fink." The viewing isn't nearly so unidirectional. At any rate, the active participation in what we view on the Internet, even if it's just basic navigational control, is at least a step in the right direction.

But, as with TV and the zillion channels of junk programming that get pumped into your home, the Internet is not much different in that respect. It's both better and worse. Grishny spoke of programming that subtlely, sometimes not so subtlely, erodes the moral and ethical foundations of his beliefs. The Internet has that too, the difference being that you can basically find ALL the possible ways that foundation can be eroded. In that sense, the Internet makes a worse baby sitter than the TV does. But, on the other hand, you can basically always find stuff out there that supports it, strengthens it, and builds upon it, too -- a guarantee television can't make. Sometimes it's tough figuring out which agenda is what, but it's all out there.

And so I am very interested in hearing the people who have spoken about television speak in the same manner about the Internet. Have at it.