And while the article is already an enlightening read, especially taken into account that it is written by a web editor, it also contains notions of generational conflict within the EP web editor family - which is not a bad thing if it results in such paragraphs:
"The pressure is always to be cutting edge, to be doing the latest thing, surfing the latest trend. We need to do that, but we cannot do only that. If our notion of digital democracy is to focus ALL our efforts on Facebook and Twitter (or whatever’s next), we win plaudits from the in-crowd online, but we arguably open up a digital divide of our own, cutting off an otherwise completely sentient crowd of people (I know many of them) who may have heard of Facebook and Twitter, but still think it’s a bit of a waste of time. They exist, yes, they use the internet, and they vote…"As a standalone paragraph it sounds a little flat, but it fits into the whole article. It fits because it raises the important question whether doing more democracy 2.0 is actually involving more people, or if it is just raising the applause from the "in-crowd" (which many of us in the blogosphere are definitely belonging to), making it sound like reaching a larger share of people, without actually doing so.
I am a little too tired today to further elaborate on the topic, but I'll definitely take it into account when writing my next post on EU politics 2.0 at the Personal Democracy Forum Europe.