Your point seems to be that corporations aren’t really different from the Web utopians, just slower. That’s a POV unlikely to endear you in any context, especially when punctuated with a command to “adapt or perish.”

Some creative, non-mainstream ideas get popular and become mainstream. But most don’t. Some ideas change how business is done in some places; most don’t. It’s nuts to assume that the mainstream-adoption rate will be inevtiably higher for the socal-technology ideas being fostered right now on the Web.

The web was created by weird people. The weirdest of these people are still going strong and continue to come up with ideas, tools and practices that the business world eventually adopts.

Those of us who think differently – creatives, makers, philosophers – non-corporate in the box types have always been a threat to corporate thinking because it is the very definition of a closed system. The corporate world – like academia and education – consititutes an echo chamber that is only just now starting to change. That change, I’d argue, is a direct consequence of the democratization of technologies and the voice of the commons.

I’m tired of hearing people say ” should” in relation to the web. That smacks of net neutrality and top down control to me. And I hear this “should” speak every time there’s a new application “it should be this. This is what it should be used for.” I’m sorry, we will define what it is and will be. We the users. Corporations can learn from us. And they can choose to adapt or perish.

My argument is that the para you wrote provided a very one sided view of events. I’d give much greater weight to the influence of the Freudian movement under Bernays interpretation in the context of business.

Even so, it doesn’t address the language issue as I find it, hence my alternative way of considering how language could be moderated.

I trust you see that while we may not agree in the detail, I’m offering a considered alternative.