????越大則越強(qiáng)，至少這是普遍的觀點。然而今天，在這個以社交媒體為中心的世界，小事物再次成為強(qiáng)者，從小型公司到微型政黨，一切都在迅速變得同樣強(qiáng)大。

????在《“大”時代的終結(jié)：因特網(wǎng)讓大衛(wèi)變成新一代巨人》（The End of Big: How the Internet makes David the new Goliath）一書中，社交媒體專家尼科?梅萊從發(fā)人深思的角度，分析了包括“完全連通”在內(nèi)的新科技走向衰敗的趨勢，以及由此給我們的生活帶來的改變。這些新科技控制了我們?nèi)粘Ｉ畹姆椒矫婷妗獜恼l管理我們，到誰賣給我們商品和服務(wù)，到誰向我們傳播新聞，以及誰教育我們的孩子。

????梅萊承認(rèn)，這本書著眼的重點是廣度，而不是深度。他在開頭描述了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在美國軍隊中誕生的歷史，然后記錄了它的發(fā)展歷程：從美國大學(xué)中用于交流研究的工具，發(fā)展至如今一種擁有難以置信的能力、并足以削弱當(dāng)今最強(qiáng)大機(jī)構(gòu)的科技力量。對于任何對未來感到好奇的讀者而言，這都是一本重要的書。盡管新科技賦予了那些曾經(jīng)被忽視的小公司更大的能量，尼科?梅萊卻告誡說，這將會導(dǎo)致預(yù)料之外的后果。例如，網(wǎng)絡(luò)賦予從茶黨到恐怖組織在內(nèi)的各類邊緣政治力量以巨大的潛力，使它們能夠進(jìn)入主流社會，削弱中央權(quán)力。

????梅萊是政治活動領(lǐng)域的專家。2002年霍華德?迪恩競選美國總統(tǒng)時，他曾擔(dān)任該陣營的網(wǎng)絡(luò)管理員，之后還通過他的EchoDitto公司，為巴拉克?奧巴馬2004年美國參議院的競選出過力。他表示，新技術(shù)已經(jīng)打破了美國的兩黨體系，導(dǎo)致了一種全新的民主政治。它既能造就有效的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，也可能產(chǎn)生他所稱的“可怕的候選人”，比如明尼蘇達(dá)州的國會女議員米歇爾?巴赫曼、赫爾曼?凱恩和德克薩斯州的政府官員里克?佩里。

????梅勒給予了新聞界特殊關(guān)注。因特網(wǎng)實際上賦予了每個人出版的權(quán)利。博客遍地開花，而由于搶奪網(wǎng)絡(luò)受眾的競爭日益激烈，曾經(jīng)的新聞巨頭只好迅速裁減人員。曾經(jīng)記者需要依賴關(guān)鍵的信息來源才能獲得爆炸性的新聞。如今這些信息來源有能力通過Twitter之類的途徑直接發(fā)布爆炸性新聞。

????然而，這也帶來了危險。在日夜不息的新聞圈內(nèi)，博客時刻活躍著，大型媒體公司因此日漸衰落。他們越變越小，幫助維護(hù)美國自由和民主的調(diào)查性報道的來源也越來越少。值得一提的是，盡管梅萊在這點上與其他專家產(chǎn)生了共鳴，卻與多年前許多人的觀念背道而馳。在Twitter和Facebook問世前，人們普遍認(rèn)為媒體公司會越變越大。他們合并之后，發(fā)布新聞和信息的渠道將越來越少。本杰明?R?巴伯在1992年的著作《圣戰(zhàn)對決麥當(dāng)勞世界：恐怖主義對民主的挑戰(zhàn)》（Jihad vs. McWorld: Terrorism's Challenge to Democracy）中強(qiáng)調(diào)了這種情況。書中指出，大型媒體公司的融合會嚴(yán)重破壞健全民主所需的信息自由流通。

????Big is powerful, or so it's generally assumed. But in today's social media-centric world, small is big again, as everything from pint-sized companies to tiny political parties are quickly becoming just as powerful.

????In The End of Big: How the Internet makes David the new Goliath, social media guru Nicco Mele offers a thought-provoking look at the ways new technologies, which comprise what he calls "radical connectivity," are shrinking, and therefore altering, who controls all aspects of everyday life -- from who governs us to who sells us goods and services to who delivers our news and educates our children.

????As Mele acknowledges, the book goes wide rather than deep. He starts off describing the birth of the internet within the U.S. military, then chronicles its evolution from something used to communicate research at U.S. universities to what it has become today -- a technological force with the incredible ability to decentralize the powers of today's biggest institutions. It's an important read for anyone curious about what the future might look like. While new technology has given the once overlooked little guys more power, Mele cautions that it comes with unintended consequences. For instance, staying connected has given fringe political forces -- varying from the Tea Party to terrorist groups -- tremendous potential to enter the mainstream and undermine central power.

????Mele is an expert in political campaigns -- he worked as the webmaster for Howard Dean's run for U.S. president in 2002 and later went on to work for Barack Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign under his company, EchoDitto. He argues that new technology has disrupted America's two-party system, giving rise to a new kind of democracy that could either produce effective leaders or what he calls "scary candidates," such as Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

????Mele pays special attention to the Fourth Estate. The Internet has given virtually everyone the power to publish. Blogs have flourished, and once giant news organizations have quickly downsized as competition intensifies for web audiences. It used to be that journalists relied on key sources to break news. Now those sources have the ability to break news directly via Twitter and the like.

????There is a danger in this, however. Just as blogs flourish in the 24/7 news cycle, big media companies are languishing. They're becoming smaller, with fewer resources to commit to the kind of investigative journalism that helps protect America's freedoms and democracy. On this point, it's worth noting that while Mele's argument echoes other experts, it goes against what many thought years ago. Before Twitter and Facebook (FB), it was widely thought media companies would get bigger and bigger. And as they merged, the delivery of news and information would come from fewer and fewer outlets. The issue was highlighted in Benjamin R. Barber's 1992 book,Jihad vs. McWorld: Terrorism's Challenge to Democracy, which noted that mergers within big media companies would greatly undermine the free flow of information critical to a healthy democracy.