[M]ost bloggers who write about political subjects cannot avoid addressing (and, more
importantly, linking to) arguments made by people with different views. The reason is
that much of the blogosphere is devoted to criticizing what other people have to say. It’s
hard to argue with what the folks at National Review Online or Salon are saying unless
you go read their articles, and, in writing a post about them, you will almost always either
quote or link to the article, or both. Ditto for people who criticize Glenn Reynolds,
Andrew Sullivan, or Kos, or Atrios. If you don’t like what Glenn said about Iraq, you
quote a bit of his posting, link to it, and then make fun of him. These links are the most
important way that people travel on the Web from one view to its opposite. (And linking
also produces a good check on criticism because you can actually go and read what the
person being criticized has said.)....
Nevertheless, one might object, this argument is premised on the idea that the
blogosphere has customs of linking that encourage give and take. What is to guarantee
that these customs will continue? Obviously bloggers could give up their customs, and
stop linking to each other. But I doubt this will happen; the customs make sense given the
way the technology works. And worrying about whether people will or won’t continue to
link absent a government regulatory apparatus that encourages linking completely misses
the point about how Internet speech works: The fact that these customs developed says a
lot about the health and vibrancy and pluralism of the public sphere in cyberspace.