Strength in numbers. It's a common phrase that I usually think of when dealing with any issue.
In times of war, the side that usually had the larger number of soldiers won....
...this, of course, before tactical warfare became the norm....wherein a few people linked up with a common purpose - with the proper equipment...and tackled the larger issues.
Sound familiar?
Let's put this into perspective, shall we?
Being a part of the internet allows us to connect with people that we normally would never have connected with. We have the ability now to address various issues from various different viewpoints....striving towards a common goal.
Take for instance the influence that sites like Xanga, Myspace, Facebook, and even twitter have over our lives....it's now ingrained into our culture as the norm.
Now we can link up, and tackle issues together.
Sites like Autisable, for example - are a place where people can learn and understand the issues surrounding the Autism Spectrum...and discuss those issues.
What works, what doesn't work....what are the causes?
Here's some interesting insight from high profile speakers at a TedMed conference that discuss how online social networks and open source models might be harnessed by institutions, patients and practitioners to transform healthcare in the future.
Who knew that we could have soo much influence, just by being a part of a social network?
True 
Comments (1)
The real issue, then, is: what is the underlying motive for doing it (whatever "it" is)? Is it for good or evil? Personally, I think that good tends to prevail over evil. As a result, strength in numbers can be a positive thing if done for the "right" reasons. However, strength in numbers, if done for the wrong reasons, is negative; furthermore, the group will always be tripped up by the weakest link. I like this. I want to share this.