Among other things, I'm a media critic. For more than 15 years, I've practically made a living out of warning people about the perils of commercial media.

In books and speeches, in columns and workshops, I've shared research about the negative social impacts of fashion magazines (body image and self esteem problems in women), violent video games (decreased sensitivity to the suffering of others in teens), sensationalized TV crime coverage (increased fear and inflamed prejudice among seniors), and the pervasive advertising suggestion that the solution to all our problems lies in purchasing new and improved stuff (the destruction of our small and fragile planet).

You can imagine how much fun I am at parties.

Then, six months ago, I was invited to deliver an upcoming conference keynote exploring the socially progressive opportunities presented by web 2.0 technologies. I was embarrassed to admit that I wasn't really sure what 'Web 2.0' meant. Fortunately, Google and Wikipedia came to my rescue: web 2.0 merely refers to media technologies that are interactive, permitting people to participate in creating and circulating their own ideas and images. Facebook, YouTube, the blogosphere, Twitter – and of course Google and Wikipedia themselves – are part of the web 2.0 revolution.

But I’m not exactly what demographers would call “an early adopter” of new technologies. For example, I don’t text message on my cell phone (partly because finding the letters requires an acuity of vision I no longer possess). And although I had signed up for a Facebook account a year or so ago at the urging of a colleague, when I discovered the site was a competition for friends and I was already 329 behind, I logged off immediately.