"Amanda Chapel" agrees with Keen's hypothesis that amateurs (aka bloggers, youtubers, cluetrainers, etc) threaten "...200 years of copyright protection and intellectual property rights, robbing artists, authors, journalists, musicians, editors, and producers of the fruits of their creative labors."
I think I disagree, but as I've read only the Amazon reviews and not Keen's full book yet (out in June), I'll hold that disagreement.
I do agree with Keen that thugs can hide behind web 2.0 anonymity. (Sad case in point: last week's highly troubling threats against Kathy Sierra)
Keen on anonymity:
The very anonymity that the Web 2.0 offers calls into question the reliability of the information we receive
In today’s self-broadcasting culture, where amateurism is celebrated and anyone with an opinion, however ill-informed, can publish a blog, post a video on YouTube, or change an entry on Wikipedia, the distinction between trained expert and uninformed amateur becomes dangerously blurred. When anonymous bloggers and videographers, unconstrained by professional standards or editorial filters, can alter the public debate and manipulate public opinion, truth becomes a commodity to be bought, sold, packaged, and reinvented.
So, if anonymous posting is bad, who is Strumpette?