What we are living in a time called a general knowledge society. And as part of it, we, in turn, go through the digital age. That is to say; according to specialists, we have gone from the information society to a knowledge society. And in technical terms, we have gone from analog to digital. The human species is very akin to generalizations and scientists are not the exception. However, the problem lies herein that any generalization always implies a certain degree of falsehood, greater or lesser.
In the case of digital, without a doubt, the generalization is almost entirely correct. There is no question that we have gone from analog to digital. But there are people who even today prefer the analog or in any case the non-digital, at least in certain types of merchandise. For example, in the purchase of cassettes and vinyl records. It is a very focused market and even small, but it exists. And so we have others who do not necessarily look for the digital. Then the digital coexists with all this and rather we could talk about a dominant and majority tendency, which seems closer to what happens.
We think that the same thing happens with the knowledge society. Because the same specialists and investigators brainy in the subject do not agree in agreeing on what exactly we can call the organization of knowledge. That is, what exactly is the knowledge society? That each consumer-citizen has a platform through which he accesses the Internet? Could it be our participation on the Internet? Or even more in detail, the way in which we relate to the network of networks? It could also have to do directly – and following the latter – with the information, we receive and opt for the Internet and our activity on the network, not only as passive users but as prosumers. That is, not only as recipients of “speeches,” “messages” or “merchandise,” but as “builders” of all this.