(I’m kidding. I’M KIDDING).

Duplicating effort, as you say: perhaps I’m just overly touchy about this topic, but the particular paragraph in your post that motivated me to reply was:

It’s hopelessly reductionist, of course, to say that consoles cause the digital divide, or that they’re even a major causal factor compared to problems of poverty, lack of role models, and education. But I think it’s hard to argue that the console model–locked-down, walled-garden systems running single-purpose code–doesn’t contribute to the problem. And it’s worrisome that the big new computing paradigm (mobile) seems determined to follow the console path.

I assumed, from your article, that that was your worry, not Latoya’s. If I’m misunderstanding, please let me know. I guess I don’t see why it’s worrisome at all, and my article is an attempt to articulate why I feel strongly about that. I see technology as enabling people to do things they couldn’t do before. I frequently read and hear statements people who don’t actually care about the end user suggesting that tinkering should be prioritized over actually enabling the customer (see: Cory Doctorow). I feel that that attitude is reactionary, elitist, and harmful, and it makes me react strongly.

I apologize if I came off as overly strident. I also apologize for comparing you to Cory Doctorow. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

I’m open to criticism of the actual post I wrote, because I think reasonable people could certainly disagree with it. You’re a smart person, and I value your opinion. I feel a little blindsided, actually.

That said, I always feel like it’s unwise to immediately blame the reader or play the victim when blogging. Miscommunication would be my fault first. So I apologize if I didn’t make the scope of my thoughts quite clear enough, and left you with the impression that I was either arguing for A) some sort of RMS-idealized prioritization of openness or B) that everyone should be a programmer. That wasn’t my goal at all.