Who's History

I ran across this article, and one quote caught my attention.

By turning the personal into the public, an entirely new aesthetic is coming into being -- and a huge proportion of the invisible social interaction of a generation is being recorded forever. As Charles Stross notes, we are living at the end of "pre-history" -- the last days of a patchwork human history. Tomorrow's lives will be remembered by the historians of the day-after-tomorrow with astounding clarity and thoroughness, reconstructed through the midden of personal blips, twits, and chirps emitted by our social tools. By comparison, our own lives will be as opaque and unimaginable as the lives of the poor schmucks who inhabited the same cave for 200,000 years, generation after generation leaving no mark more permanent than a mouldering knucklebone lost in the soil.

I take issue with this because it is not a generation at-large who is being recorded, but those privileged enough to be on the prosperous side of the digital divide.  I don't take issue with the fact that the internet will be a recorded history, but who is being recorded and what is being taken as history.  History is powerful weapon, and is not something to be taken lightly.

True, those who partake in online communities are forever having their social interactions recorded, but taking that as history does so at the expense of those who do not have the means to access the technology.  We must remember that at this point, technologies such as the internet, while increasingly important, is still a privilege--of class, education, access--and to not use that privilege as a means of exclusion of others. 

We are just recently moving away from the model of a Western-centric, patriarchal driven version of history, and it would be a big step back to fall back into this model again.  Columbus did not discover America, and the internet is not an accurate, as of yet, historian of human history.