Do links encourage people to see beyond their personal situations and know the broad world in diverse ways? Or, instead, do links encourage people to drill into their own territories and not learn about social concerns that seem irrelevant to their personal interests? What roles do economic and political considerations play in creating links that nudge people in one or the other direction? How can social and corporate policies encourage diverse audiences to share varied, reliably-sourced ideas so that citizens can together confront their society’s past in relation to its future?

Those are the questions that brought me to Philadelphia for the Hyperlinked Society Conference at the University of Pennsylvania. They are questions that this weblog has visited before. The blogging that led up to and followed the 2004 elections - heralded as a democratization of campaigning and grassroots activism - left me unimpressed with the echo chamber phenomenon of the internet. Liberal blogs linked to liberal blogs, quoted liberal intellectuals, were read by liberal readers. Conservative blogs, likewise, kept entirely to their half of the dance hall. In fact, it really did feel like an 8th grade dance with all the boys leaning cooly on one wall and the girls sitting disinterested in their chairs.

Following the election, I approached HP with the hope of dialogue over debate. Though a friendship was gained, looking back over the series, I can’t say that we were successful. Most of our conversations can be characterized by each person wanting to win, to look best in public, rather than learning from the other. Though that may be the case, it doesn’t mean that we haven’t learned from each other and, more importantly, it doesn’t mean that the link formed has not been valuable.

I wouldn’t dare take credit for the fact that, by now, HP visits the weblogs of most of the readers of this one to pester them with his entirely predictable, but also compelling, arguments. For one thing, it would get my house toilet papered. For another, he’s a charming guy who has no problem getting around the blogosphere (not to mention MySpace) on his own. But I will say that I was the one willing to approach him first, respectfully, and ask him to form a link with us despite our differences. That also brought Peter (occasionally at least) into the conversation and the result has been a much richer discussion than if we had all continued nodding in agreement, congratulating the “truth” of our liberal worldview.

Amartya Sen is right to remind us of our complex and multiple identities; the way we define ourselves, and the way we relate to others. I am American. I am North American. I am Western. I am educated. I am middle-class. I am white. I speak Spanish. I speak English. I listen to indie rock and hip-hop. I play basketball. I read. I am sarcastic. I like to dance. I like to drink. I am human.

I could go on forever. But the point is that each one of those identities defines who I am. And each one comes out in different measure depending on who I am with, what we share in common.

Like Tumbleweed, a sense of community is one of the main reasons I enjoy blogging. But how does that community come about? How are the links made? By interest? By ethnicity? By language? By region? Culture? Politics? Ideology?

Whatever the combination of factors, I have seen that links can be just as exclusive as inclusive. Links can generate power and fame (what is Boing Boing, or Global Voices for that matter, other than collections of links?) just as they can tarnish credibility and promote partisanship.

Many of tomorrow’s panels will focus on big media and the distribution of power on the internet, but the overarching themes still apply. Or so we will see …