Hmm, that does sound interesting. I would be interested in the reference, if it's not too much work to dig up.
I guess I don't see how this idea addresses the concern, though. Sure, maybe it's natural that there's a split between the compliant sheep and the independently-minded. But the concern is about what the status quo is that the sheep live with and perpetuate, and the independently-minded have to rebel against. Things are worse for all of us if the kind of free expression and sharing of ideas that the Internet enables becomes something that only non-sheep do, or can do.
Would that situation be worse than in pre-Internet society? Maybe not, but maybe so: a society in which most of our information exchange takes place online, but only over controlled, monitored, or proprietary channels strikes me as worse than one in which most information exchange is offline, but not so locked down.
I'm not so sure a future where the Internet is mostly composed of non-sheep would be a negative thing, just like it wasn't a negative thing in the 90's and even the early 00's. I actually think it'd be positive. While masses bring incredible commercial potential to the Internet, and I don't think this would be something to worry about in the future, an Internet run by non-sheep is much more interesting. Bringing the Internet to the masses tends to make it conform to the will of the masses which is really uninteresting (see most popular reddit threads and posts). It has no substance, nor creativity, and it's rather impersonal. The short of it is that mass adoption ruins pretty much everything.
I don't think we have to worry about this as the commercial potential to profit off the masses is too great. I think there already is a schism between the sheep and non-sheep. The masses stay in their walled-garden apps and sites while much of the creative and interesting information and discourse goes to things like hidden services, torrents, or smaller niche sites (like HN for example).
I guess I don't see how this idea addresses the concern, though. Sure, maybe it's natural that there's a split between the compliant sheep and the independently-minded. But the concern is about what the status quo is that the sheep live with and perpetuate, and the independently-minded have to rebel against. Things are worse for all of us if the kind of free expression and sharing of ideas that the Internet enables becomes something that only non-sheep do, or can do.
Would that situation be worse than in pre-Internet society? Maybe not, but maybe so: a society in which most of our information exchange takes place online, but only over controlled, monitored, or proprietary channels strikes me as worse than one in which most information exchange is offline, but not so locked down.