The Internet has taught us again and again that when people make their own decisions, they are often very different than the decisions that used to be made on their behalf. If you believe in Marxist theory, this is wonderful news. If you believe in order and traditional structures, it is not yet clear how good that news is.

Are the people always right? Jefferson said no. The British say yes. We may find out ourselves soon enough. Our founders build a political system embedded with checks and balances to protect against Kings and uninformed mobs, they dreaded both. Mobs are prone to hysteria and rage. I have never heard of a mob that did good in all of human history.

The Internet has sent the gatekeepers – publishes, producers, reviewers, journalists, politicians, authors, taxi drivers, hotel chains, musicians, fund-raisers – running for their lives. Crowdsourcing has turned the very idea of fund-raising on it’s ear, and caused great upheavals in the ordinary world.

We can bypass the administrators and arbiters and ask for help, and we can decide for ourselves whether to give money or not, in what amount and to whom. There is a troubling side to all of this chaos and change, there is a liberating side as well. In a sense, the Internet has always brought choice and flower flowing back to the hands of individual people. The many to the many, the few to the many.

Crowdourcing – the very democratic solicitation of money online – is strange yet, controversial to many people who distrust many of their causes and worry that people who should be earning a living are not, turning to strangers instead for money. They fear fraud and misrepresentation as well. They also love to give to causes they like, and for whatever reason, and without explanation.

It’s very simple, one woman told me, “if you don’t like it, shut up and don’t give.” That freedom makes many people crazy. It is easy to reach out for help online, it is easy to jeer at the idea.

They say crowdsourcing works best when the requests come from someone you know, or someone who can be vouched for by someone you know. Movies are being made this way, albums produced, books written, cameras bought, lives subsidized, inventions created, homes rebuilt, sick people their medicine, kids their tuition money.

In a sense, crowdsourcing is a great dialogue, billions of dollars changing hands out of sight or mind of bureaucrats, lawmakers and arbiters.

For me, crowdsourcing works well on an individual level.  To help Joshua Rockwood fight an unjust persecution. To help Ken Norman survive a double-knee operation. To help Scott and Lisa Carrino buy their cafe building and keep community alive in their town.

Kelly’s puppy campaign is not technically crowdsourcing, I only mentioned it on the blog, not on the Internet. Like it or not, know it or not, she has been absorbed into this community, she is one of us.

For me, it was about Kelly and her smile, but also about community and the chance to provide an antidote to the stream of horrific news that passes for journalism in the greedy corporate offices of cable networks and corporate media. I needed to feel good about something this week, and Kelly came along at the right time. Obviously, many people felt the same way.

How often do you get the chance to help puppies and a good person and to feel good about yourself. Sometimes we need to be reminded that community is important and that good people are good. That is not a story that will be told on their news. It is a big story here.

So thanks for all that, and for your trust in me. I will never betray it.