Mr. Durlak believes that the technological layman's belief system with regards to information technology is strictly cultural, shaped by the physical forms of the early information appliances.
Mr. Durlak describes a form of consciousness that is related to the form our "digital persona" will take. He described a "digital persona" that would be created as a result of people's activities within the information media and their use of information technology appliances. This would be a person's projected personality in the information world. This consciousness is still not defined because the form of digital personas has not been finalized. This potentially produces a threat to some people which Mr. Durlak likens to a voodoo doll, where there is a fear that manipulation of this digital persona could somehow affect the actual person. It does provide some promise in that, given the proper policies, this persona could be developed to help increase people's intelligence or ability to take advantage of the information environment. Whether perceived as a threat or as a promising possibility, the idea of a digital persona is "digitally sensible". The idea also raises some important questions; is the persona to be projected or imposed, active or passive, formal or informal and will it's role be one of surveillance or capture (privacy issues)?
Interaction through the internet will be through the filtering and processing done by our "digital persona". This will change the way people interact because the ability to control our projected persona will be greatly increased.
He dealt with the issue of network access, stating that everyone should have the right to become an information provider on the network.
Mr. Dulak emphasizes a difference in perceptions between the end user and the developer. This was evident in his Toronto Star example where students at a local university were given the opportunity to select their own content for a university flyer. The end result was found to be completely different from what the professional editors of the paper would have come up with. This emphasizes the difference in perceptions of the students and the editors.