On the "cultural narrative" that surfing or skimming is bad: instant gratification that precludes a critical response. But surfing can be seen as a critical act, fostering awareness of the dynamics of the medium, leading to meta-narratives that would otherwise be unthinkable. [1]

But perhaps this doesn't happen too often for most people, whom TV has reduced to "vicarious viewers" of others' lives. Greater activity is required of the internet surfer.

But channel surfing may be anxious, driven by the sense of missing something; whereas internet surfing is more likely to be an active search for specific content, not something that is possible on TV.

Yet, "Channel surfing creates an ephemeral production of signs that, if pushed, can lead to new and occasionally useful trains of thought." (David Foster, October 12)

"What we have, folks, is the channel surfer as artiste." But the more material, the more we will turn off surfing (cf. the rapid growth in both TV channels and the size of the internet): "Extreme multiplicity kills surfing of any kind" (Sage Davis, October 13)

[1] This suggests Moulthrop's argument that the hypertext reader should be aware of the "hypotext": see "Moment," para 32.