Nicholas Carr in the Guardian argues that democratisation and transparency through the internet destroys the incentives for adventure. His examples are GPS and surfing, so the depth of argument is explanatory:
There is, of course, much to be said for the easy access to information that the internet is allowing. Information that was once reserved for the rich, the well-connected and the powerful is becoming accessible to all. That helps level the playing field, spreading economic and social opportunities more widely and fairly.
At the same time, though, transparency is erasing the advantages that once went to the intrepid, the dogged and the resourceful. The surfer who through pluck and persistence found the perfect wave off an undiscovered stretch of beach is being elbowed out by the lazy masses who can discover the same wave with just a few mouse clicks. The commuter who pored over printed maps to find a shortcut to work finds herself stuck in a jam with the GPS-enabled multitudes.
It does nothing of the sort, of course. The internet allows people to see more, experience more and try out more activities than ever before. Adventure and its accompanying qualities require a widening of opportunities and greater access to information. The majority of those with access to the internet will not act upon this option, or will sublimate their wishes into an online equivalent, such as a virtual world. Will the existence of online equivalents remove the incentive for adventure?
Carr's argument suggests otherwise. More people want to share the adventure of surfing. This annoys an elite who are looking for that greater challenge. Underneath the rhetoric of adventure, this is just another complaint from a threatened elite. Surfers detest the effects of the great unwashed.
If they are so annoyed, they can buy the beaches, rather than destroy property. The answer for Carr is a fence.