I am generally a fan of Evgeny Morozov's op-eds, articles, and blogs critiquing "techno-utopianism." I myself wrote a critical analysis of the techno-hype about the Iran election crisis. I think his latest op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is also right on in its critique of uncritical "information wants to be free" themes:
I think, however, that the basic point has been made well enough: the Internet is not a panacea. In fact, this point was made very well in David Ronfeldt's original paper on "cyberocracy"--which I plug at every opportunity because I think that it set the basic parameters of debate about information revolutions that many discussions today unwittingly echo. The real debate is not necessarily on technology per se but organizational structure and leadership. What kind of organizational structure is best? How should strategy be devised? What is the role of leadership? Once we answer these central questions the role of information becomes relatively clear because information is ultimately an appendage of more fundamental and structural questions.
"Will the oppressed masses in authoritarian states join the barricades once they get unfettered access to Wikipedia and Twitter? This seems quite unlikely. In fact, our debate about the Internet's role in democratization—increasingly dominated by techno-utopianism—is in dire need of moderation, for there are at least as many reasons to be skeptical. Ironically, the role that the Internet played in the recent events in Iran shows us why: Revolutionary change that can topple strong authoritarian regimes requires a high degree of centralization among their opponents. The Internet does not always help here. One can have 'organizing without organizations'—the phrase is in the subtitle of 'Here Comes Everybody,' Clay Shirky's best-selling 2008 book about the power of social media—but one can't have revolutions without revolutionaries."