I would both agree and disagree.

I agree that the masses now have the media to post thoughts and stories of their lives that heretofore were not available. However, I think you discount the editorial factor - most people put total crap on their personal websites. Without the "I smell BS" sense that contemporaries have, how would future historians weed through the dreck and whiny content?

In the past, the lives of folks were documented by those who tried to see the truth and cut through the editorials, for the most part.

So I think you are both right in a sense, but neither is 100% right.

>>I guess books don't count and until the Internet people couldn't lear and read either.
>
>How many farmers in Platos time had books published? How about the lifestyle and thoughts of midwest pioneers. How much time did they have for writing that column in the New York Times?
>
>My point, until now, much of what we use to understand the general population only comes from a few self selected individuals. Our understanding of things just 200 years ago is probably only accurate with respect to the "top 5%" for lack of a better description.