In recent years mass media while still courting large, undifferentiated audiences have accepted the model of market segmentation that requires mediation of the very kind suggested by the two-step flow. Narrowcasting of all kinds abounds. From zoned editions of newspapers, to increasingly specialized magazines, diverse channels on cable systems or radio formats, the idea of influencing the influential has triumphed. Public relations firms and policy-oriented NGOs court “thought leaders,” across various fields, again paying unknowing homage to the two-step flow. The opinion-leadership cohorts of old could be institutional leaders and others with formal and informal roles that have swayed in the lives of ordinary citizens. Still they were fairly easy to recognize by their proximity to powerful and influential individuals and institutions or by their claim on hearts and minds via social networks from the family to neighborhoods and geographic communities as well as those drawn along ethic, cultural, racial or other lines. There was a notion in assessing media and media messages that there were both geographic and demographic communities. And there was a call for greater demographic, psychographic and ethnographic research and reflection in our understanding of media and people. The Internet expands and greatly advances all this introducing both more mediation between and among very different communities and, at the same time, encouraging disintermediation where anyone can be a communicator with or without organizational links. The players in cyberspace are at once senders and receivers of messages, beneficiaries of feedback and interactivity across many dimensions.