As an open free media it's very useful for bringing together like minded individuals. The ability to not only share views on diverse topics but also to get ready access to evidence, make reference to it and inform others in a few clicks is very important. It doesn't underpin the values of being a sceptic, that's up to you as an individual, it's just a very useful tool. The recent 10:23 and libel reform campaigns are taking scepticism into mainstream media (Ignoring the wrongly termed climate change sceptics which has been mainstream for a while now). The rise of "Skeptics in the Pub" movement in the UK and the multitude of podcasts and blogs have been a direct descendant of the internet age.

Naturally it's just as useful for closed minded, dangerous and deceitful individuals or groups to do exactly the same, spread their word, de-educate people and misinform. But that doesn't make it less important for scepticism.

Edit: Here's a great example of the internet at work. See trascript of Ben Goldacre bust open Rentokil's dubious claims live on Twitter

I think it's important, but the true importance is only beginning to be realized. Whereas bunkmeisters and woo-swimmers have had centuries of congregating and disseminating, forming communities and laying down dogma and speculation, lay skeptics (outside of scientists specifically) have only recently begun to form serious movements. The internet is key to organizing, fundraising for, and disseminating information within such movements. I think these movements, or something very like them, will become stronger and much more influential in the future (10^23 is a key example), and the internet will be key to that growth and strength.

I think a greater effect of the Internet is to put curious or doubting True Believers in touch with more viewpoints, evidence, and data. Many organized religions discourage certain kinds of question asking (background of religious group founders, for example, or details about unsavory events in a group's past) but the internet (even something like Wikipedia) provides this information uncensored. On the true believer side of the fence, the Internet has a bit of a dangerous feeling, as if certain website authors are out to tear down one's faith. But on the skeptic side of the fence, there is nothing to hide or to cover up, ignore, or avoid, which is provides a great feeling of relief: very little of the internet feels dangerous---it's just information (when it's no obvious misinformation or propaganda).

In addition, organized religions naturally have groups of people, support networks, and literal places to go to help doubting individuals feel supported, whereas skeptics are not nearly as visibly organized. Being able to read and interact with caring, intelligent, thoughtful skeptics and former True Believers provides doubters with a web of support and makes the identity transition a lot more bearable: from "Religion-X-er" to "inactive-Religion-X-er", to agnostic, to atheist, to skeptic, to humanist.

Yes, Bonobo's generally on the money (see above), but I don't think he's emphasised the power of the internet in disseminating wrong information as "truth". A classic example is Wikipedia, which claims to be "neutral" and authoratitive and is in gfact a site riddled with trols hatred and lies. ALL THE BEST

Very.

But as with all things t'internet, the sword is double edged.

On the plus side, you have a vast resource of information to hand. On the down... you have a vast source of information to wade through.

The problem is what is kosher, and/or well interpreted.

The only real solution is to surf and surf, and build up a store of reliable, credible sources, and then work around these to hopefully get to an accurate picture.

And don't for a moment presume that 'mainstream' is any guarantee of accuracy, or even lack of agenda. It is nigh on impossible to find such a thing, especially when it comes to matters of science.

Here's a case in point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/08/as_several_of_you_pointed.html

At least the author responded, but only after the internet and its denizens waded in.

The best part is that scepticism used to be somewhat conflated with negativity, but now is more and more seen, if engaged properly, with simply wishing to ensure the 'best' (whatever that means, but I'll make a stab as objectively informed) interpretations rise to the top.