A common thread that unites Black’s study to the Cope/Kalantzis address is the concept of the individual in the digital age. Black approaches the idea via the individual’s role in collaborative writing and response—as well as in terms of the notion of imagination. Cope/Kalantzis engage with it more in relation to the diversity at the level of the individual associated with the third globalization. I’m most interested in thinking about the particular brand(s) of individuality they associate with participation in the digital age.
Granted, I’m not theoretically equipped to discuss philosophies of the individual, so my thinking here is more observational than anything else. But it does seem disconcerting (is that the right word?) that Cope/Kalantzis claim that “We are returning to a deep logic of divergence and diversity not witnessed since we spoke the languages of the first globalization,” building in part on the examples of “endless television channels, streamed radio, [and] Web communities” (372). I use disconcerting because it seems very easy to confuse individuality with infantile selfishness when it’s framed in terms iPod and MyDirectTV (I don’t know if the latter exists…perhaps My is redundant next to Direct?). Does putting together a playlist of the 10 favorite songs I bought from iTunes contribute to diversity? I guess it does, in some way, but not in the way that I want to talk about diversity.
To be sure, Cope/Kalantzis do not rely on the commercial media examples alone, but when paired with Black’s study of imagination fueled by “poached” content, the idea of digital diversity seems harrowingly homogenized through the corporate media structures to which we’re so proudly reaffirming our identity-commitments. While it was affirming to see that one participant chose to “right” the “social wrongs” in the anime series she was writing about, I think we do need to temper our use of the word imagination a bit when it is buttressed as strongly as it is by the “textual resources” of characters, plots, and situations that preexist. (And for the record, Nanako is basing her story not just on the Western narrative of You’ve Got Mail. That film, and several other works that use the same plot device, are adaptations of the play Parfumerie by Hungarian playwright Miklos Laszlo).
At the center of my concern, I guess, is what do we mean by diversity, individuality, and difference? If the metrics we use are the way people adapt commercial media stories to post and dedicate to our new boyfriends and girlfriends, that worries me a little. If we seek evidence for difference in the preponderance of television channels that are individualized only because it makes delivery of marketing messages more efficient, that worries me as well.
FilkBlog: The Scott Filkins Experience 
I think you are right on to critique the notion of choice in relation to diversity and difference. I think Cope and Kalantzis do focus on choice in terms of consumption, but I felt like their main point was choice in terms of the way that we communicate.
What your post has helped me see is how I drew some confusion from this discussion of difference: the individualized market you discuss and the opportunities to have differences converge because of progressive communication technology.
In the end I am just as worried as you. I, also, don’t think diversity has anything to do with an individualized market. And I am worried that our capitalist market will do whatever it can to pass of this individual difference as increasing diversity in order to increase profit.