1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links.
Keen defines Democratized media as a society that has power from everyone, there are no higher-ups to control what the mass does. An example is anyone can produce a type of media without any formal training or knowledge of a subject, spreading their ideas to millions because they have an Internet connection. Nearly every website has a place to comment on works such as youtube.com, places to post information such as wikipedia.org, and numerous boards to post opinions and find answers, like Yahoo Answers. Keen believes that with this unlimited power and no guidelines culture is blurred an/or lost to uneducated peoples-- order is lost in the online realm. He takes issue with the amount of responsibility people are given and how it's abused as groups attack websites, change information and cause problems for others trying to reach a certain site. 4chan.org is a big offender, Keen has not mentioned them but they are constantly bombarding online sources. So much information is shared through Web 2.0 that most of it is lost and stolen, reposted and no one receives credit for their work. Much of the information is copied and it's becoming very difficult to identify what is reliable; it's a large mess of information with little regulations.
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
Andrew Keen is explicitly disgusted by Web 2.0 and the new culture that comes with it. Douglas Rushkoff sees these issues but understands that we as a people can overcome the problems and find a middle ground-- further online use to benefit everyone. Both present the problems, but in entirely different ways. Keen shows no mercy, no room to budge in his opinion on Web 2.0 saying that nothing good will come from it and it's detrimental to society. Rushkoff looks at all parts of Web 2.0 and takes it case by case, how does something hurt of benefit society, what are the best ways to use the Internet. Rushkoff observes how we can utilize the Internet to our advantage, while Keen believes all wrong has been done, there's no going back and it's a travesty how culture is doomed by Democratized media. I stand by Rushkoff who is not totally one sided in his work; there are many negatives but plenty of positives. Only a matter of time will people mature generation by generation and utilize the Internet in new ways to improve lives. I find Web 2.0 very beneficial because I can locate numerous opinions and information on topics and opinions on that information. Any information can be found and with my diverse class topics finding it is easy, plus classes have taught me what is reliable and what should be avoided. I like Web 2.0 because people can expand their horizons and learn new things, voice their thoughts on just about anything. All sides are represented and one can decipher for themselves what is the most logical. Keen shows too much bias and is unable to see any benefits, but his argument has some legs, it's just he doesn't trust people. Rushkoff is more rational and sympathetic towards people and believes Web 2.0 is a wonderful thing that when used correctly can expand ones world.
FINAL TEST TODAY!
7 years ago