Basically, Keen defines the democratization of media as the "Great Seduction." Democratized media encompasses the idea that in a democracy, every one is equal--on the Internet, all users (mostly amateurs) have the ability and freedom to broadcast themselves. However, because people simultaneously hog the limelight via the Internet, the "law of Digital Darwinism" has resulted, meaning that only the loudest and most opinionated will survive. Because democracy has revolutionary potential, it was thought that Web 2.0 would bring more depth of information, more global perspective, more unbiased opinion from dispassionate observers, all to more people. These are all factors of how democratized media seduces users. However, Keen believes this is all a mask to what Web 2.0 is actually delivering. Keen expresses his issues with democratization, which include: how it results in "sheer noise" of millions and millions of bloggers all self-advocating, how it destroys the ranks and lines of professionals and amateurs, how it leads to plagiarism or deceit, how it creates ambiguity about authorship or ownership, and how the value and existence of traditional books are declining. There are many more points of issue that Keen discusses, yet his main point is that although democratization appears to be helpful and luxurious, it leads to amateurs "running the show" and to everyone simultaneously broadcasting themselves rather than listening to each other.
This is an example of how anonymity causes confusion about ownership:
http://www.facebook.com/jackinthebox?v=wall
Jack, the mascot of Jack in the Box, is a fictional character who has a page on Facebook where "he" provides personal background information as well as creates status updates that usually don't even have to do with the restaurant. Because he is fictional, who actually "owns" this content?
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
Both Keen and Rushkoff make valid points that support their opinion on Social Media. Keen sees new media with more of a negative perspective, explaining how it undermines truth, discourages civic discourse, and devalues talent and expertise. On the other hand, Rushkoff is more skeptical of new media rather than oppositional of it. He explores many aspects of the evolving media and how it affects users' behaviors. In Digital Nation, I feel that Rushkoff presented both positive and negative aspects of social media. Therefore, I agree more with Rushkoff because he focuses more on how new media has provided more interconnected means of communication (whether it be positive or negative). I don't believe that the Internet is "killing our culture" like Keen advocates, but I believe it is causing our culture and humanity to evolve in both good and bad ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment