1. Keen's idea of democratized media is a society which everyone relatively has the same digital power. Everyone is allowed to directly upload there ideas to the internet. This democratization of media may lead to a downfall in quality since amateurs will be able to create media. Job loss is also a possibility since professionals will have a lot more competition against people who most often upload their media for free. a site like Wikipedia.org is a good example of this because it allows anyone with internet access to create media and add or change any information. According to Keen, groups of people online have too much power because they are able to use their power online with almost no consequences. Websites such as 4chan.org have histories of using their anonymity to wreak havoc on anyone they deem an enemy. The free dispersion of information and data makes it very hard for people to make money off of web2.0.
2. Andrew Keen is strictly against web 2.0 because of the opportunity it creates for copyright infringement and ambiguity. He believes that user generated content messes with economy and the creative value of culture. He supports big media over small media and he believes web 2.0 takes away "middle man" and social media sets up barriers. He is very pompous and stubborn is his approach, with a very "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
Rushkoff acknowledges those problems, but he believes we have the power to change them. He mentions how even experts have been rejected on Wikipedia to show us that we really can't believe everything that we're reading on the internet. He believes that of course there are problems, but we have the responsibility to take control of it before it takes control of us. He recognizes that the media can get completely out of control but as long as we keep it in control we can really utilize and benefit from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment