Keen's argument

In Keen's great seduction he makes an argument against the movement towards democratized media. He defines this movement as the progression of information, music, and video being created by the amateur. It is now possible for every internet citizen to make a blog or a movie and have people view it and appreciate it at the same level as professional works. This bothers Keen for a number of reasons including the internet's reliance on advertising and the lack of resources for the amateur producer. Keen sees the idea of free media as a dangerous possibility as often there seems to be an ambiguous difference between the content and the media. As a result more people are swayed by media which is not especially well funded and is dependent on advertising content. In addition, he finds the ability of every person distressing. Not everyone has the resources or funds to research information as would a reporter or journalist. These are just some of his arguments against the democratization of media.


Keen and Rushkoff represent two of the most brilliant perspectives on web 2.0 and believe it or not they are not completely dissimilar. Yes they certainly have different opinions on web 2.0 but this stems from one main point which they are on total opposite poles and this is the middleman. For Rushkoff the middleman is the one who gets in the way and prevents true progress because the middle man creates nothing but simply buy and sell. Keen on the other hand sees the middleman as a gate keeper who ensures the quality of each end of the bargain. Personally I can't begin to decide where I see myself am aligned with. Keen makes good points in the lack of security in new media and the rise of mediocrity in our world. Where Rushkoff sees the middleman as slowing the process wasting money that could be earned person to person. I feel like it is too early for me to really form an opinion both sides seem well versed in political and philosophical thought which is usually what tips me one way or the other but since I'm required to give an answer I'll say they're both right and perhaps that is the more important philosophical concept. Its true there is a mediocre aspect to web 2.0 but we still are able to see incredible creations. It's true middlemen really have no creation and have nothing to offer in terms of service but without that man in the middle do we really trust the other side and would we be willing to sell for so much or so little without their say? So that's my big contribution to the web 2.0 debate it can go either way and perhaps that will be what happens we will keep living in a world where the internet is both treasured and mistrusted as it seems to feel right now.

Response

For my response I am reading Tom Landers essay on the good and bad of social networking. Tom captures the lack of privacy involved in being a part of the social networking. At the same time he draws on how there is a constant battle between alienation and overexposure. He shows numerous examples but the one which I found very true was how being facebook can either get you a job or lose you a job opportunity. I've heard numerous times that companies have started doing background checks on applicants by checking their facebook. Personally I have always thought that facebook almost lost it's appeal to my generation when kid's parents started getting facebooks and "friending" their kids.

To reflect on Tom's paper I feel that social networks will lead to either forcing people to be more candid with what they do online or perhaps people will come to understand that much of what is said on facebook and other social networks is said with no ill or crude intent. On a personal note I can't express how many times I've qouted a lyric or a movie only to get scolded by my mother, often ending with me saying "mom it was just in good fun" to which she often replies "then maybe you should be studying instead of having fun." Personal mother woes aside, I think that my generation should be more careful when it comes to what is put on facebook, I realize this makes me look pretty hypocritical as their are a fair number of things I would be less then proud of people seeing on my facebook.

Back to constructive comments on Tom's paper. I felt the best part of the paper was in his metaphor for the internet creating a chain between people. He created an interesting visualization for how the world has become extremely small and every person is connected in it causing a mass of assimilation which penetrates ethnicity, culture, and religion. I can't tell you how many people all seem to have an opinion on whether lil' Wayne deserves more or less jail time according to facebook. Whether you really have a strong opinion on lil Wayne people seem compelled to join the groups their friends become fans of. This assimilation creates a lack of diversity in thought and ideas. My only real critique of the paper was I felt it didn't really pick a side, which would be fine but I find it hard to read the rest of his paper without a majority of people seeing the vast negatives the social network has created. all in all though I enjoyed the paper and the insightful views on the social network.