Monday, November 8, 2010
vector image
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs17/f/2007/170/9/5/vector_wallpaper_by_seppoftw.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.designzzz.com/beautiful-vector-illustration-designs/&usg=__DtYNiu542pjUmzsBJIaJR_d-edE=&h=768&w=1024&sz=564&hl=en&start=0&sig2=i_jx3YS3y2ZVqIFvRMbiNQ&zoom=1&tbnid=6D85Z3oZ_a5X7M:&tbnh=136&tbnw=186&ei=cKXYTN2cOIO6sQPqkLCaBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvector%2Bimage%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D869%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C382&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=604&oei=cKXYTN2cOIO6sQPqkLCaBw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=34&ved=1t:429,r:32,s:0&tx=106&ty=60&biw=1680&bih=869
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
web 2.0, Keen, and me
1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?
Well the democracy which is represented by the digital network is essentially a totally direct democracy. Everyone has a voice and everyone has the ability to contribute. I don't personally think this is the kind of democracy we should have but it is the democracy we have adopted in response to new technology. I can only assume this is due to the perception of democracy and the ability the internet has to allow this to be the type of democracy we have. As Keen has often said america is a representative democracy and has always been in both political and media spheres. with web 2.0 we have allowed ourselves to be viewers of unlimited and unchecked media. I think the response of this trend should be to make internet media more secure, better checked, and less direct. I am almost always opposed to censorship but with the internet it seems there is just too much at stake without censorship.
2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further?
The most prevalent example i can think of right now is the tragedy at Rutgers. Because of the internet's uncensored nature students were able to publicly disgrace a student based on his sexual orientation resulting in the students suicide. If there were limits placed on a user or people in charge of checking posted videos then perhaps this event could have been circumvented. It is certainly relevant and important, peoples lives and livings are put up on the internet to be made a mockery of. any student at Marist can log onto websites like facebook or acb and read slanderous material about people they interact with on a day to day basis. These websites promote stereotypes and negative preconceptions while destroying means of normal social interaction. I think the internet has changed and in many ways hindered the social experience and is something which should be monitered.
3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed? Why or Why not?
On a personal level I don't think about echo chambers all that much. I don't personally contribute to any websites which I deem as silos but the concept is slightly frightening. It is a well known psychological and sociological effect for people to become more polarized when involved in a group of like minded individuals. As a result we have websites where people are able to confer and discuss issues which they may not fully understand or at the very least have very biased views on. Again this is an issue that I don't really deal with often so I'm not sure how it should be monitored but this is not exactly a new phenomenon. Personally I don't think it has so much to do with the internet as it does with how people interact with the internet. I think a great deal could be achieved be getting rid of the anonymity on the internet. People will say a lot anonymously that they would never say if they could be connected with it.
4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they are needed or not needed?
I don't see much expertise offered on the internet but i will concede that it seems to be getting better. Wikipedia for instance is reliable 90% of the time, but that 10% is scary. The one thing which i think will be a huge factor is that the big companies in web 2.0 will probably be the ones controlling the media and and large companies being in charge of media always leads to biases and agendas. I think there should be enforcers and editors on websites but I think they should be answerable to agencies like the FCC. This is hard to admit since I've gone against the FCC on almost every issue they have ever raised. Perhaps there should be a seperate agency in the government but I feel any private company would use censorship in a negative way. this is a necessity if we want our internet experience nit to be damaged by the voices of those who don't deserve the privileges that the internet offers.
6. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a of a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.
well again this isn't something I really see all that often but I'll start with the largest internet movement I was involved in that I saw as a positive. President Barack Obama was the first president who i think really succesfully was able to use the internet effectively in a campaign. It was really easy and popular for kids I knew to sign up and be a part of the movement just by logging onto a website to support a politician they believed in. On a smaller level I'll talk about our own school. Marist is really on the up swing in terms of being web savvy. Personally I am a webmaster for a club on campus and we use the internet to relay information to our members pretty much on a daily basis. The internet can be a really positive thing and I don't think there is much doubt in that but it's the prospect of extremists and ill-informed having access to expressing their values
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
Again I really follow Keen on this matter and it is based on something I said earlier. The need for censorship is evident to many and the job will probably fall to the companies themselves to monitor this. Companies really only care about the bottom line and will likely be swayed to only monitor as far as they can afford to. Companies will be likely not to care if a person posts something extreme if it coincides with the beliefs of one of their constituents.I like to think of this as fox syndrome. Fox has really very little belief in reporting the news and much more belief in ratings. This has lead to figures such as Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly who can say outlandish and unchecked material and have it taken as fact. The internet allows this on a huge level allowing large companies and their views to dominate media, news, and people's opinions. This kind of media leads not to a democracy but to an oligarchy, a government or economy ruled by 3 or 4 huge companies.This is extremely dangerous to democracy and could have terrible effects on our culture.
Well the democracy which is represented by the digital network is essentially a totally direct democracy. Everyone has a voice and everyone has the ability to contribute. I don't personally think this is the kind of democracy we should have but it is the democracy we have adopted in response to new technology. I can only assume this is due to the perception of democracy and the ability the internet has to allow this to be the type of democracy we have. As Keen has often said america is a representative democracy and has always been in both political and media spheres. with web 2.0 we have allowed ourselves to be viewers of unlimited and unchecked media. I think the response of this trend should be to make internet media more secure, better checked, and less direct. I am almost always opposed to censorship but with the internet it seems there is just too much at stake without censorship.
2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further?
The most prevalent example i can think of right now is the tragedy at Rutgers. Because of the internet's uncensored nature students were able to publicly disgrace a student based on his sexual orientation resulting in the students suicide. If there were limits placed on a user or people in charge of checking posted videos then perhaps this event could have been circumvented. It is certainly relevant and important, peoples lives and livings are put up on the internet to be made a mockery of. any student at Marist can log onto websites like facebook or acb and read slanderous material about people they interact with on a day to day basis. These websites promote stereotypes and negative preconceptions while destroying means of normal social interaction. I think the internet has changed and in many ways hindered the social experience and is something which should be monitered.
3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed? Why or Why not?
On a personal level I don't think about echo chambers all that much. I don't personally contribute to any websites which I deem as silos but the concept is slightly frightening. It is a well known psychological and sociological effect for people to become more polarized when involved in a group of like minded individuals. As a result we have websites where people are able to confer and discuss issues which they may not fully understand or at the very least have very biased views on. Again this is an issue that I don't really deal with often so I'm not sure how it should be monitored but this is not exactly a new phenomenon. Personally I don't think it has so much to do with the internet as it does with how people interact with the internet. I think a great deal could be achieved be getting rid of the anonymity on the internet. People will say a lot anonymously that they would never say if they could be connected with it.
4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they are needed or not needed?
I don't see much expertise offered on the internet but i will concede that it seems to be getting better. Wikipedia for instance is reliable 90% of the time, but that 10% is scary. The one thing which i think will be a huge factor is that the big companies in web 2.0 will probably be the ones controlling the media and and large companies being in charge of media always leads to biases and agendas. I think there should be enforcers and editors on websites but I think they should be answerable to agencies like the FCC. This is hard to admit since I've gone against the FCC on almost every issue they have ever raised. Perhaps there should be a seperate agency in the government but I feel any private company would use censorship in a negative way. this is a necessity if we want our internet experience nit to be damaged by the voices of those who don't deserve the privileges that the internet offers.
6. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a of a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.
well again this isn't something I really see all that often but I'll start with the largest internet movement I was involved in that I saw as a positive. President Barack Obama was the first president who i think really succesfully was able to use the internet effectively in a campaign. It was really easy and popular for kids I knew to sign up and be a part of the movement just by logging onto a website to support a politician they believed in. On a smaller level I'll talk about our own school. Marist is really on the up swing in terms of being web savvy. Personally I am a webmaster for a club on campus and we use the internet to relay information to our members pretty much on a daily basis. The internet can be a really positive thing and I don't think there is much doubt in that but it's the prospect of extremists and ill-informed having access to expressing their values
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
Again I really follow Keen on this matter and it is based on something I said earlier. The need for censorship is evident to many and the job will probably fall to the companies themselves to monitor this. Companies really only care about the bottom line and will likely be swayed to only monitor as far as they can afford to. Companies will be likely not to care if a person posts something extreme if it coincides with the beliefs of one of their constituents.I like to think of this as fox syndrome. Fox has really very little belief in reporting the news and much more belief in ratings. This has lead to figures such as Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly who can say outlandish and unchecked material and have it taken as fact. The internet allows this on a huge level allowing large companies and their views to dominate media, news, and people's opinions. This kind of media leads not to a democracy but to an oligarchy, a government or economy ruled by 3 or 4 huge companies.This is extremely dangerous to democracy and could have terrible effects on our culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)