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?
Andrew Keen’s definition of democracy seems most fitting for us to use when talking about the new technological age our society seems to be embracing. Keen used the term democracy to describe the equality-based nature of the Internet. Unlike many aspects of life, the Web does not judge. It does not segregate or play favorites. If you have a computer, you’re in the club.
Keen’s definition is very similar to the definition we read about in History classes in elementary school. America is considered a democracy because of equality and freedom. The freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom to choose. Those are some of the values our country was built on, and the new world that is being created on online is following these same values.
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 unchecked nature of Web 2.0 mirrors the ideals and values of democratized media; however, it also pushes the great aspects of democracy to extreme, sometimes negative, limits. Yes, the nature of Web 2.0 grants an opportunity to anybody across the globe, an opportunity to let their voices be heard by anyone interested in hearing them. Yes, the anonymity creates a safer environment for communication, resulting in more and more people standing up and speaking out about extreme and controversial topics with no fear of repercussion. All of that sounds great, but in reality, by stretching the limits of freedom, democratized media is really hurting society.
Even in the most equal and free democratic societies, there are consequences for bad behavior or bad decisions. Many features of Web 2.0 eliminate users’ personal responsibility for their actions. In real life, if you were to make fun of someone or call them a name, there would be consequences. In the simplest terms, if you were to call someone’s girlfriend a “whore” in public, you might get punched in the face. In the most extreme terms, if you were to consistently and ruthlessly abuse homosexuals in public, you might get arrested for a hate crime. Telling an entire online community who your classmate slept with last night or spreading a rumor that one of your housemates is gay does not reflect the goals and values of our constitutional right of freedom of speech. In order to enjoy the right of freedom of speech, I think you need to be willing to accept the potential consequences for your speech.
Web 2.0 is enabling people to voice all of their opinions, no matter how crazy, unheard of, or controversial. But society is better off if some people had to keep their opinions to themselves.
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?
The participants in the Internet Debates define the term echo-chamber as the place or venue where different ideas are being communicated. This could be a blog or a forum or social networks like Facebook or Twitter. The silo effect occurs when everybody is talking to everybody else with same exact ideas. This effect can be seen on television quite often. As soon as a news story breaks, the same headline will be running across the screen of NBC, CBS, Fox News, CSNBC, ABC, and CNN.
This could become an issue if the first news channel who breaks the story is wrong. If one venue receives incorrect information, a slippery, slippery slope of lies and misinformation commences. I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed in some way. I understand that all news stations want to beat their competitors to the punch, but I also feel like there used to be journalistic integrity. Don’t print a story until you have confirmed from trustworthy sources that it is valid. If this trend continues, will it even be possible to know which outlets to trust and which outlets to be wary of? If they’re all saying the same thing, I don’t think it will be.
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?
Personally, I believe there needs to be a little bit more authority on the Internet. I have already stressed my opinion that anonymity is, for the most part, a bad thing, and I have said that I don’t think every single one of every single human being’s opinions need to be voiced to the entire planet.
Since I’ve already touched on the negatives, I want to elaborate on some positive steps the Internet has already taken. Some authority can be seen in certain aspects of the Web. Of course, there are laws against certain types of pornography (although they sometimes do not accomplish their goal as well as one would hope). Even Facebook, one of the biggest advocates of user-generated freedom of all time, has some rules. Facebook does not allow users to post inappropriate pictures, they have a feature where users can report and block offensive and even potentially dangerous users, and the Facebook team has done a pretty good job creating privacy preferences.
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.
The world of politics and big business has drastically changed with the growing influence of the Internet. It has changed so much that new positions, new careers, are being created to keep up with the fast-paced evolution of the Internet. Politicians now do a large amount of their politicing (I don’t think that is a word) on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. My brother is the press secretary for the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and one of his many responsibilities is to maintain the LG’s Facebook page, updating it with status reports, pictures, and speeches. This certainly did not exist in the past.
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
Absolutely. I love the Internet. I love our 21st century technological age. And I would really love to say that we as a society are mature and disciplined enough to be able to weed through the nonsense and understand that information on the Internet is unchecked and cannot be taken as absolute truth. However, I am concerned about the generation below us (current college students).
Yes, we were raised on technology. I think my family bought our first computer when I was still in elementary school, and I had a laptop by the time I was in ninth grade. But we were not raised on Facebook, Twitter, Blogspot, or any of these other features of Web 2.0. These were not introduced until we were in high school, after we developed our personalities and sense of true and untrue.
My brother’s nine year old niece has a cell phone and a Facebook. She uses the Internet to look up information and entertain herself. If the Web remains “unchecked” and anonymous, I really do fear that her generation will lose their grasp of the truth. There will be too much information available for them to choose from.
No comments:
Post a Comment