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?
I think it is difficult, for myself, at least to choose one type of democratized media as my answer for this question. But, if I had to pick to follow only one of these democratized understandings, even if I do not agree with all of the findings it would have to be Andrew Keens. Keen's definition of democratized media makes sense in the sense of how it restricts certain types of occupations such as artists of all genres and gives away any right to privacy. I think Keen makes a good point when he explains our growing reliance of digital networked technologies because we are so use to now having everything right at our finger tips. Not only are we able to google search everything, but in Keens arguments he explains how the individual us gaining all that they want at the expense of the artist or creator of music, film, and art, which is factual. Although Keen goes about this discussion putting down the growing internet, I believe in Jimmy Wales understanding of the Web which is that it is meant to be accessed and used by all people and that his site, wikipedia.com is almost a small explanation of how the internet is run. It is accessible by all people and isa model there to be edited for everyones use. The internet can be viewed in this same way, a model that is waiting for different users to feed into a mold into a definition.
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?
I think it is hard for us to understand that this concept of web 2.0 is ever growing an evolving without any type of restrictions placed on it. Although there are restrictions on extreme uses of the internet that go against moral and judicial standings it is easy for anyone to use facebook.com to bully someone such as in the recent Rutgers incident, or for their own personal gain in whichever way that may be. The fact that incidents happen without being monitored always raises the question of why has the government not done anything to try and regulate the internet? In my opinion, I think that the Internet shouldn't have to be regulated. I think if it were to be it would just become another reason for Americans to oppose government for taking away their Amendment/Constitutional rights of free speech. I wish there was a happy balance between people using the internet securely and properly (educational uses, blogging, news stations etc) and those who were misusing it (pornography sites, violent or abuse sites) would be penalized. But, until that happens I think it again comes down to the individual and how the individual person on the internet has been raised and how they can impact the usuage of their internet for the better.
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 users on the debate use the work "Echo-chamber" to describe a specific place where ideas are being communicated. The silo effect they then describe is the fact that these places are sometimes (more often than not) written with a biased opinion or wrongful information therefore those who are reading these types of information are then taking it as fact causing the silo effect. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be allowed to express their opinions in the most accessible way possible; the internet. I think Americans should become educated enough to understand that these technologies are user generated and should not be taken for fact. It is up to the individual to know that they should be reading many different sources before coming up with their conclusion of what is fact so they are able to see the big picture.
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?
In user generated spaces, such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Myspace, etc there are people monitoring these types of sites for misconduct. For example I know that on Facebook an individual can report a page or picture that is deemed offensive and inappropriate and then that information is sent to Facebook headquarters where the administration can come up with a final decision of removing the page/picture. The same respect goes to Myspace and Wikipedia where the creators have the options to remove offensive material and you agree to this in your contract before you are allowed to generate your page or finish the creation of your user name. This is the proper way, I believe, to handle the internet and keep the content on it user friendly.
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.
Considering I just saw The Social Network movie I would definitely have to use Facebook for answering this question. Facebook has always been a site for the people, by the people. Its intent was to connect a campus socially in a new and different experience. Since the creation of facebook almost 5 years ago, it has become a culturally boom that has evolved and adapted to the new world. It has not lost its original intent to please the individual even though it has improved and gained corporate esteem with the use and ad campaigns. But, these campaigns or done appropriately not at the expense of the user being bombarded.
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I do not believe democracy is at all threatened but the unchecked internet. Like Jimmy Wales stated the definition of democracy is a government chosen by the people and the internet in the same respect should be kept by the people. It it when government and politics interfere in this nature that gives the people of society a sense of anxiety and anguish that there is no place they are able to speak freely and be an individual. The internet allows people to in this way be happy and at ease that they are allowed to have control in some part of their lives over this social domain.
No comments:
Post a Comment