1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links. Include this idea of "disintermediation".
Keen defines Democratized media as this new media that brings more content and opinion to the web, but also "blurs the lines between the audience and the author." He says that this new innovation brings question to fact and fiction on the web. He questions how much of the content put out there is actually fact based or not. With the idea that there no longer are paid editors screening what goes onto the web to make sure it is valid, there is a sense that anything could be posted by anyone; and more times than not, anything is. This is what Keen states as "disintermediation". Wikipedia is his main example of this new term. He speaks of when certain public figures died and how the cause of death was changed by anonymous users multiple times clearly showing that the sources could not be trusted (by the varied and unrelated causes of death).
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. What are these differences in opinion? Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why? You may include the ideas of such utopian technophiles as Larry Lessig, Chris anderson, and Jimmy Wales (who are these guys!?)
Douglas Rushkoff takes a more personal approach to the idea of Web 2.0, whereas Keen dissects it's validity. In Rushkoff's documentary, he explores the effects Web 2.0 has had on students, gamers, and even adults. He shows the different marketing strategies that have come out of it, yet also how much it is negatively influencing those who have grown up with it. Keen however, takes the issue of Web 2.0 being an "editor-free world" and how this negatively affects everyone who is using the web. He stresses that the bombardment of amateur content is messing with the whole idea of fact and fiction. He talks over and over about there being no true distinction between what is fact-based opinion and what is just a hot-headed, ignorant blogger opinion. Keen talks not only about the opinions, but the sources those opinions are coming from. Although a lot of it would seem to be coming from an amateur teenager trying to amuse him and his friends, some of the content is actually being produced by companies with political agendas attempting to look like a third party. While both views seem very important in our society today, I would say that Rushkoff's hits closer to home for me. I don't produce much content and I don't read much content that isn't from a credible source, so the effects on my life are more important to me than the idea that some sources aren't credible. Also, as a teenager, Facebook has taken over my life. Rushkoff's film speaks to me more than Keen's book.
No comments:
Post a Comment