Vector Graphic

Original Graphic

My Graphic

The Great Seduction Questions

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.

 

         In September of 2004, Keen went to FOO Camp, an organized camping conference that brings together the rich to discuss the benefits of technology. On this particular trip, democratized media was the main discussion. Keen personally was striving to use the internet to always be able to play music from his favorite bands, but democratized media took this a step further in that the audience was to become the entertainer, not the entertained. With this new media, viewers would be able to record themselves doing covers of the songs from Keen's favorite band and become internet sensations. Keen did not like this idea. He believes that with everyone being able to post, talent dies and the talentless rise. Rather than scientifically acurate information, we find opinions on the subject by those who haven't studied it. This is particularly evident in the website wikipedia, which Keen opposes. Anyone is able to modify this website, which could lead to false information being laid down. Also a problematic flaw of democratized media is the potential for people to take ideas and writings from scholars and post it as their own. It is so easy to cut and paste from websites and those who came up with the ideas in the first place are slowly not getting the credit for them.

2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?

   

        Keen is against the democratized media aspect of social media, where the audience becomes the author because he feels it is taking away from those that truly have the talent. Rushkoff, on the other hand, ia concerned with new media's role in corporatism. Both men, however, agree that the social media is growing at an alarming rate and needs to be looked at with concern, not just awe.

       I don't really agree with Keen's ideas. I think he makes good points about what to be wary of, but I think that these concerns are being looked into. He makes the point that on sites like wikipedia, anyone can  post false information, and I believe that this is true and something that needs attention. However, it is already getting it. After posting information on wikipedia, you must list the source from which you got your information. If the source is not credible, the information does not go on the site. Also, wikipedia does not boast of being a credible source to use on papers, and I believe that anyone going to the site realizes that not all of the information may be entirely credible. Its all about knowing which sources and sites to use. Because there are still credible, scientific, reliable sources online that come with Web 2.0, and they should be taken advantage of. The point of the internet is that all of that information is at our fingertips so easily. But take away these sites, and thate quick informative search goes away also.

       Furthermore, Keen describes that with the new media, anyone can post themselves online, which gives way to the common people getting themselves noticed. He disagrees with this. I'm asking, why? What's the big deal if theres a video of a talentless singer on YouTube? If it upsets someone so much, don't watch it. It's really that simple. Not all of us can have incredible voices and go to New York and star on Broadway, so why is it an issue if a person that can never realize that dream post themselves virally? This posting is satisfying to themselves, and Web 2.0 gives them the opportunity to maybe feel special for a short period of time.