1. According to Keen democratized media is a society in which everyone relatively has the same digital power. Everyone is allowed to directly upload there ideas to the internet. Keen believes that this democratization of media will lead to a downfall in quality since amateurs in all areas will be able to create media. This could also lead to job loss since professionals will have vastly more competition against people who most often upload their media for free. Sites such as twitter.com, youtube.com and wikipeida.org are good examples of this as they allow anyone with internet access to create media and change/add information. Keen thinks that groups of people online have too much power as they are able to exert their power online with little to know repercussions. Websites such as 4chan.org have histories of using their anonymity to wreak havoc on anyone they deem an enemy. This includes hacking websites and sending threating emails, sometimes carrying viruses with them. The free dispersion of information and data makes it very hard for people to make money off of web2.0.
2. Keen and Rushkoff ideas on Web 2.0 and social mediacontrast dramaticaly. Although, they both recognize that social media has had a tremendous i impact on modern society, Rushkoff has a more positive point of view. Keen seems to see the worst in all aspects of web 2.0, believing that the nature of humanity will cause new internet technologies to be a bastion poor quality filth. Since anyone can upload media, he thinks quality work from professionals will cease as the public will crave cheaper and easier media from amateurs. Rushkoff is much more optimistic. He sees how new social media can positively impact many different fields of work. He feels as I do, that new open source technology is a good thing as it allows more good ideas to come in from many different people from different backgrounds.
2. Keen and Rushkoff ideas on Web 2.0 and social mediacontrast dramaticaly. Although, they both recognize that social media has had a tremendous i impact on modern society, Rushkoff has a more positive point of view. Keen seems to see the worst in all aspects of web 2.0, believing that the nature of humanity will cause new internet technologies to be a bastion poor quality filth. Since anyone can upload media, he thinks quality work from professionals will cease as the public will crave cheaper and easier media from amateurs. Rushkoff is much more optimistic. He sees how new social media can positively impact many different fields of work. He feels as I do, that new open source technology is a good thing as it allows more good ideas to come in from many different people from different backgrounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment