Friday, November 12, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
internet and democracy
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?
Based on the readings and debate, I feel Andrew Keen's and Farhod Manjoo's definition of democracy is most fitting for us to use in conjunction with our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies. In the debate, Manjoo stated that democracy was threatened by the unchecked nature of information on the internet. People can anonymously post whatever they want on the internet, and there is no way of knowing whether or not this reputable. Keen states that he fears democratized media will "threaten the very future of our cultural institutions". Therefore, internet democracy is all about self regulation.
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?
My answer to number 1 fits into the unchecked nature of web 2.0 because web 2.0 is all about self regulation. People have the ability to post whatever they want on these websites, without anyone stopping them. Some examples of web 2.0 are social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, blogs, Wikis, and video websites such as YouTube. This is an important issue that needs to be further addressed. As people post more and more things on the internet, credibility is diminishing. There is no way to tell if what we are reading is fact or completely made up and that is a very bad position to be in.
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 media echo-chamber phenomenon holds that we only talk to like minded people. We only hear opinions of people similar to our own, and as a result, we don't hear the other side of an argument According to the debate, this silo affect has contributed to harsh partisanship in Washington D.C. and the country. This is evident through Fox news. Fox news is known to be a conservative news station, so when people watch Fox news they only receive one side of the information. Therefore, these conservative people only receive information from people who share a similar viewpoint. This problem needs to be addressed because our society is becoming increasingly fragmented and isolated. We are convinced of our own ideas, and unwilling to view another side. When people do not take the time to see the other side of an idea, they are making a decision based on opinion and not fact because they cannot make an opinion based on fact when they do not know the whole story.
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?
I believe that some authority should be enforced on the internet, but I feel that it is easier said than done. Currently, there is some enforcement on the internet, with websites such as Wikipedia. Because people can post whatever they want on these websites, there is no way of knowing if the information is 100% accurate. However, there are some people who regulate the website and remove information that is clearly incorrect. There are also websites like "factcheck.org" where you can check to see if information is valid or not. I believe some enforcement is need on the internet especially in today's times where people are so reliant on technology for their information. Many people go directly to the internet to get their information, and if the information is not accurate, that is a problem. However, that is not to say that I feel that there should be total regulation. I think above all people need to be responsible for themselves and their actions. However, because not everyone can be a responsible person, some regulation wouldn't hurt.
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.
An example of an adaptation or improvement made by a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with the changing nature of the internet is when companies create Twitter pages and Facebook pages to provide their customers with extra information. Businesses are coming to the realization that more and more people receive their information from the internet, so they are catering to the needs of their audience. If people will see their businesses advertised online, why not make the information available? The more ways people see the information, the more apt they will see it and remember the business, individual, etc.
Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I feel that democracy is not threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet because democracy is all about freedom. People have the opportunity to say whatever they want to say on the internet. If the internet was checked, democracy would be threatened because people would not have the opportunity to say whatever they wanted to say. However, since the information is not checked on the internet, democracy is not threatened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)