Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Keen Reading 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. Include this idea of "disintermediation".
Keen defines Democratized media by saying it is lofty idealized, undermines truth, and belittles expertise, experience, and talent. Keen thinks that democratized media is an empty promise and I think he means that it?s almost ironic that the phrase democratized media even exists. ?For the real consequence of the Web 2.0 revolution is less culture, less reliable news, and a chaos of useless information? Keen 16. Keen believes there is little truth to the world of democratized media.
For example, Keen uses the deaths of Ken Lay and Anna Nicole Smith?s Wikipedia pages and how their deaths were described incorrectly within minutes. Lay?s said his death was a suicide then a heart attack. Smith?s said hers was for unknown reasons, drugs, heart problems, and so on. This is how misinformation is spread.
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!?)
Keen believes as I stated in the previous answer that the media is a way to spread lies in a super fast way. Rushkoff believes that social media hinders our abilities to grow on a large global or national scale but can bring towns and smaller communities closer because of information that is spread. Within these small towns people can get windows into other people lives that they may or may not know in reality. I understand both of their views, and I actually really agree with both of them. I believe that social media is a way to spread information very fast but I do believe that there is a lot of misinformation being spread as well. Also in my own experience, people that I am Facebook friends with in my town, I feel that I know better or what?s going on in their lives. I see what colleges people are going to, if they get new pets, I can see pictures they post of new shoes they get, or whatever it may be, but I do see a town getting a better look into each other?s windows, essentially making us all neighbors.
Keen defines Democratized media by saying it is lofty idealized, undermines truth, and belittles expertise, experience, and talent. Keen thinks that democratized media is an empty promise and I think he means that it?s almost ironic that the phrase democratized media even exists. ?For the real consequence of the Web 2.0 revolution is less culture, less reliable news, and a chaos of useless information? Keen 16. Keen believes there is little truth to the world of democratized media.
For example, Keen uses the deaths of Ken Lay and Anna Nicole Smith?s Wikipedia pages and how their deaths were described incorrectly within minutes. Lay?s said his death was a suicide then a heart attack. Smith?s said hers was for unknown reasons, drugs, heart problems, and so on. This is how misinformation is spread.
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!?)
Keen believes as I stated in the previous answer that the media is a way to spread lies in a super fast way. Rushkoff believes that social media hinders our abilities to grow on a large global or national scale but can bring towns and smaller communities closer because of information that is spread. Within these small towns people can get windows into other people lives that they may or may not know in reality. I understand both of their views, and I actually really agree with both of them. I believe that social media is a way to spread information very fast but I do believe that there is a lot of misinformation being spread as well. Also in my own experience, people that I am Facebook friends with in my town, I feel that I know better or what?s going on in their lives. I see what colleges people are going to, if they get new pets, I can see pictures they post of new shoes they get, or whatever it may be, but I do see a town getting a better look into each other?s windows, essentially making us all neighbors.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Question Response
Whither the Individual?
As we join groups and social networks from affinity sites to Facebook, are we extending and expanding identities, or increasingly conforming to the cookie-cutter profiles demanded of these interfaces? Is the loss of "personal space" and "reflection" so many users complain of merely the necessary surrender of "ego" as we learn to participate as members of a more evolved "collective organism" of "hyper-people?"
(you may want to re-watch "bubbie" and "warcraft" sections of digital nation)
I really haven?t given much thought to this topic until I started realizing that it was happening to my profiles and online groups. I never really gave into the thought of having a cookie cutter profile and how even thought I post so much of my every day life online that I am actually molding myself into a very narrow person that people see.
Because now we live in a world where the majority of the time, besides our closest friends, we talk to each other via devices such as social media sites like Facebook, Google Mail, MySpace, or cell phones, I figured that people knew who I was already before I added them to be able to view my online profiles. However, after learning about the idea that we are only putting out what we want people to see, I have in fact noticed myself thinking differently of people because of what they put out on their Facebook pages.
For example, I had an old roommate and she was a nice girl and then we both transferred schools. Now that I don?t see her anymore, the only thing I see her post about is how much she loves her ?hubby.? Now when I see a status of hers coming up, I can already guess what it?s going to be about. I wouldn?t say that I?m addicting more than anyone else to these sites, that is why I found it so interesting. I go on every day to my Facebook, but if I notice things like that so easily, then maybe we are only putting out a small glimpse of ourselves when really we have put out so much personal information.
I think we are definitely hindering our ?reality personalities? and narrowing down out room to grow by having such personal online profiles. The video Digital Nation we watched in class, I have seen before but I definitely paid more attention this time and I find that I?m really disgusted with how people abuse the internet and tend to neglect their own reality. I also think that it is a true illness and it may sound absurd, but I would put money on it that in 50 years there are many more counseling centers and diagnosis for disorders related to communication addiction.
Since we can?t go back in time and change the way the internet has opened our availability to information, we can only learn how to use it now in a way that is better for our society. In the scheme of things, this world we live in of a surplus of technology has not been around long and if people in other countries have died from overexposure to gaming devices and social media sites because they?re neglecting their health and mental being in real life then I would definitely say there is a problem.
Schools would be where I started to change how we use the internet. Children learn quickly and if they recognize the effects of what overexposure to the internet can do then they will learn to appreciate it more. Cyber-bullying, racism, sexism, etc? all can be controlled by being ?safe? on the internet and I think before we really hinder our personalities, we should learn how to control internet use.
As we join groups and social networks from affinity sites to Facebook, are we extending and expanding identities, or increasingly conforming to the cookie-cutter profiles demanded of these interfaces? Is the loss of "personal space" and "reflection" so many users complain of merely the necessary surrender of "ego" as we learn to participate as members of a more evolved "collective organism" of "hyper-people?"
(you may want to re-watch "bubbie" and "warcraft" sections of digital nation)
I really haven?t given much thought to this topic until I started realizing that it was happening to my profiles and online groups. I never really gave into the thought of having a cookie cutter profile and how even thought I post so much of my every day life online that I am actually molding myself into a very narrow person that people see.
Because now we live in a world where the majority of the time, besides our closest friends, we talk to each other via devices such as social media sites like Facebook, Google Mail, MySpace, or cell phones, I figured that people knew who I was already before I added them to be able to view my online profiles. However, after learning about the idea that we are only putting out what we want people to see, I have in fact noticed myself thinking differently of people because of what they put out on their Facebook pages.
For example, I had an old roommate and she was a nice girl and then we both transferred schools. Now that I don?t see her anymore, the only thing I see her post about is how much she loves her ?hubby.? Now when I see a status of hers coming up, I can already guess what it?s going to be about. I wouldn?t say that I?m addicting more than anyone else to these sites, that is why I found it so interesting. I go on every day to my Facebook, but if I notice things like that so easily, then maybe we are only putting out a small glimpse of ourselves when really we have put out so much personal information.
I think we are definitely hindering our ?reality personalities? and narrowing down out room to grow by having such personal online profiles. The video Digital Nation we watched in class, I have seen before but I definitely paid more attention this time and I find that I?m really disgusted with how people abuse the internet and tend to neglect their own reality. I also think that it is a true illness and it may sound absurd, but I would put money on it that in 50 years there are many more counseling centers and diagnosis for disorders related to communication addiction.
Since we can?t go back in time and change the way the internet has opened our availability to information, we can only learn how to use it now in a way that is better for our society. In the scheme of things, this world we live in of a surplus of technology has not been around long and if people in other countries have died from overexposure to gaming devices and social media sites because they?re neglecting their health and mental being in real life then I would definitely say there is a problem.
Schools would be where I started to change how we use the internet. Children learn quickly and if they recognize the effects of what overexposure to the internet can do then they will learn to appreciate it more. Cyber-bullying, racism, sexism, etc? all can be controlled by being ?safe? on the internet and I think before we really hinder our personalities, we should learn how to control internet use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)