Keen vs. Rushkoff

1. Keen defines Democratized media as something that "does away with" the middle man or intermedates.  It allows anyone to publish or post ideas, media, and even untruths, and have a place on the internet for everyone to see.  This, to Keen, has lead to a lack of demand for quality or integrity.  He also believes that it destroys jobs, because the professional quality that people work to learn and master is no longer as valuable.  Web sites like JamStudio or PureVolume would be an example of something Keen believes to be destroying the music industry, because it allows you to create or post music at your own discretion, but without the guidance of professionals. 
Another issue he has with Democratized media is that he believes that it misleads people into reading or seeing and believing things that are less than true.  Sites like Wikipedia have raised concerns for him, because there is no professional of each and every topic checking to make sure all the facts and dates are accurate, so anyone could post anything (to an extent) and disguise it as something that should be considered valid.

2. Keen and Rushkoff hace different views about social media.  Although both recognize the effects that it has had on society, good and bad, Rushkoff seems to have a more positve outlook.  He embraces the possiblities that it has for society, and sees how it has benefited people in different fields.  Keen, however, is much more pessimistic about people when it comes to social media and the intense influence it has over people.  He thinks it will only continue to eliminate the need for face-to-face interaction, and causes people to value authenticity and truth much less.  I'm torn between these two ideas.  I agree with some of Keen's points, and he backs his opinions well.  However, I like to think that society won't plummet quite the way he believes.

Digital Nation: The Mob

            The internet and ability to connect with virtually everyone at any time has changed society in ways previous generations never believed possible.  We are able to access and distribute information, communicate, and connect with people all over the world, whether we know them personally or not.  This connectedness comes with an anonymity that we don’t have when talking to someone face to face, or even over the phone. 

This anonymity has had good effects, such as getting to know someone for who they are rather than what they look like.  However, it also has also brought about many negative effects that most people could not predict.  Online predators have become a major issue since the internet, especially social networking sites, have taken off.  Predators can disguise themselves easily online, because the only thing they have to change is what they post online or talk about, rather than the way they live.  Another complaint from many people is a lack of privacy.  Information that people may not want the entire world to know can be posted online for literally anyone.  Many people have even been fired or not hired for jobs, and expelled or not accepted into schools because of pictures or posts they have put online.  It is true that for the most part, people can control what they post or what is posted about them and who can see what, but we have to take extra precautions about privacy settings and what we want to share.  Scams are another major issue with the internet.  It is easier to take advantage of people when you are able to only give them certain information over a computer than to have a direct conversation or trying to sell someone something in person.  Allowing people to connect over the internet so easily and in so many ways can also lead people to lose touch with reality and forget, or not want to interact with people in real life.  As we saw in the Digital Nation documentary, some people have become obsessed with interacting only through a computer, and consider their “online friends” better friends than any of their “real life friends”.  These people only see the good in this, like the people at the World of Warcraft convention who consider their time with their friends playing the game more meaningful than interacting outside the game.  This causes people to live in a fantasy world rather than experience anything that real life has to offer, and it sometimes interferes with their real life. For example, one woman on the documentary said that she quit her job so that she could stay home and play World of Warcraft more.  In Digital Nation, Douglas Rushkoff asked an arguable question: “Do virtual worlds really bring us together with others, or do they just make being utterly alone a little more bearable?”

This anonymity with connectivity does not always equal cruelty.  People were cruel before the internet, and would be whether the internet existed or not.  The internet is only a new outlet for these acts, and a new way to make them more public.  Years ago, there was still bullying, discrimination, prejudice, revenge, and back-stabbing.  Now, people have a new way of posting or doing these cruel acts, intentional or not.  As we’ve seen with the Tyler Clementi tragedy at Rutgers, the instant connection the internet grants allows people to do much more harm in a much shorter amount of time. 

The collective anger online is not there because of the internet.  When the internet boomed people were not thinking about the different ways they could abuse it in order to harm others.  Cruelty can be found on the internet because today, it seems most of the population has a web site, blog, social network profile, or some kind of home online that serves as an outlet for whatever they want to say.  Many people feel safer saying or doing what they want because of the anomynity that we have online.  However, it does not control how we think or act, even in the depths of our minds that we may not want to share with others.  We control what we do or say.  The internet has only given society a new place to share these thoughts, good or bad.