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.