The Great Seduction

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.
Keen describes the concept of democratized media which is the idea that democracy exists in the media, therefore every one is "equal" on the internet. Everyone has the freedom to broadcast and express whatever they please on the internet. He describes this as "The Great Seduction" because it seems appealing to everyone, but he points out that there's more than what meets the eye. While democratized media has the potential to provide us with more information and different worldwide perspectives, unfortunately it also sets the stage for a mass of insignificant information and excess. He describes this as the "law of Digital Darwinism", in other words only the most vocal and opinionated people on the internet will survive. This isn't necessarily a good thing because it causes people to act out just for attention or to get a reaction. Keen stands firmly against the "seduction" of democratized media because he insists that it leads to plagiarism, ambiguity, deceit, and destroys authenticity. Keen feels that although democratized media seems constructive and beneficial for everyone, it also leads to a mass chaos of under qualified people and insignificant opinions.


2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
Andrew Keen is strictly against web 2.0 because of the opportunity it creates for copyright infringement and ambiguity. He believes that user generated content messes with economy and the creative value of culture. He supports big media over small media and he believes web 2.0 takes away "middle man" and social media sets up barriers. He is very pompous and stubborn is his approach, with a very "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. 
Rushkoff acknowledges those problems, but he believes we have the power to change them. He mentions how even experts have been rejected on Wikipedia to show us that we really can't believe everything that we're reading on the internet. He believes that of course there are problems, but we have the responsibility to take control of it before it takes control of us. He recognizes that the media can get completely out of control but as long as we keep it in control we can really utilize and benefit from it.
Both Keen and Rushkoff make valid points that support their opinion on Social Media.  Keen sees new media with more of a negative perspective, while Rushkoff is aware, but also hopeful of new media rather than oppositional. I like Rushkoff's stand because he is more unbiased, presenting both positive and negative aspects of social media which is more realistic.  He focuses more on how new media has in fact provided interconnected means of communication and sees it for what it is, both positive and negative, rather than blaming the internet for killing our culture, like Keen. Like Rushkoff, I believe social media has a major impact on our culture and is causing our society to slowly evolve, but whether or not we change for the better or for the worse is ultimately up to us.

Response

Kelly Scalera, Whither the Individual: I believe social networking sites are changing our society in a negative way. 


Response Thesis: I see how this social networking trend can cause adversity, however I also believe that today's social networking conformity has it's perks.

http://kellyscalera.blogspot.com/2010/09/digital-nation-whither-individual.html#comments