Illustrator

Keen&Rushkoff

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.

            Democratized media is described as Web 2.0 according to Keen. He said he never realized democracy could have so many possibilities, such as media, information, knowledge, content, audience, author, but mainly us. We are all going to be democratized, and participating in Web 2.0. We are Web 2.0. There is no such thing as a knowledgeable source. We are writing blogs on OUR highly opinionated thoughts, we are remixing music, and there is no such thing as originality anymore. Keen uses Darwinism as an example. “The survival of the loudest and the most opinionated.” Those are the voices that are going to be heard. Keen says that Web 2.0 is bringing superficial observations rather then deep analysis. Everything can be created yourself, encouraging plagiarism and property theft. Web 2.0 initiates a lack of creativity and originality, and initiates the borrowing and using of other people’s ideas.

Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?

            Douglas Rushkoff thinks that Social Media can be beneficial to society. It keeps us informed on a many topics, allows us to keep in contact with family members, friends, relatives, and people who are not close in distance. Social media allows us to just in general stay connected to the entire world.  Although Rushkoff does believe that social media can have a few negative aspects, such as being time consuming and addictive, he believes in general that social media has a positive outlook, giving society a positive reinforcement to stay in touch with one another.

            Andrew Keen has a very opposite outlook. He thinks Social Media is ruining our society and is very harmful to society. Keen thinks that if Social Media is pretty much our main way to communicate with one another, and exchange information. He thinks this is a fictional way of living, and we are going to be inexperienced and unable to personally connect and interact with one another.  

            I think both Rushkoff and Keen make good points.  While Rushkoff is right that Social Media can be beneficial to our society, whether it be for communication or the exchange of information, Keen is right when he says that Social Media now consumes many of our lives, weakening our personal, face to face interactions. Rushkoff's view of Social is more influential in my opinion because this generation has grown up in a time where Social Media is the norm, the thing we most know. Life without Social Media is not life at all. Not only can we keep in contact with family and friends, but you can exchange different view points and keep in touch with people miles and miles away.

Whither the Indiviual Continued...

I wrote on Samantha Dickerson, Brian Arfanis and Brett Houseal's blogs.