1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction with our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?
With our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies, I think we need to use a more direct definition of democracy. That is, a definition that realizes that the internet doesn't belong to any one person. The internet is for the whole world and anyone can make or break their name on it and decide what to put on it and how to react to it. Also, everyone is socially equal and has the same rights to share their ideas and criticize the ideas of others.
2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further?
The unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies is basically built and sustained around this definition of democracy. They feed off of each other. Their does not need to be a governing body that censors people on the internet and makes sure only certain people are allowed to have their voice heard. Everyone has that right to be heard. I think the internet actually helps society voice their opinions. The anonymity of it has brought way more outspoken opinionated people to the table then any real life protests. The unchecked nature of it keeps things real.
3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed? Why or Why not?
The phenomenon of the echo-chamber is definitely real. People will throw their ideas out there and just have them confirmed and echoed right back at them by another person. When you get on a forum say, and you become part of a community that discusses things, a certain kind of group-think starts to arise. It is easy to go along with the rest of the community because it starts to seem "okay" or "right." However, I also believe that it does not negatively affect the democracy on the internet. Even with this silo effect going on, there is always some sort of a devil's advocate that will come in and try to be the catalyst for a giant argument. A perfect example of this can easily be found on Youtube.com on just about any video. The general majority of the comments always seem to have one opinion that people kind of just keep throwing back and forth at each other and then there is the trouble-makers who have a counter argument and stir up trouble. This usually creates a debate that forces people to come up with good points less they lose the debate to the other side.
The comments on this song by Angels and Airwaves illustrate this quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiii5G9YtHE&feature=rec-LGOUT-real_rn-1r-18-HM
4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they are needed or not needed?
I think there are certain areas that do require some rules. The government already pretty much tries to combat things like illegal pornography, illegal gambling, or internet scams. However I don't think there is much more need for any sort of regulation. The unchecked nature of the internet is exactly what makes it so fascinating and has allowed it to grow/evolve so rapidly. One of the biggest issues that is hard to solve is that of internet privacy. The government has already intervened in certain places like Google and Facebook. Even this however is not that pressing an issue. People choose what they put on the internet, what they do, and how they interact with the internet. This is basically the premise of Web 2.0. They shouldn't act in any way that they wouldn't want the rest of the world to look in on.
6. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.
With the emergence of the internet and its evolution, bookstores and libraries have been getting less attention. To answer to this, sites like amazon.com have been created. Amazon makes it easy to buy books right from your home and have them sent to you. You can also hear from others who have commented on the product you are buying. This kind of technology is much more efficient and convenient then old school book stores. Since their launch they have broadened and now sell things from all categories to compete with other companies going online.
(http://www.amazon.com/)
Even things like dictionary companies have gone online to make language more available to society. Merriam-Webster has made their dictionary available to everyone for free..(http://www.merriam-webster.com/)
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
Democracy is not threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet. Democracy is threatened by those who think the internet needs to be kept in check and governed by only an elite group of society. The ideas of everyone are important and everyone should have the right to be represented how they want. This is the foundation of democracy. The unchecked nature of the internet is an aspect of this, a channel through which anyone can protest and be heard as they deserve. Free speech combined with Web 2.0 can only strengthen democracy as our society evolves and more people continue to share different ideas on a large scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment