1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction to our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?
Based on the readings and debate, I feel Andrew Keen's and Farhod Manjoo's definition of democracy is most fitting for us to use in conjunction with our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies. They both basically state that democracy is in jeopardy because of the unchecked nature of the internet. People can post subject matter on whatever topic they choose and there is little authority out on the web to discourage fraud.
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?
My answer to question number 1 fits perfectly into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies. A great example of this is all the social networking sites. The unchecked nature of these sites can and has created many disastrous consequences. The most recently publicized case being the Rutgers case where a student posted a comment creating a disastrous chain of events eventually leading to a student’s death. I go back and forth on when, where, and how to check these types of sites and whether it should be done at all on a regular basis. However, there needs to be some way to limit the amount of sites on the internet that go unchecked.
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 media echo-chamber phenomenon states that people only check media of those groups with the same ideas and opinions as their own. In effect, people are becoming more and more one-sided, and are not even considering listening to other perspectives. This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. For example, in our nation, we are mainly democrats or republicans. This has become a more prominent issue because people are only listening to the people that have the same thoughts as them. (Democrats only watching PBS or Republicans only watching FOX News) People have been tuning out others with different ideas and values and have turned on each other to prove themselves right. The problem here is as we continue to be this way our country will just become more and more divided.
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 truly believe that there needs to be some authority over parts of the internet. However, it is difficult to say when, where, or how to do this. I feel that there could be some sort of algorithm that could detect certain key words or phrases, that could then be sent to be further assessed. It is hard to figure this issue out without getting caught up in the “Big Brother” theory, which is basically the thought that the government track us or keeps an eye on basically everything we do. And as I have stated previously these precautions are needed for the safety of our nation physically and mentally.
6. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a of a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.
An example of an adaptation or improvement made by a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with the changing nature of the internet is like when companies like Chase Bank use things such as smart phones for banking. With the new age of technology Chase Bank started a process where you can deposit a check by snapping a special type of picture using a smart phone. Before this they even made banking simpler by making it possible to do checking and so forth online.
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I do not believe that Democracy itself is threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet. Democracy is all about being governed by the people, for the people. We have lived with democracy through many radical changes that have taken place in history. If we think that democracy will falter just from the changes that the internet has brought, we are sadly mistaken. Web 2.0 is just another part of history that democracy is adapting to. (This being the type of thing our country created amendments for.)
No comments:
Post a Comment