1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?
Currently, the internet seems to be using a form of direct democracy. Any individual has the ability to post anything on the internet for anyone to see. There is no fact checking or certainty behind anything that is available on the internet. All too often people use information that is found on the internet in papers or to support theories without checking the author's credibility. When we go online to search for information, we usually take the first supporting detail we see without researching validity. This could be a problem because a paper or supportive material for a theory may be based on fabricated evidence. This can be avoided if the researcher takes the time to use multiple sources and fact check everything they are learning. People have the ability to look for credible sources and sift through for plausible information. If people take the time to correctly do research, this should not cause a problem. A direct democracy on the internet is actually beneficial because there are many points of views. If we used a representative democracy, not every point of view would be available. Everybody has a voice on the internet; personal stories and experiences could be beneficial to specific audience members. If a representative democracy was put in place, we would no longer have such a wide range in freedom of speech. Everything on the internet would have to be right or wrong, there would be no room for opinion. People go on the internet because it is a direct democracy and everybody fits in somewhere, not everybody can be represented in a representative democracy.We should keep the direct democracy that is currently in place, a representative democracy would only create more censoring.
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 refers to how anybody can post anything because of the way the internet is set up with a direct democracy. Some clear examples of direct democracy would be YouTube, Blogger, any forums, Facebook, etc. Anybody could create a website and get thousands of hits per day. There is no need to be a professional to be able to contribute to the information on the internet.
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?
a) The concept of silos is that people only search within a certain bias. If someone was pro life, they may only search for reasons why abortion should be illegal, or they may search for forums of people with similar beliefs. The same would go for someone who is pro choice. It is possible that neither side of the debate looks at the points that the other side makes. Silos are often very biased and opinionated. People may get wrapped up in an idea without doing much research on it. This is a danger of the direct democracy on the internet, but it is a right that people have that should not be taken away.
b) Silos are entirely possible and it is probable that they exist. I feel as though they are not as prevalent as Andrew Keen may think because conversations are allowed. Because the internet is a direct democracy, people can share opinions. If a pro life individual were searching abortion rights on the internet, they may come across a pro choice website. This can spark conversation or debate. Debates are beneficial to help see both sides of a belief. Silos are possible, but because of the wide range of information on the internet, I feel like all sides of each topic are easily findable, even for people who do not go searching.
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?
Expertise or authority is usually needed to post information on a government, educational or organizational website. The organizational information may be biased, but it often makes sure to provide valid sources or credentials. When researching specific topics, it would be smart to use websites such as these because they are fact checked. Also, books and online databases that are often offered at libraries are usually fact checked. These are reliable and acceptable to use on school papers and research projects. The government is usually behind these forces. This could be a good or a bad thing. If the government feels it is important for them to censor something, there will be underlying information that is not released to the people, but we know that the information is generally accepted by the public. I think it is good to have sites like these because we know they are generally accepted, but I also think the .com websites could be beneficial because they show opinion and practice of freedom of speech. I have always found it beneficial to look at all different types of sources when trying to prove a point.
Example: Government documents are not available because of national security. Some people believe that it is fair that everything is readily available. One young man hacked into a government safe site and posted confidential documents for everyone to see. If there were no opinion websites, this might happen more because when people are given a restraint, they often break through it. This also may show that .com websites could cause a threat.
5. 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.
Alerts, opinions, support groups, online video/voice business arrangements, etc. Everything is being put online. We need to have the latest form of technology to be able to keep up with society.
6. 7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
My personal opinion is that democracy is strengthened by the unchecked nature of the internet. Anything is available to anybody. Anybody has the right to speak and share what they think, believe, or study. This is what democracy is. A representative democracy would limit the voice of the common people, which I think would be limiting the available democracy we have with the direct democracy that we currently have online.
No comments:
Post a Comment