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?
Based on what we've read and discussed in class, I feel that the definition of a "direct democracy" would best fit the digital technologies we use. This definition applies best because people are doing exactly what the internet was intended to do: allow a person or group to publicly post their thoughts and information. This will, in turn, allow the public to view it and gather their own opinion of how merited their thoughts and information are based on how it would apply to them and the events that are happening in their life. This is in contrast to having a group of authoritative leaders or "elite" groups pick and choose what information belongs where on the internet for people to view based on what they feel is merited and what is not.
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 choice of a "direct democracy" on the internet does bring into play some questionable aspects of how it is applied currently in Web 2.0 technologies, which is one of the main reasons for its debate. When someone wants to look up stock trade, current events from household names, or television/radio guides, they can obtain that information within less than a minute. With that same technology, however, that same person is able to look up information from sources that may contain misinformation, information on breaking the law, or information that could pose as a threat to the physical well-being of the people surrounding them. These websites are all obtainable to anybody instantly, whether it be adults or children from anywhere. With or without the notion of civility being taken into account, this information will always have its presence on the interent based on a "direct democracy" and what I feel is the 1st amendment aspect that plays a role in it. It is there to be said, but not necessarily to be done, they are simply providing information that they give out, whether merited or not by others.
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?
Media echo-chambers are ideas or beliefs that are popular among a certain group of individuals based upon a topic of discussion that they have formed a strong opinion. With many websites available with that certain select group's opinion online ready to view, it is easy for these individuals to obtain an abundance of biased or partisan information that only reinforces their opinion rather than branching out into new areas that could possibly broaden their horizon. This could be best exemplified with Democrats who may only get their news sources from seemingly liberal-biased news outlets and only using them as they form their opinion on a certain debate. One news source of this kind that is usually cited is NPR (National Public Radio). This can also be used as an example of how the silo effect has come about with the internet. It is an issue because of the vast amounts of sources being available and, therefore, making people question what sources are reliable and which ones are not. This is caused by the numerous biased articles and journals online that have questionable merit-ability and could give the viewer a seemingly partisan standpoint on a topic.
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 and authority figures could be appointed by the websites creators and chosen by the viewers of the website. Based on who the viewers feel they obtain substantial information from, it would be possible that they be the ones to chose the "experts" of a certain topic and discussion. This would be best suited if a "direct democracy" were to be followed through the internet. This would also be enforced under the websites creators, who would have the final say in who is granted power to edit and post information. I believe that they are needed on the internet to avoid the possibility of a source be routed as silo of information and being viewed as a partisan source. It would grant the users to be able to have people they trust to have as unbiased of articles as they can write and read so that they can receive the best news that they can.
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.
As the internet has continued to change, websites and organizations have been forced to improve their content with the fast pace of technological growth. Newspapers are definitely one of the best examples to address in this area. As the written and printed newspapers that journalists struggle to put out everyday is seeming to die, they are building a strong presence online based on their reputation. The New York Times, for example was the first newspaper that popped up on Google when i would search for "newspapers." The times continues to have up-to-the-minute updates that give the same thorough analysis and work that past journalists would give in the formal newspaper (even with some of the same journalists that have worked with them for years).
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
Democracy is not threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet, but rather being embraced in "direct democracy." There will always be misinformation on the internet in the same way that there will always be misinformation in the word of mouth source of information. This is a part of our culture that tends to lean towards some sources over others because of what we feel are merited guides from our own opinions as individuals, not according to a group decision based on authority. We do follow some of the aspects that Andrew Keen does delve into, but we follow them in a way that gives us the information from sources that we see are praised or linked respectively through one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment