LOGOS

The Great Seduction By: Andrew Keen

Q1:  Andrew Keen defines "democratized media" as the was people are always connected to the Internet, and how Web 2.0 would democratize media, business' and even the Government.  Keen originally was very involved with wanting to expand the music world through the Internet.  Once everyone had access to the Internet and people began being able to share their own non-professional, self-made music.  Keen hated this because he believed it belittled expertise, experience and talent.  To "disintermediate" it is the act of doing away with all the professional levels to go through in order to have a professional blog, movie reviews, any sort of talents, etc.      
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHH3Rqjnj38

Q2:  I believe Andrew Keen and Douglass Rushkoff have similar, yet different views on Web 2.0.  Keen has a very negative, pessimistic outlook on how the Internet has evolved and how it basically rules our lives right now.  Rushkoff also believes our lives revolve too much around the Internet yet he does more research in how and why the Internet has become what it is today.  Rushkoff is able to at least wrap his head around the fact that the Internet is still evolving and a lot of what we do in our everyday lives from blogging, to chatting, to business meetings surround the use of the Internet.  At least Rushkoff is accepting of this phenomenon, whereas Keen feels because of all of the amateurs on the Internet, there are no experienced professionals in any given field.  He especially does not like the fact that websites such as Pandora, used for listening to music, can predict what type of music you would like to listen to based on what you are currently listening to.  Because Keen is so into the sharing and spreading of music, he thinks that "artificial intelligence" is not as accurate as taste.    

Blogs I commented on

I commented on Eric Johansen's blog and Mike Florio's blog.  My longer comment was on Corey March's blog.

Whither the Individual?

Whither the Individual?

As we join groups and social networks from affinity sites to Facebook, are we extending and expanding  identities, or increasingly conforming to the cookie-cutter profiles demanded of these interfaces? Is the loss of "personal space" and "reflection" so many users complain of merely the necessary surrender of "ego" as we learn to participate as members of a more evolved "collective organism" of "hyper-people?"

As many people know, Facebook is the most popular social networking site available right now.  With over 500 million users Facebook has taken place of Myspace and AIM.  Even though some people say that social media sites make people conform to the “cookie-cutter” profile, I do not agree with that.  I believe that people are actually doing the opposite.  The Internet is medium, which allows users to say and do whatever they want.  It allows people to expand on their identities weather or not they are telling the truth about who they are or what they like.  I suppose in a way this can be conforming to a certain type of profile if someone may be posting interests that they believe are “cool” when in fact that it not their personality at all.

         In the documentary “Digital Nation”, David Rushkoff and Rachel Dreztin explore different types of media sites such as Second Life, Facebook and Youtube.  They are investigating to see weather or not these sites are forcing their users to conform, or be themselves.  On a site such as Second Life, people certainly are experimenting with different personalities.  People even have Second Life husbands and wives, which is where the use of the Internet gets very odd.  Even though Second Life’s purpose was to increase intimacy over the Internet, people take their experimenting of different personalities very far.  People use their Avatars to become someone they may not be comfortable with being in the real world. 

            

         Even though profiles on Facebook may all have the same layouts, each individual has a chance to customize their own profile by adding pictures, comments, statuses and more.  We all know that most of the population is “addicted” to Facebook or even Myspace and Twitter but Facebook is amongst the most popular social media site in the world.  People use Facebook for their own personal reasons.  One person may have no reason to lie on their profile about their interests whereas someone else may have many different profiles all with different personalities.  I do not think that this is Facebook’s fault.  Facebook certainly does not make anyone conform to the “cookie-cutter” profile at all, in fact the amount of freedom a lot of the social networking sites gives you, you can do anything you would like with your profiles, without any limits.

               

         This concept of “withering” the individual I believe to be not true.  In fact, people are about to expand on their existing identity.  Those who complain about the loss of “personal-space” would depend on what they are entering into their profiles.  You chose what goes on your profile and you have to be smart enough to not put anything on it that may be invading to your privacy.  Anything and everything pertaining to the Internet should be known that is out for the world to see.  People should understand that whatever they put on the Internet is public and always will be.