Reading your article made me realize how passionate you truly are about the subject at hand. Though your image of what you had once dreamt of for the internet was not what it turned out to be, I believe that the new Web 2.0 is what it is for a reason. Democratization is the reason the internet is the way it is and this is something that you seemed to not have come to terms with. Majority of the time while I was reading your article, it became more apparent to me that we were going to disagree on this topic. Because we have the freedom to post whatever we please, Youtube, Facebook, Wikipedia, blogs, and other user generated websites would not have become an important factor in most of our lives in addition to its prevalence and its addition to popular culture.
Though I agree on some points like these user generated have made us more wary of what to believe, most of the points that you bring up are not realistic. If the internet was completely controlled, it would be less beneficial for all. There needs to be a balance in the virtual world where it can be user generated and controlled by professionals and experts where everyone can be happy. Wikipedia for example is user generated encyclopedia that has been successful. Though its sources and credibility can be questionable, people are motivated to contribute from a "desire to do a good thing" (Shirky 133). Why not contribute your expertise if you are knowledgable on a subject? This is all leading to the new groupthink where "collaboration is in" (Cain 1). We were all given this freedom which means there is no reason why this should not pertain to the internet. People are going to do what and say what they want on the internet, especially that it can be done anonymously and quite frankly, there is nothing that you nor I can do about this.
Kelly Myers
No comments:
Post a Comment