Monday, October 20, 2008

Web 2.0

Read the handout from the book Deep Ecology. Apply the questions it asks of technology to Web 2.0. Based on Andrew Keen's analysis and/or your own experience, does Web 2.0 meet the critetia for a "fully informed, appropriate technology"? Why or why not? Please post your response by the start of class, Thursday, Oct. 23.

Warning: You must proofread your posts. Sloppy, ungrammatical, incoherent writing is unacceptable.

17 comments:

mcummings said...

As the handout says, "A fully informed, appropriate technology is a meeting ground of ethics, politics, mechanical understanding and deep ecological consciousness". Keen beleieves that web 2.0 does everything but this. Web 2.0 has been manipulated to become a source where people and companies can decieve and lie to uninfromed and gullable viewers. in its ideal form web 2.0 is a technology that can serve vital needs. In its best form it can give wonderful amounts of information that a viewer would not have to second guess. I can not blame web 2.0 only. It is the "amateurs" that made it what it is today. I think it is because they do not full yunderstand the technology. The handout says, " If one lacks a clear and knowledgeable sense of what means are appropriate to the circumstances at hand, one's choices can easily lead to excesses and danger". I think because people did not understand the internet and what it is truly meant for is the reason why youtube and wikipedia exist and why they are run by amateurs.

chloe said...

The Web 2.0 has clearly failed this test. No, the Internet does not serve a vital need. No, the Internet can not be easily understood by just anyone. Of course it imposes “a permanent, rigid, irreversible imprint on the lives of citizens” because we are all subjects to it without choice, meaning, the Internet is a reflection of everyone, all at once, so it imposes everything you’re not. There is of course a greater dependency on centralized “authority” than any encouragement of autonomy, or freedom. The fact that any intelligent working professional or student around the globe must at least know of the Web 2.0 is the authority it takes. Where is the freedom for a journalist who has worked decades for the same publication and is now being laid off because his/her job is being replaced through an Internet blog/chat room/discussion board that some intern regulates, or no one regulates?
Surprisingly, the Internet is very destructive to a deep ecology way of life. How many natural resources does it take to make a computer these days?? On a more intellectual level, Keen would suggest the Internet is destructive through its acceptance of amateurs. Similar to the intern replacing the laid off journalist with years of experience, amateurs are ruling the Web 2.0. as they make up the majority of mainstream material that includes music videos, movies, political debates/arguments, mindless entertainment etc. Moving on, the Internet very easily leads to bureaucratic hierarchies through the simple fact that most of its content is owned by only a choice of 5 or 6 different corporations, which leaves no choice for individuals, because we are only given certain bits and pieces, whether it’s news or iPods, they show us what they want us to see, and by they I mean those 5 or 6 major corporations that own the majority of our entertainment and news sources. How ironic.
The last question I can not answer, because while I’ve seen some people “do the robot” I am unsure if that is to the credit of the Internet or what that question is asking. Keen, would attribute this failed test to the Web 2.0’s lack of respect towards valid sources, you know, experts and the Internet’s acceptance and housing of amateur created everything.

Lisa Burdzy said...

Based on the criteria of questions from the book Deep Ecology, Andrew Keen’s idea of the Internet is not a “fully informed appropriate technology”. Since the internet makes information capable of being understood by nonexperts of almost all age groups, it simplifies complex subjects to the point where it cannot even be deemed scholarly material. It is not vital that information be gained from the Internet either, since we have books, newspapers, articles, and encyclopedias to get information from. Although the Internet allows equal participation of all people, and hereby demonstrates flexibility of opinions and enhances individuality, people are unable to tell whether or not something they are using on the Internet has been created by a qualified person. The web 2.0 also figuratively centralizes authority in the sense that people nowadays almost automatically go to the Internet before exploring other options of information gaining. In fact, people use the Internet now to gain access to the other types of information sources, such as novels and newspaper articles posted online. Thus the Web 2.0 is neither fully informed nor appropriate for people to rely so strongly upon.

Joseph said...

Does Web 2.0 serve as fully informed, appropriate technology? After reading Keen’s opening to his book and the Deep Ecology, I feel that with any new form of technology you have the potential of misusing or abusing its purpose. The internet is a vital resource for today’s world. The web helped simplify many complicated tasks that took hours or even days before its introduction. The internet is one of greatest achievements of the last hundred years. Even though the internet is fairly new compared to some technologies, overall the it can be used by most “non-experts”. Although, some people who did not grow up with a computer may have a slightly more difficult time grasping its functions at first. Keen looks at Web 2.0 as dangerous and misleading. Keen is correct in that some of his fears could come true if unwatched. What we need, especially at the beginning of a new technology is structure and ethics. We need to take control of our own technology so that we can not be taken advantage of or mislead by people who plan to use Web 2.0 to intrude on our privacy. Web 2.0 can in the wrong hands give companies or people extreme power over privacy and influence. The idea of secret companies posing opinions as ads or a political point of view is something we should be very worried about. The internet has the potential of enhancing people’s lives, but citizens need to be aware of what they put out in the public sphere and who is able to see it.

Unknown said...

The answer, quite simply, is no. “Web 2.0” (it seems like it should be some shiny beacon, flashing red lights and swathed in fake smoke from some fog machines when you say its name) does not meet the criteria for a “fully informed, appropriate technology.” I agree with much of what Chloe had to say about this.
No way does the internet serve vital needs--unless of course you count ordering dinner from the comfort of your couch a “vital need”—and, seriously, at least CALL for take-out. And it certainly is not understood by anyone and everyone. My grandmother has no idea what Wikipedia is, and I think she’d like to keep it that way.
Web 2.0 is certainly flexible in that anyone can create and delete websites or articles with the push of a button, but that also imposes a rigid and everlasting imprint on the lives of the participants by demanding that they put these websites or articles there in the first place. It seems like if you want to be heard anymore, you need to speak through the bull horn with “Web 2.0” emblazoned across its bell.
By creating Web 2.0, we’ve created a monster that’s eaten everything else. The Internet makes everyone, whether they want to be or not, a part of Web 2.0. Want to avoid the internet? Too bad, your assignments are posted on an electronic Blackboard. Want to see a good movie? Sorry, your local video store doesn’t have it, and neither does any of the ones within 100 miles—so go to the internet, order it and wait. Want to know if your library has a certain book? Go look it up on their Internet “card catalogue”.
Web 2.0 certainly does not meet the ethical criteria. By allowing amateurs to sound off on whatever they want, the din is unbearable and more often than not, completely crude. Commenting, message boards, e-mails; every forum on the wide web is heaped in unethical threats, ludicrous false statements and utter bullshit. And no one really patrols it, not in the ways books, magazines or newspapers are. I suppose this allows for freedom, only in that we can say whatever we want, without any real fear of repercussion.
It certainly destroys any literal sense of a deeply ecological life, just for the fact that you’re wasting energy and materials, like Chloe said. It is absolutely conducive to anti-individualism. You are bowing to an authority just by conceding that life will be better once you have the Internet.
"They" say there were two types of people before—those who turned the TV off and those who turned the TV on when they entered the room. Now we have those same types, just turn the TV into a computer. We’ve given up those shackles of tedious technology for the shiny shackles given to us by the Internet, and we don’t question it because it is running the whole damn show.

kim plummer said...

Web 2.0 is not a “fully informed, appropriate technology.” While the system can be understood by non-experts, as the evaluation in Deep Ecology asks, it is harder for non-experts to see the deception and corruption which is embedded in the internet.
To the untrained eye it is difficult to decipher informational content from advertising, especially when advertising may not be in its traditional form and might be manipulated into a blog post or a product review. It is even harder to find information from credible sources, since credibility is not a requirement of the internet. Most content is largely biased, and usually comes from unidentified sources.
The internet has also made plagiarism readily accessible and deems copyright laws obsolete. Keen describes our culture as a “cut and paste” culture, which is true. The younger generation didn’t watch computers begin to appear in their classrooms or homes; they just knew the computers were there. They never had the conversation about what this technology is for, they just know they have it and the technology is theirs. They feel the content on Web 2.0 is theirs, completely disregarding copyright laws.
Yesterday, my professor asked us if we knew what an encyclopedia was. She told us one of her younger daughters didn’t. She also went on to say she came across her daughter copying and pasting entries off of Web 2.0 and into an essay she was writing for a class. She told us when she corrected her daughter, that her daughter had no understanding of why she was wrong. The story is similar to the girl in Keen’s book who thought the music was hers to download until the RIAA came knocking.
While the internet is filled with all sorts of information, most of it is misinformation, either filled with biases, lacking credibility or just simply news about nothing. And the information that might be able to inform, what are we doing with that? Our youth is pasting it into essays and passing it off as their own. No one is getting information, and if they are, they’re doing it at the loss of every other traditional media.

Alyssa said...

Keen's Web 2.0 does not meet the criteria for the "fully informed, appropriate technology" that Deep Ecology calls for. Deep Ecology thinks the system should be able to be "immediately understood by nonexperts", should have a high degree of flexibility so as not to impose a permanent imprint on lives and shouldn't encourage people to think and behave like machines, among other things. Web 2.0 fails on all counts. While some of the information is easy to understand at first glance, that is usually not the information people should rely on because it is most likely what is put there by everyday citizens like ourselves. There is essentially a high degree of flexibility because with so many people's ideas being filtered through there is the possibility to influence each person's life that reads it; however, this is not a good thing nor the way I believe the authors of Deep Ecology mean. Web 2.o serves the vital need of giving people information at their fingertips, but it contradicts this function as the information they are given feeds into what is wrong with it in the first place. It gives misinformation, irrelevant information, biased information. It encourages people to lose sight of their brains essentially and become entranced by the world wide web because of all the mostly unnecessary things it contains.

Nicole99 said...

This handout basically states all of the opposities of what Keen thinks about WEB 2.0. The interent , although does contain good information and is often very helpful and useful for certain things, can not be trusted completely. It is not a fully informed appropriate technology. The internet does not serve vital needs, becasue there is still the option to get your information elsewhere. It has not become our sole source for our information. I would say that non-experts may have to play around a little but otherwise pretty basic to understand. But the problem at hand is the credibilty in which Keen talks about. With it becoming easier and easier for people to make sites or blog, it has become more difficult to determine what to trust and what not to trust.

kevin.bell said...

No, Web 2.0 does not meet the criteria for a "fully informed, appropriate technology" and “this technological device does not serve vital needs”. In fact, anything that the internet offers could once be done without using the internet, including, shopping for really anything, ordering food, sending flowers, and reading newspapers and books. The internet is something that can not easily be understood by a layman. Many people would be shocked if they knew what really could be bought over the internet. The rigid structure of the internet imposed by centralized “authority” does not forward independence among local communities. In no way is the internet conducive to a deep ecology way of life. Think about all the plastic and little metal pieces that go in to every computer and how many computers exist in this one town. Technology is constantly growing and within months your new computer is out of date or you new phone is not the best thing on the market anymore. Web 2.0 creates followers, people that have to have the newest technological device. That is exactly why you can find thousands of videos on YouTube of people dancing around their house, dorm, or wherever. I don’t think these people are thinking or behaving like machines but their behavior is certainly being influenced by the machines they surround themselves with.

CaitNalven said...

In accordance with Andrew Keen's interpretation of the the value of the internet, it does not meet the criteria for a fully informed, appropriate technology. I think the problem that Keen is trying to highlight is that we all think of the internet as being this free open space, that it is "democratized," and therein lies the danger. That the web appears to be free of bureaucratic hierarchies when in fact it is full of these controls. Keen makes an example of the Al Gore Penguin video, which appeared to be an amateur video boasting a personal opinion when in actuality it was funded by a conservative group in D.C. The web does not serve vital needs as the handout states essential technologies should. Although the internet does have some of the qualities described on the sheet such as it is easily understood by non experts and does have a high degree of flexibility, Keen would argue that these are the traits that make it the most dangerous, as non-experts are allowed now to edit and change things on which they have no authority because of the ease and "mutability" of the internet.

Bryan said...

Andrew Keen's concept of Web 2.0 does not meet the criteria for a "fully informed, appropriate technology." Although Web 2.0 can be immediately understood by non-experts, it does not serve any vital needs and it most certainly does not enhance people's individuality. According to Keen, Web 2.0 actually destroys the purity of authorship and undermines individual creativity. The evolution of Web 2.0 is based on the ideal of democratization in which anyone can post whatever they want on the Internet. With every individual being able to post whatever they want, from a video on YouTube to far from authentic information on Wikipedia, Keen states that Web 2.0 has become an uncontrollable anarchy. The infinite unreliable content put on the Internet by anonymous users has delivered consequences such as "less culture, less reliable news, a chaos of useless information, and even a disappearance of truth." Keen quotes Richard Edelman in his book, chairman of Edelman PR, who said, "In this era of exploding media technologies there is no truth except the truth you create for yourself." Even I am unsure of "the truths" I may post on the Internet. Will they be valid and worthwhile? Most likely not.

EHolahan said...

I do not believe that Keen's web 2.0 meets the criteria for a "fully informed, appropriate technology." The internet has plenty of faults and due to the millions of people that use it and generate content on it we cannot trust everything we find on the web. To refer to the web as fully informed would be wrong and giving the web too much credit. I am sure we have all used the internet for information for papers because it is so easy to just hop on a computer and access hundreds of websites about a topic. We go through these websites and look for content that is easily understood, although it may not be the most accurate. I feel that the internet does not serve a vital need in today's society although some would argue that it does. The internet is an amazing technological feat but its something that society has lived without before so we know that if it was necessary we could get information from somewhere else.

Elizabeth Gross said...

When speaking solely about Web 2.0 and not about the theoretical benefits of the internet, we are not speaking about a fully informed, appropriate technology. The internet has some of the same problems that television does, in that it is monopolized and is understood to be the most accurate form of acquiring knowledge, even if the material is not detailed and not regulated by an expert. Used correctly, the internet could be a vital learning tool. However, the internet is infiltrated by sites covered in Web 2.0. It inhibits the success of community building, mostly because we acquire most of our art, entertainment and educational resources through the internet, with profits going to the monopolizers leading Web 2.0 rather than our local businesses and artists trying to reap any type of monetary benefits as a result of us supporting their expression. People can not make careers out of their experiences writing on blogs or contributing to websites on the internet, mostly because finances can not be secured and there is the very real threat of deception in the assurance of profit. To be an internet junkie is to be a cyborg of sorts, as it inhibits our expression and ability to ensure career building and notoriety in the "real" world, as well as our ability to approach and communicate with those in our communities and everyday lives.

Melissa said...

I have to agree with what everyone has already posted. Web 2.0 does not meet the criteria for a "fully informed, appropriate technology." Question four from Deep Ecology stuck out the most in my mind, “Does this technological device or system foster greater autonomy of local communities or greater dependency on some centralized ‘authority‘?” We have grown into a society completely dependent on this “authority”, the cult of the amateurs that make up the internet. We are so dependent on it that now instead of going out in the real world and having social interactions, we can buy clothes, food, and almost anything we want with the click of a mouse. We shut down record stores because we decide to buy or steal our music from the internet. We talk to people online through typing, which completely lacks some of the most essential means of communication: body language and tone of voice. Instead of meeting new people out in a social environment, we network ourselves narcissistically through Myspace, Facebook and Second Life. We have become confined to our laptops like a prisoner dragging around their ball and chain.

Salem said...

No, Web 2.0 doesn’t meet the criteria for a fully informed, appropriate technology. In our massive mounds of available information, Web 2.0 often does anything to make us more informed. No, it doesn’t serve vital needs, but I think there are some productive aspects to it. Keen seems to always focus on the negative, which I do agree with for the most part, but I am not sure if the Internet as such a bad thing. What we really need to do is start to use it in a more appropriate and informed way. Without a doubt, the Internet, or at least Web 2.0, seems to be created for the amateur. The Internet is a lot like the Wild West. Whoever has the biggest guns and the loudest voice will rule the land. At times it seems like a shouting match between websites and opinions to try getting your attention and agree with their perspective. We could control the type of information we get rather simply though, just by not looking at Wikipedia and visiting Britannica’s website for a change. It seems we are demanding the mediocre. This is a truly interesting element about our society. We seem to be turning more towards an anti-intelligence society. We are one that craves the common man. We don’t want to be told anything by one that is more intelligent than us. We want to be told by ourselves. Our technology in many ways is destroying how we form our moral coils and separating ourselves from individualistic expression.

Julie said...

After having read the questions in the article and applying them to Keen's analysis of the Web 2.0 I found that most of my answers were negative. I try to see the positive side of things, because it would be very ignorant to say that the Internet is only hurting our culture. However, Keen's explanation in the first three chapters of his book was mainly one aspect of the internet; it is not filtered enough and consumers are accepting free information from people that are using their common sense to define something, and believing it is valid and trustworthy.
I do not think Web 2.0 fits the criteria for a fully informed appropriate technology. The article defines it as a combination of "ethics, politics, mechanical understanding and deep ecological consciousness." There are definitely no ethics involved in websites like Myspace or Facebook, and especially not Wikipedia. These websites give so much freedom to its users that it becomes hard to draw a line of appropriateness and so that is when ethics and morals come in to play. I know there are websites out there that match this criteria but from what I have gathered from Keen's book so far, is that the most popular websites out, used by the most consumers (the Web 2.0) do not fit it.

Eloise said...

Deep Ecology purposed questions that I responded "No" to. All except one, " Do you think this technological device serve vital needs?" I responded, "yes". I would like to have said "No" but then i would be lying. I depend on the Web 2.0 for: My economic needs (e-banking), current events, social and professional relations(email), to shop, health concerns, directions (map quest and store locator's),academics (blackboard) and the list can go on. I "google' everything and keep track of almost I can think of with the internet therefore, how can this technology not be vital in my life?

This is what I think scares Keen. People have such a high dependency on the Web 2.0 world, yet what the internet offers is nothing more then common and amateur knowledge. When i except to get expert advice I am really receiving amateur advice in disguised. Therefore is this technology ethical, "no" but how can we string out the unethical part if there is no real source controlling it?

This is a cycle of a bad device that may be too late to fix.