Thursday, October 22, 2009

Cult of Amateur 3

In the final chapter of his book, Keen proposes solutions to the problems he perceives with Web 2.0. Please evaluate his proposed solutions. Do you agree with them? Are they workable? Do you have other and better ideas? Your response is due by 4 p.m., Wednesday, Oct. 28.

23 comments:

Tiffany said...

I just want everyone to know that I just spent half an hour writing the best post ever and blogspot decided to delete it. Beware when you're in preview/edit mode...

Out of Keen's solutions, the one that stood out to me the most is something I've discussed in class this semester: parents are the first line of defense "against the evils lurking on the Web 2.0" (202). Even if we can never control what's on the web (which we probably won't), we can control what our children see. We have the ability to show our children and those around us what's appropriate and what's to be believed and not believed. By being informed and skeptical, using proper research methods and having a discerning eye, we can combat the amatuers.
Another solution of Keen's is government regulation. That, in an effective form, is never going to happen. Case in point, Keen discusses the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which was written with good intent and would provide harsh punishment for violators, but is so broad that lawyers can argue circles around it so it is rarely enforced. Another law that Keen discusses is anti-piracy. This too is a joke because people still illegally download music, even after hearing about ordinary people being sued for millions in damages (a recent story about it-http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/19/crimesider/entry5097090.shtml). Even if the government had the interest to impose harsh legislation on website owners, users and operators, I think people would find ways around the laws, much as they do with everything else. Plus, would such laws be an infringment upon free speech?
Keen discusses sites that use professional editors and experts on topics, such as Citizendium (made by one of the creators of Wikipedia). Here's the problem: Wikipedia pales in comparision to Citizendium (I checked it out-you're required to post under your real name and it's regulated)but I'd never heard of it until this book. There can be lots of reputable sites out there, but for every one, there'll be 10 more that are junk shadowing them. As was my reponse to the last Keen blog, I believe the solution to all of our internet ills and amatuer-takeover is our own discerning, educated eye. Does everyone have this? No. So of course, it's an idealist solution. But, it seems to be the only one that could work. Informed, educated people that can separate unresearched crap from the real deal will surive the wave of amatuer work. Even with his propsed solutions, Keen perhaps realized this, too: "At the end of the day, perhaps the long-term viabiity of our media depends upon the actions and behaviors of each of us...Nothing is more important in a democracy such as ours than an informed citizenship" (191).

Tiffany said...

My link broke, sorry...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/19/crimesider/entry5097090.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Howie Good said...

Beautifully said, Tiffany. Bravo.

Marcy said...

The solution from Keen that I liked the most, (other than encouraging others to read more newspapers) was the production of more sites like Joost and Citizendium. It allows credited professionals who are knowledgeable in certain fields to post information, or in the case of Joost, professional video creators to sell and distribute their works. The public needs to be able to easily recognize what is a credible source on the internet, and what is not. If more sites with betters screening processes existed, it could help to re-shape the internet as we know it.

Just as with the deviant art site we saw in class. It was hard to distinguish who, if any of those posting, were professional artists. The good was mixed in with the bad. Although it may be easier to make a decision about a bad piece of art, if it is sitting next to a relatively good piece of art. It is much harder to distinguish good, reliable information if it is sitting next to bad, undependable information.

“We can–and must—resist the siren song of the noble amateur and use Web 2.0 to put trust in our experts again,” said Keen. (189)

Although I agree with Tiffany that becoming a good media interpreter starts at home, a new form of moderation for specific sites is greatly needed that clearly separates the work of armatures from the work of professionals.

mark.schaefer said...

Although I don't feel as pessimistic after reading Keen's final chapter, I still feel that like Postman, he only offers one truly viable solution. The solution also happens to be the same as Postman's; that we need to better educate our youth on how to use the internet to their advantage.

Thankfully, the internet offers a much larger space for people to find information. When Postman suggested education as a means to inform people about the dangers of television and the information presented by it there is only so much that can be done. Afterall, anyone can post on the internet, at any time whereas television has a set schedule. If nothing informative comes on during the television schedule all the education in the world couldn’t help people find what they were looking for during it. The problem with the internet is that among the things that people should be reading, there are also even more things, written by amateurs, that should not be read. This is where education should come in, to teach people how to discern between professional and amateur.

Keen seems to stress that parents play a role in the internet education of a child which is a great idea except for the fact that many parents probably can’t differentiate between what was written by a professional as opposed to an amateur. Courses about the proper way to use the internet need to be taught at school, now more than ever, because it seems like eventually (if not already) the internet will be the main source of information for students. If they can’t determine who is a professional and who isn’t how can they (or we for that matter) produce anything worth reading?

Keen states; “Parents must man the front lines in the battle to protect children from the evil’s lurking on the Web 2.0…” (202) and then goes on to discuss cyber nanny’s and steps that can be taken to limit child exposure to things like pornography and sexual predators, etc. All of this, of course, is important but it doesn’t help teach children how to use the internet properly. That job seems as though it can only fall to professionals.

Samantha said...

Keen proposes a lot of solutions to the problems he finds with Web 2.0. One of those solutions is harsher punishment for crimes committed on the Internet. He wants laws to be passed that will punish users who download illegal music, gamble online or engage in sexuality activity with minors on Web sites like Myspace. One of his proposed solutions is to have all sex offenders register their e-mail addresses and screen names with an online sex offender database. However, I am not sure that is a viable solution. It is too easy to create a new e-mail address or another screen name that I'm not sure it is possible to monitor every sex offender's e-mail address and screen name. The Internet proves that there is a way around every road block. The same goes for illegal downloading. Keen says that "what the recent history of the music business clearly demonstrates is that thieves steal music online no matter what intricate digital electronic lock is supposed to be protecting it" (193). For every computer genius who can create a lock on a song, there is another who can unlock it. Instead he suggests that we just stop stealing music. This, however, seems a bit naive to me. Now that society has had a taste of free music it will be hard to fork over the cash to pay for it again.

I think his best solution is punishment for crimes, however I can also see the truth in having parents monitor their children. Of course they can't be by their sides every minute, but teaching good morals and values, and maybe even installing some site-blocking software, can help keep children off of the bad Web sites and teach them how to use the Internet for the right reasons, as a wealth of knowledge. I think if children are taught how to use the Internet properly and responsibly, there is a better chance that they will continue those methods throughout their lives.

Liz Cross said...

One of the solutions that Keen gave us was Citizendium. I don't think that many people actually know that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so of course it isn't a valid source for internet users to go to. Citizendium is obviously a better option, it gives views from the professionals but also has a place for public participation. If people actually knew the difference between the two, chances are, they’d choose to go to Citizendium.

He also suggests the use of iAmplify, Joost, and Brightcove. These programs allow a combination of medias that would be a better financial option for audio and television markets. One of my favorite points that he makes about the music industry is that they could lower the prices of their CD's to actually compete with 99 cent downloads on iTunes. I've wondered for a long time why they keep the prices of their CD's at $16 when people are downloading songs for free on the Internet. There are so many small things like this that the industries could do to sell more products that it's a little crazy.

Other solutions that he brought up were putting more government legislation on the Internet. I know a lot of people would object to this, but sometimes law is the only way to protect us from ourselves. Gambling was just one example of law that was passed to protect us on the Internet but getting legal limitations on the type of data that can be stored online about us, is a great idea. I would appreciate this legislation being passed immensely. It’s easier to be protected before than to have to go through the process of regaining your identity again later.

The one thing that I really agree with that he says is “I would argue that regulation is most urgently needed in protecting our children against sexual predators and pornography on social-networking sites like Myspace.” (199) These social networking sites actually scare me and make me not want to have children. It makes me nervous to think that children are exposed to pedophiles daily and there’s not really anything that can be done about it. Legislation needs to be passed so that sexual predators can be monitored. The only problem with this, is unless they’re kept track of every second of the day, they could invent a new persona online and get at children that way. Of course, the biggest tool of all is parental guidance. As Keen says, “Parents have a responsibility to educate their kids about the dangers of the Internet.” (203) Knowledge is really the thing that is going to help us fight anything. When kids know what they’re up against, there’s a better chance that they’re going to make the right decision. They need to be told about the dangers of the Internet and things that they should avoid, we can’t just expect them to know.

Keen presents quite a few solutions to the problems, but as Mark says, it basically all boils down to better educating people on how to use the Internet appropriately.

Jess said...

As we have said in class since day one, the idea of user generated content being splashed across and accessible to billions of people world wide is in theory a brilliant one, but what causes alarm, or what should cause alarm in people is the fact that anyone can post information, writing, art, music, etc. All of these ways of expression are all mixed together. Instead of going to a reputable database like Proquest or Lexus Nexus, Wikipedia is more commonly used. Why? Because of laziness. Why should we actually have to search for article and information, when apparently Wikipedia “knows all"?

Keen offers solutions to the popularity of fluff sites and flattening of our culture as a result of the web. He proposes government regulation, but then quickly states that they can only do so much. He argues that sites such as Wikipedia, MySpace, FaceBook and YouTube need to take more responsibility for their content and their users. I do agree with him, but I think that this will be difficult. Society today, especially the web is market based, advertisements allow these sites to function.

I believe that a solution would be to inform the public, educated or not to be directed towards the sites like Citizendium, Joost or Guardian Unlimited. Here is where the professionals are labeled as professionals and the web is used as a tool, not as a form of entertainment. These are places on the web that can be trusted in a vast never-ending network of blogs and posts done by those who are not credible. In order for people to become informed, I think that schools really need to step up and create and computer use class, or even a media awareness class. Students will be able to learn how to utilize the Internet to the fullest, what are appropriate sites to use as credible sources, and what are not. Websites like Wikipedia should be blocked from elementary, middle and high school computer libraries.

The reason I believe that it will be most beneficial to begin this type of program at schools is because if you start good media use habits at an early age, you probably will continue to use them throughout your life. It is important to show the difference between fact and opinion. Whereas it is more difficult to change a pattern of use when you’ve been doing it for years. People need to start remembering how they received information before the creation of Blogs and people pretending to be something they are not.

nicoLe said...

I think the most significant acknowledgement Keen makes in the last chapter of his book occurs in the "Last Word" section. He states: "But technology doesn't create human genius. It merely provides new tools for self-expression" (204). For the majority of The Cult of the Amateur, I felt like Keen was behind his times. He didn't seem as if he supported the new technology, and it was very frustrating because it's such an important tool in today's society. His acknowledgement, however, points out that he does foresee its positive potential.
In the last chapter of his book, Keen also points out that "nothing is more important in a democracy such as ours than an informed citizenship" (191). He trusts it in the hands of the people, which poses many threats. He hopes that people will support the newspapers and continue to read them, although this is not a fool-proof method; it's quixotic.
The example that Keen points out, which I like the most, regards the Wall Street Journal. He states that the paper recently posted some of its material online and "reduced the size and cost of its news-gathering ability or journalistic integrity" (190). Such steps are key in "embrac[ing] the online medium" as he indicates (190). By publications following similar methods, well regarded and highly credible sources can still stand out amongst those that aren't. If more distinguished companies were to do such things, the internet would become a more reputable source to find news fast.

Kelsey said...

I agree with most of Keen's solutions to fix the "cult of the amateur" (184). The Web 2.0 revolution has been good for society, but definitely needs many modifications if we are to protect everyone from the negative effects it has on us. I believe that his theory on parents is a good first step to modifying the web.

Parents have the ability to monitor their children online and see what they're doing with the time they are online and where they spend majority of their time. Keen suggests "[moving your] computer to a family room" which will prevent children from going on websites which take away from "interacting... in the real world" (202-203). It is irresponsible as a parent to play the "ignorance card" when it comes to children using the web. Claiming that you do not want to "spy" on your children will only give them more opportunities to misuse the internet. I feel however, that this solution by Keen is incomplete.

While parents may think they have complete control over their children's internet usage, some don't understand the internet as well as their children do. When I was fourteen, MySpace was the big new fad in my high school. We had a family computer in our dining room, just as Keen suggested, and I went on using MySpace for a year and half before my father even found out the new site. This just shows part of what kids can do behind their parents's backs.

I believe in order for Keen's solution of parents being the internet police, they need to be educated on what's out there that their children could be messing around with. Along with the parents being taught, the younger generations also need education on how to use the internet to their benefit. Without both of these groups being educated, the Web 2.0 could in infact destroy our culture and amateurs would rule the world rather than experts.

James said...

Keen's solutions can be summed up somewhat basically: let professionals run the internet and let the amateurs falsely feel like they are participating by commenting or recommending things to their friends. While I do agree with Keen that there is way too much crap out there on the internet, only allowing professionals to peddle their crap doesn't really help anything. Look at some of the examples Keen uses. Citizendium was launched three years ago, but it still only has 195 "approved" articles. Compare that to Wikipedia's over 3 million. Granted, Wikipedia has been around longer, includes articles with huge amounts of detail on inane subjects and periodically does get hoaxed, but it is still clear that people want to be able to participate in a Web site rather than sit back and watch.

Another example that Keen uses is Joost, a Web site that features professional television shows and movies. How is that any better than watching TV? Have we forgotten Postman so quickly? Keen says it's better than YouTube because sites like Joost "maintain the all-important division between content creators and content consumers." I'd say that's a fairly despicable way to look at the world. While YouTube may be home to countless videos of no worth at all, it does also contain some very interesting videos that would never be played on television, and consequently would never appear on Joost.

I think the real solution to the problem of the Web 2.0 is much less black and white than Keen would have us believe. The fact that anyone can add to the culture online is the greatest benefit the internet has given us compared to old media. The best solution is not to tightly control what gets on the internet, but for everyone to individually control what they give their attention to. And really, that's not so different than what people have been doing for years. Who watches a TV show they don't like? Popularity on the internet tends to spread by word of mouth. So while it may be painful for some, like Keen, to know that there is junk on the internet, the best solution is to ignore it.

Howie Good said...

Interesting argument, James. . . Keen does come off as a reactionary way too often for me. . . But we are also drowning in a sea of junk, and it does seem time to put a finger in the dike. But whose finger?

Mamacat said...

When I read the paragraphs in which Keen enthusiastically described the shift from traditional newspapers and magazines to online versions, it made me sad; "Such success gives one hope that newspapers can simultaneously embrace the online medium, maintain their professional standards, enlarge readership, and increase revenues" (191). Although his positive outlook is refreshing from the rest of the book, it is disheartening that his vision for newspaper's future has failed.
The solution I agreed with most, as many other students did, was the creation of amateur content that is slightly monitored by experts. I visited the websites he gave as examples, and agree that they were useful. It was interesting to see that they put most of their energy into the content, not making the sites look fun and flashy, with advertisements all over the place.
Keen says, "We can- and must- resist the siren song of the noble amateur and use Web 2.0 to put trust in our experts again." I agree with Tiffany and Marcy, that a big part of the battle is personal, and that we as individuals have to stop the cycle and make an effort to become more informed. The problem is, a lot of people just don't care.

Melissa Vitale said...

After reading the last chapter of Keen’s book, I do agree with some of his arguments. However, I think it will be difficult to implement and maintain the changes due to the fact the Internet and the services it provides has already been accessible to people for many years. How can something be stopped or regulated when it should have occurred when these programs first came about. I think it’s great that someone like Keen is taking the time to address the problem as well as solutions for it. I find myself teetering in the middle on whether or not these solutions can be successful. Considering all the garbage that has already been posted by amateurs, I wonder if these amateurs will be able to find a way around the system and be able to continue posting false information.

In order to get information from credible sources through the Web, Keen discusses (190-191) how newspapers are using the Internet to their advantage by, “reducing the size and cost of the paper edition but without compromising its news-gathering ability or journalistic integrity.” Another way to ensure truthful information on the Web is with sites such as “Politico”. It was launched in January 2007 and journalists who have professional careers in media are distributing valid information.

I thought the section on “Crime and Punishment” was useful. I think that if more were punished for their wrong doings on the web, it might decrease the amount of garbage put on the Internet. If a person fears that they might be prosecuted for something they put on the Internet, they may think about the consequences before they do it.

Which brings to the use of computers by children. I’m sure we are all aware of the horrific crimes that have happened to children because of these websites that allow people to create false profiles of themselves. These sites not only allow people to be whom ever they like but it also allows communication between members of these websites. With products such as Net Nanny, Cybersitter, and SmartAlex parents have more control over their children’s use on the computer. I still think that children have access to such sites and the dangers that lurk on the Internet. At least steps are being taken to try and limit what a child can and can not view when going on a computer.

Brandon said...

Keen's proposed solutions are inherently flawed. He has based all his ideas on the premise that there is a solution and that the internet can become "the information super-highway." When I read this book, I constantly revert back to what Postman would say, and if one looks at the situation with a discerning eye, the internet of today is where television was when Postman wrote his book. It is at a point where it has spiraled out of control and can no longer be reeled back in. I say his solutions are flawed from the outset because there is in fact no solution. We should accept the fact that the best way to utilize the internet is the same way in which Postman argues we should utilize television; use it strictly for its time-wasting, entertaining, crap and use traditional forms of research and knowledge based activities to enrich your life. Don't look to WebMD to figure out if you have swine flu, go to a doctor.

"The knowledge of the expert, in fact, does trump the collective "wisdom" of amateurs." (186) Problem with the internet is that the voice of an expert cannot be heard amongst the masses. Now I know Keen's solutions are directed to help a viewer figure out who is in fact an expert, but in today's world of everyone thinking they know what is best, who the hell knows what constitutes an expert. Wasn't it just last year that it came out that so called "experts" on shows like Oprah and news publications turned out to be frauds and had no credible liscences to being with? It's not just on the internet anymore. People go to plastic surgeons and accountants alike thinking they are reputable professionals when they are nothing but common thieves and amateurs. It doesn't matter how much knowledge an expert has or how many people seek out that experts opinion. The masses will never get to hear a word of what that expert has to say. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it happen? If someone who knows what the hell their talking about makes a website to inform the public but when that subject is typed into google, the first thing that comes up is wikipedia, does the experts site even exist? The answers no, and we should give up on making the internet informative much in the way we've given up on television.

Howie Good said...

great comments, brandon

George Selby said...

I agree with a lot of what Brandon has said. While reading the last chapter of this book, it was clear to me that many of these solutions would not work. Legal solutions, in fact, stand a good chance of making things worse, like John McCain’s “Internet Freedom Act” which is meant only to ensure that companies like Verizon control all the content and accessibility of the internet. Of course, laws against gambling sites and porn sites are important, but they will not change the rotting nature of the Internet. The law can only prevail against piracy if an international effort is launched, and we know how well those usually turn out.
It’s true that sites like Citizendium and Joost could help make the internet a better place, but these sites will have to experience a miracle if they want to get people away from YouTube and illegal downloading and start to become profitable. I do not think, based on the few years of information available so far, that there is a way to successfully and profitably compete with piracy.
Newspapers like the Guardian Unlimited are exceptionally rare. Of course, from now on I will be using this paper to get my news, but one perfectly managed example of an online paper surrounded by hundreds of failing ones is hardly a sign of a bright future.
My solution for all of this is the same as it was for Postman’s problems. Education. Not once in my primary education did I ever learn about the economics of the internet, the structure of Wikipedia, the scams of PR blogs, the dangers of internet gambling, or anything except “don’t get molested!” Without even the smartest people in our student bodies knowing the dangers of TV and the internet to our culture, there is no way we will ever slow the destruction.
Another thing that would change the dangerous nature of the internet as we know it would be to change the medium. I read philosophical science fiction, and the internet poses some new philosophical questions. I think that we are using the internet in a primitive way, and in 30 years we will find it hard to believe that it was ever like this. Time and technology will solve these problems that we have now, even if the new medium, which I think will be brain-to-brain communication instead of PC-to-PC, causes a whole new set of ethical and spiritual issues.

Kate said...

I'm still not sure if I enjoy Keen's sense of humor, or confidence. I still visualize him as a guy slouched on his lazy boy saying pish posh, it's fine. Sometimes I agree with him, but sometimes I think he's being naive. While I completely agree with him on the idea that everything that is happening and thus will be happening is inevitable, at the same time it's as simple as that.
He explains things as one extreme to the other or "hedgehogs and foxes" (208). The hedgehog seeing no way out of this idea of web 2.0 and the fox seeing many directions to it, and thus finding the secret answer for everyone to be happy. To save our cultural heritage while enjoying our new technology and freedom of the internet. The reason why I like Keen but am wary is because I keep picturing Postman on my shoulder getting a good chuckle out of his solutions.
I do respect Keen's ideas, I believe you must start at home. Parents should inform kids, but that does only take you so far. What is on the internet is still there, a google search may not be true and a stubborn 8 year old may not like to listen to their parents. I guess we just have to do our best and see what happens, maybe someone will think of a brilliant idea, like the a picture of the girl from the exorcist to be on the screen of any child that tries to get on the computer, scaring them away....is that too much?

Maria said...

Keen's last chapter seems to me like fluff. It is almost as though he came up with simple solutions to say "Hey it's not all so bad". Much like Brandon and George have already posted, it's too late. The internet has gone too far down hill. It would be nice to believe that it would work to have an expert regulate the amateurs but these kind of sites get lost in the sea of the likes of Wikipedia and others that rely on advertising and gimmicks. Sites like this have no difference between " content creators and content consumers" (188). Citizendium, Joost and Brightcove are of themselves great ideas. These sites are a great way to keep the public informed in an accurate and reputable way, which is what the internet needs. But they may not gain the attention of the masses and eventually someone (although I hope not)will find a way to crate a loophole.

There is always the idea of government regulation but that will not work either. There is no way to catch someone or prevent a site from being constructed. People will create a new web address or user name and the whole thing becomes anew. There's also the question of first amendment rights that Tiffany brought up.

Educating the young early is a good way to weed out the wrong information and keep the public aware of good sites and bad sites. Especially in terms of child safety, and in this case parents should be jumping in. As far as my generation and older generations who didn't have the internet around in elementary school we must rely on our own ability to distinguish information from entertainment. People should research things on their own and learn not to trust someone else's opinion. But who has time for or enjoys learning? Technology is supposed to be the means not the message, right?

Ericka J. Rodriguez said...

Keen makes a few good suggestions on finding a possible solution to the world of the internet. Although the internet is supposed to be a free marketplace, there should still be some sort of regulation as Keen suggests. There should be harsher punishment for crimes committed on the Internet. He mentions the engagement in sexual activities with minors on sites like myspace. The cruel and scary thing about it is that it is extremely easy to make up a user name with someone elses email address. I don't agree with his proposition about sex offenders registering their screen names and email addresses because they can easily create another one and no one will ever know. The only way that would work is if some how, some way our email addresses and screen names were linked to our social security numbers and if someone were to ever use our SS it would be like stealing someone's identity. That's the only solution I can think of at the moment, but it's not something I agree with because it's another step into complete government control.

If one thing that is certain that he states, is the illegal downloading of music on the internet. I think it has gotten to a point where people aren't even worried about the consequences. The prices of CDs are not even worth it when you have companies like apple that sell .99 cent downloads through iTunes.People who download illegally see it as from a $16 CD to a .99 cent download, might as well have it for free especially if it's being offered over the web. I do think that the suggested use of Joost and Brightcove could be options in the future, but maybe these industries can come up with a way to compete with iTunes and crack down on illegal downloads.

Miss Rivers said...

Everything that Keen says in "The Last Word" section of the last chapter of his book makes so much sense it's ridiculous, in a good way.

Where he says, "Technology doesn't create human genius," I didn't realize how true that was until recently. I agree with Keen that technology can and should be used in ways to promote advancement and still protect the values and valid functions that mainstream media has been providing for so long. This thought meshes well with the example of the Huffington Post using their website to send quality news coverage to the public yet the CEO was hiring world-renown professional journalists (191).

Keen also makes a good point about how the music industry should start or have already been thinking about how to adjust their business models and still make their profits. When programs like Kazaa and Limewire came out, the thought of free music was too good to be true. Yet they were unaware of stealing the sweat of other people's creative labor (195). Not wanting to stifle the freedom of speech, press or choice, but it can be helpful to know the difference between downloading illegally verses paying 99 cents for a song off of iTunes.

Going back to my constant talk and thought of discipline, it depends what the individual has learned from home, school and work. We, as a people do have rights to know and be informed about various topics. But, what's the point of preaching about being a well-informed democracy if society was to keep taking advantage of the Web's 2.0 and not think morally or logically?

Howie Good said...

The anti-Semites and the pro-Nazis and the Communist witch-hunters are all predecessors, aren't they, for ideologues who mar the media today? You know, the people who lie about Obama's religion or place of birth or scare the public with talk of death panels. . . the media have always provided a haven for cranks and wackos and demagogues

Chris said...

Keen discusses solving the problem of the internet by providing a platform where only professional could go and preach their ideas. New technology like Joost and Brightcove may give professionals an outlet to provide a service but the problem arises in finding customers. The reason that the internet and television is filled with such nonsensical fluff is because that’s what large audiences are attracted to. Keen speaks of ideology over technology, which I agree is the main dilemma. Our society is advanced enough that we could provide millions of outlets filled with professionals, but we haven’t. And the reason for that is because that’s not what the large portion of society wants; most people are happy with websites such as Youtube and Wikipedia that entertain more than educate.
In order to change that ideology it must start young. Parents and teachers need to stress the importance of a professional run internet. Trying to educate people when they are in high school or college is too late because their way of thinking is already set in, and changing that is difficult and often impossible for stubborn people. Teaching that ideology and media literacy is similar to teaching a language, it is much easier to teach a young child the ability to pronounce sounds of a language than an adult. Society must teach children how to view the internet as an educational tool run by professionals before they become immersed in the current way of the web, or caught in the “web”.
I don’t believe that any of these solutions are possible or necessary. To change the system everyone must be on board because websites will always do what brings in money from advertisers. In order to change the internet it will take the majority of society to send a message to advertisers that change is necessary but is change necessary? For me the answer is no, I’m aware that Youtube, Facebook and Myspace are filled with nonsense but I still admire the ability the internet provides to express yourself in any way that fits you. But the audience must take it for what it is and that’s just expression. People need to be educated enough to know where to look for information and where to look for education. The internet provides endless possibilities but we must learn how to use it to its full potential.