Keen vs. Rushkoff

1. How does Keen's does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links. 
  Keen defines democratized media as the way in which anyone can contribute to a subject, amateur and expert alike. What it means is I can comment on something that I am completely uneducated about. He has many issues with this trend that has stemmed from the use of user-generate content. Basically, he believes that the introduction of Web 2.0 has allowed the internet to flatten and destroy our culture. He has been observing what is happening and plainly states "... I'm dismayed by  what I've seen." He is dissatisfied with almost everything involved with Web 2.0. He doesn't believe amateurs should be able to comment or contribute to subjects they aren't familiar with. he plainly calls out Wikipedia as the dominate offending party. he refers to an episode where Ken Lay, former head of Enron died, and the cause of death was change hundreds of times in a matter of minutes, making it extremely difficult for the consumer to get the exact cause of death. This a shiny example, as the inaccuracies cloud the truth over the internet. I thought what would Keen think about reviews of his books by people who had read but weren't critics? Another big problem Keen has is the prevalence of file sharing and the copy/paste culture that has arose. He says "Authenticity is almost impossible to verify. the idea of original authorship and intellectual property has been seriously compromised." He makes a good point in that the original ideas and works of the authors is lost among the crowd and therefor no one gets credit for their own creation. The last point I'll about is when Keen talks about the fact that we are losing our individuality to the monster of anonymity on the internet. As everything becomes shared, nothing is sacred anymore, leading to the loss of individual accomplishment as well as the loss of anything unique to one person.While Keen makes a very good argument on all fronts I believe he is a step too far in describing the downfall of our world through Web 2.0.




2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
 In all both Rushkoff and Keen are saying similar things about the world today. The way they present it is totally different. Rushkoff takes a more forgivable stance, allowing us to analyze and try to correct the mistakes that are going on right now. He believes that the revolution of 2.0 has had many detrimental effects of society but not so much so where there is irreversible damage or that we cannot stem the tide and spread of misuse. Keen is much more cynical and nihilistic. He believes we have irrevocably damaged our world and there is no turning back. He acts as though society is about to collapse because of misinformed internet use. I feel as though he makes many excellent points about it, but is too caught up in the effects to really be a help in solving the problem. This is why I firmly believe Rushkoff has the more constructive and amicable approach to the problem of democratized media. Although there are many negatives, there are also positives and Rushkoff is able to show this rather than condemn the entire process. I think through his approach we can help mend the what is wrong with the use of Web 2.0 and democratized media, and use it for the better. If we cannot though, I'm afraid Keen might be right after all.