1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?
I believe that direct democracy, or the ability for each and every user to have input into the system is the most likely to be used and the best to use in conjunction with current technologies.
2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further?
My answer is a direct results because this type of democracy allows anyone to comment, leading to an unchecked nature. The tangible examples are any forum or message board. Anyone can post whatever they feel like and this unregulated approach is usually unchecked until a regulator or another source edits, or removes the material. While I feel that regulation needs to improve in some sectors, it cannot totally happen or no one will be able to have any input unless they are experts. It is an issue that is the process of being addressed and it will continue to do so, as long as there are people to post and others to edit and regulate the process.
3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that need to be addressed? Why or Why not?
A media echo chamber, when an idea is disseminated through media and amplified in popularity through and small rounds then grows as the story become more widespread. This can lead to the story being incorrectly reported or full of errors because the initial process convoluted the facts. The effects can lead to completely false rumors staring ,such as the deaths of celebrities who turn out to be alive and well. This issue is annoying and should be addressed because in certain situations it can damage the reputations and creditableness of certain sources. This issue is misleading and this only harms people when they believe the false information.
4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they needed or not needed?
Authority on the internet is being enforced through editing and limiting posts and what people say. For example, different websites and companies moderate forums to make sure nothing too offensive or over the top is written. Online video games can ban or suspend players for offensive actions. The people usually behind these actions are employees, who are directed through corporate mandates. I believe this control is necessary because if people are allowed to run wild like they are over some places in the internet, it can become and unsafe or volatile place to go and use. Others behaviors will affect people who would like to be left alone and this distinction is important. Editors also help ensure a factual experience when researching or fact finding, helping provide important and factual information.
6. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a of a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.
The way the political landscape has adapted to internet is an incredible phenomenon. Ads, political commercials, debates, and many more staples of a campaign are becoming extremely integrated into the online world. More people can now research and check the track records and voting tendencies of candidates than ever before. Many political commercials have been put on Youtube and are viewed hundreds of thousands of times, exposing these people to citizen who otherwise would not get involved in the political process. Smear campaigns gain new life on the internet, where people write whatever they want or whatever they feel about certain candidates as well as praising their choices. Politicians have been able to use this new forum to its maximum effectiveness.
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I do not think that democracy is really threatened by the internet or the way it is run. As much as there is total false and misleading information, there is also factual and important verified information that can found only on the internet. As much as we are lead to believe, the internet is continually being upgraded to be more accurate, most of the sources that we use everyday such as Wikipedia are vastly superior top what they used to be. To me the internet may engender healthy debate and inquiry. We can now interact and exchange information on a much grander scale and this is important in keeping democracy alive. That being said, there are many places with faulty information and what is presented as fact is actually someones misguided opinion. But as a whole, I do not think that democracy is truly threatened by unchecked internet usage.
No comments:
Post a Comment