Tag Archives: internet

R7: Keenly avoiding overgeneralizations

Posted on by
1

Andrew Keen is a doomsday crying outlier of the Internet world. Someone who has engaged in entrepreneurial endeavors, he benefited from the services the internet has to offer and turns around, in what can only be considered an elitist manner, to deny millions of others the same opportunity. As someone who had neither connections to mainstream media, nor any god-given right on the possibility of capitalizing off the World Wide Web, he still believes others should be barred from universal access to expressing their opinions. He espouses Hamiltonian fear of the general public but, unlike the political genius, fails to offer any way of preserving the sanctity of the democratic web and preventing the “passions” of the masses.

He begins by over generalizing about past civilizations and their ability to resist temptation, especially the wiles of whim. Hardly an accurate argument, most of his examples derive from peoples that failed because they succumbed to the desires of an overtly opinionated tyrant or autocrat. This drastically opposes our world today, which he acknowledges as one dominated by the opinions of many. Web 2.0, as his friend astutely puts it, “will radically democratize culture, build authentic community, create citizen media.” This brings together the liberal foundations of 60’s ideology, one of “countercultural utopianism,” and the technological boom of the 90s up till today. It uses the latter empirical progress to bring the former’s ideals to fruition. And, much to Keen’s dismay it seems, it has worked.

The dangerous temptation of today’s world is the collective pool of voices, from various backgrounds and schools of thoughts, all able to spread their word on the equalizing playing field of the internet—according to Keen, that is. My two qualms with this belief are that it characterizes the internet as a socialistic utopia, which it is not and it also makes the massive rhetorical leap from democratic discourse to communistic preachings.

The internet, like modern day voting laws, act as societal equalizers so that each person’s voice counts equally. But, as with voting, money is always a tool of leverage. It is undeniable that the opinions of Mark Zuckerberg count more in the world of the internet than the average facebook user because of his scope of influence and the weight of his monetary power. There are crevices of the internet that are truly equalizing, but it has become a commercial domain as well where money can buy visibility and exposure, which is everything in the internet. So it is not true that the world will devolve into the chaos of a multiplicity of voices all drowning each other out. As with all markets, those best able to use the tools at their disposal gain power and can use the power to control the lower hierarchal levels. The internet is no exception.

Further, Keen poses arguments against the very goals of the internet. Pioneers of the internet aimed to create a microcosm of individuals where each were given the same tools and starting place to do with them what they will for whatever purposes they wish. Marx, on the other hand, is not encouraging mere equal access to opportunity but rather redistribution so that everyone has equal means. The internet is too laissez-fair for that sort of goal. Further, Marx’s writing was not as extreme as the principles he encouraged because, like all propaganda, the written arguments for an idea are mild and persuasive. Anyone would want a society where each individual can be “accomplished in any branch he wishes.”

Finally, he claims that everyone being able to publish their own work will overwhelm the true geniuses in society and so we will no longer have people like Mozart and Van Gogh. This is a complete fallacy—we have seen internet celebrities be found by the average person being judged more for their talent rather than their original funds and ability to market themselves commercially. It allows for more Mozarts—unlike these geniuses of the past, they don’t have to worry about being “found,” something that would be near impossible in today’s world.

R6: Internet-Industrial Complex

Posted on by
Reply

Dichotomous thinking is the phenomenon where individuals abide by a black and white, either/or perception of the world. They seem to think that life consists of permanent, irrevocable tradeoffs that require the sacrifice of something for the attainment of another. Douglas Rushkoff in his essays “They call me cyberboy” and “The people’s net,” are two examples of an intelligent individual who constructs an argument based on the false notion that the internet can either be a tool for the common person, void of any commercialism, or a venue for industrial transactions and agenda. As with most things in life, I think the two can work hand in hand to maximize on the opportunities and resources the internet, and exclusively the internet, has to offer to create a more efficient and productive interface for the entire population, not just a subset.

“Every day more people conduct their daily business online. The Internet makes their lives more convenient. I can’t bring myself to see mere convenience as a victory. Sadly, cyberspace has become just another place to do business,” Rushkoff laments. Yes, he is right. The internet has opened its virtual doors to the long fingered reaches of industrial heavyweights. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. He discusses in depth the benefit of the internet as a forum for the people and points to common functions such as messaging and picture sharing as the most important services the internet has to offer. I do not understand, however, how he thought philanthropy and altruistic techies alone would be able to provide such high-end services like Facebook or Gmail without some form of incoming revenue. As we have seen with industrial history, most businesses start with a brainchild that an individual sees come to fruition in a few well-created prototypes of his idea until he garners enough support that he can ask for financial donations. Only then, however, with some sort of monetary activation energy can an entrepreneur improve his product and provide it to the masses.

I think that by joining corporations with intellectual innovators, the internet has become a place where the next generation can take an idea that benefits the public, offer it to them in the most equalizing platform the world has to offer today—the internet—and have the incentive to do so because he or she will be able to make money off of it. Thus, innovation becomes a profession. Passion can only go so far—that is why the government and private corporations fund scientific research. The scientist loves his work, surely, and indeed the doctor does want to help humanity, but they have three meals a day and a mortgage to think about as well. With some semblance of a salary, the great thinkers of the upcoming generation will educate themselves further on the internet and use it to full capacity to provide even more services without having it seem like an irresponsible professional decision like majoring in art history and wanting to be a writer. (Don’t get me wrong; I want to be a writer. But try convincing a parent that their money is being well spent on a college education if that’s the end goal you have in mind.)

Finally,  my final qualm about Rushkoff’s essays are his assertions that the internet is becoming a corporate playing field and that the real important aspects of the internet such as conversation generation do not create the revenue these corporations seek. This seems incorrect and while I am no economics major, I do not think Facebook would have become the multibillion-dollar corporation it is if conversation did not generate revenue. Social networking as revolutionized human interaction and Facebook has pioneered a way to empirically embody the notion of “six degrees of separation” by allowing people to connect to friends and friends of friends based on social groups or shared interests. It is an autobiography that is constantly being rewritten and continued. It is something anyone from my little brother to my grandparents in India can use. It diminishes the importance of time difference, distance, socioeconomic status, education, race, religion, political affiliation or other such divisive factors. And it’s free. How many things in life that are free accomplish such ubiquitous change? Facebook is funded by advertisement revenue, primarily. Where do these dollar bills come from? Industries that want to get their name out. This is the perfect example of the symbiotic relationship between entrepreneurs aiming to tough the lives of the average global citizen and corporations out there looking to make a buck. Together, they form a internet-industrial complex that’s finest work is most likely yet to come.