Web 2.0

1. Democrotized media is argued to be beneificial or not.  Keen argues defending the mainstreem media, that is had recently becoma a "punching bag" for libertarians on left and right or people who he says have no repsepct for authority.  Digg.com and Rediff.com are examples that he mentions of democratized media where many of the work published does not go through a middle man, therefore not having much filter.  He states that we do not have the typical economy for this to happen and that we need the middle man.  Keen also says that the core of the media is being able to find/advertise human talent, and the only way of finding other human talent is with human talent.  The unfiltered media that is being published is now corrupting our society because we are too easily impressed by anonymous people.  If there is no credibilty why should we trust it?  Better yet why do we?

2. Social media is something that defines the 21st century says keen.  Its something that people can look  back on for how the 21st century exsisted.  Keen suggests that the main idea of web 2.0 is to be more of "superficial observations of the world around us rather than considered judgement.  Ruskoff somewhat portrays that idea.  He does explain the benefits of these mediums, like the public schools, kids from poor communities, are benefiting from technology because it makes them more eager to learn.  He also belives that games like world of war craft are supposedly conecting people all over the world.  After these conclusions i have realized that these people are undoubtibly addicted to the internet.  By applying keens theory of social media we can interpret that our society is fixated on the digital world and all the shortcuts offered.  One can say that it may not be good to look back on this generation.