Klementina Pavlova
14 December, 2009
As I was glimpsing through the blog posts, one caught my eye and decided to respond to the blog post by Danniel Leahy. It was very intriguing the way he presented his points of view. We are definitely on two opposing viewpoints on the issue of Web 2.0 which helps for the healthy discussion. Although Danniel Leahy says that Web 2.0 helps people stay in touch, informs them and keeps them connected, I’d like to disagree because Web 2.0 destroys person to person interaction, hinders the function of the media and generates the idea that “I am the most important” which are slowly hurting our society.
Human beings express the need to belong to something, be a part of the solution and work towards achieving a goal but the most important part is that they need human interaction. And that is exactly what’s missing in Web 2.0. The neighborhood and the community used to be the center of politics but now it seems we do not know who our next door neighbor is because we never had the chance to interact on a personal level. Web 2.0 destroys the closeness of the community; people no longer interact the same way which causes neighborhoods to separate and not stand up for their rights together. Appearing and contributing in person is much more effective than writing a two line e-mail with your concerns. If you were not able to take an hour of your daily life to express the problems within the community it must have not been that important. Web 2.0 hinders the intended functions of town hall meetings instead of complementing them. For example, during the first town hall meetings that Obama conducted many of the submitted questions did not get asked, in fact only 10 different topics were discussed out of a pool of thousands. When you submit your questions to an online database the chances of your question getting selected are very slim. And that is a point Williams points out, raising awareness to the decay of our democracy.
As Danniel Leahy mentioned Zen Rizing got some popularity through Web 2.0 but their big break was when they went out and met with production companies and so forth. It was the face-to-face interaction with sponsors that helped them achieve their dreams. In regards to that it is inevitable not to have a few more viewers once you post your work is on Web 2.0 but Zen Rizing are still not popular. They are overshadowed by the big stars that are also major figures on the Web 2.0. People have the tendency to listen to their chosen music and rarely search for new artists, because as we all know time is money. We all need a quick fix from our stressful lives and we stick to what we already know. The Web provided an outlet for those who were already curious of music styles but it failed to make people reach out. And that is because we are so self centered we only care of what we need at a specific time. And it is no surprise we do not reach out; we automatically ignore what we label to being not our style.
Just like we pick our music we pick our news channels. We watch whatever agrees with us. Society relies on the media to keep them informed on the main issues locally and globally. As a nation, we value the information that we hear but in recent years our news networks have gone extremist. We have networks that reflect only one side of the story and so the public is stripped from the right of unbiased news. Web 2.0 does keep us informed if we want to learn, otherwise there is no mandatory requirement for any of us to sit down and read about the Iraq war or Health care reform. Web 2.0 has a vast amount of information that many people cannot always process and that is why we have journalists who are supposed to give us the information from credible sources. We cannot all be experts on various subjects and that is where the media comes in to give us the condensed information so we can be an informed nation. Web 2.0 gives us the option to only read and listen to what we agree with and what we want to know. That is Williams’s concern, with so much information you are more inclined to read only what interests you. And that has been proven for the past 10 years in which the Internet grew bigger and bigger but the American society did not become more democratic or more educated on global issues. Web 2.0 gives all the power to its user and cannot control his or her actions. In this “user generated media” who is guaranteeing the people access to all of this information. Who guarantees that people will take the time out of their day and read the opposing view?
Web 2.0 reinforces the idea of: “I am the most important” and the media has to compete with that. Thirty years ago it didn’t have to do that and that is why our networks are partisan now. Thirty years ago the news gave you the information straight. It didn’t matter if you liked it, agreed or disagreed. It was there for you to know. It was straight fact without personal bias from the journalists. The decay of the media is in a direct coloration with the usage of Web 2.0. People started reading up news online the ones they only care about. Media lost its viewers and now is doing everything to get them back; even if that means dumbing down its journalists (FOX ) or using holograms who look like a video-game characters (CNN) to inform us what is happening around the world.
Web 2.0 is especially great for social networking, some might say that and for them it would be true to the extent of ignorance because they haven’t thought about its negative aspects. If one tracks the time one spends checking their two emails, Facebook, Twitter and blog one will discover that it takes a vast majority of your time. “Social Networking” sites enable you to look for your old friends and when you have a broad array of friends you can talk to online you isolate yourself from the rest of the world. Facebook becomes a comfort zone and it is very hard for some to come out and socialize with a different crowd and meeting new people. Another negative aspect of Facebook is that it does not give a chance to teenagers and grow apart from their parents. This system doesn’t allow kids to grow up since they are always connected to their parents. Previous generations were able to become more independent on an earlier age and so being so connected comes this generation to be a child for longer. This affects their personal lives and professions. Now it is even acceptable to go back and live at home after college. Instead of beginning your life. And all that is caused by being so connected and constantly dependant.
Zen Rizing is using social networks to advertise their upcoming songs and maybe sell a couple of souvenirs. But Facebook could be a dangerous website; on top of staying connected with family and friends this website generates a lot of drama that might affect their music in a negative way. If you have a psycho fan you might be afraid for your or their life. Facebook is also known as a stalking source, I wonder how you would feel if your life was inspected under a microscope.
I recognize the claims made by Danniel Leahy and would like to point out a great quote by the author, “If the internet did not exist Ignorance still would.” You cannot make anyone interested in something they had no intention of learning, although you can make it more available. Johnson applauds this new version of the web for offering “a chance for ordinary people to converse about the local issues in their lives that the professionals largely ignore.” (446). In a democracy it is very important to hear the voices of the mass and not only the elected officials. And as Kevin Kelly says from the New York Magazine “Platforms like the Internet and Facebook, or democracy—which are intended to serve as a substrate for producing goods and delivering services—benefit from being as nonhierarchical as possible, minimizing barriers to entry and distributing rights and responsibilities equally. Wikipedia is not a bastion of equality, but it is vastly more collectivist than the Encyclopædia Britannica. The elite core we find at the heart of online collectives is actually a sign that stateless socialism can work on a grand scale.” It is possible to be nobody and achieve greatness.
With the usage of Web 2.0 you discover just how big the world is because even a simple word as ‘peace’ receives more than 330 million searches on Google. How do you find what you need? How do you read all of this information, well you don’t and so you would never know what you are missing. Solutions to these problems will come with time but it might be too late to save our society.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
What Is Truly Important
Klementina Pavlova
ENGL 155
Professor Huey
In the article “It’s All about Us” by Steven Johnson it is argued that by addressing the local issues on Web 2.0, ordinary people become the experts and therefore more involved in their own community. In his opinion Web 2.0 is a good approach for society because it presents the idea that we can all work together with a common path to achieve success. In the opposing argument, Brian Williams “Enough about You” criticizes Web 2.0 because he sees the negative affects it has produced. In his opinion people have become self-centered and search for information in their own interest box and nobody is really trying to expand their horizons, which causes the decay of democracy. Web 2.0 is all about what “you” want and it generates the idea that “I am the most important”, strengthening the virtues of “Generation Me”. The author uses sarcasm to prove his points and for example, this is referring to the death of the newspaper; “It doesn’t greet us by name. It’s for everyone!”(Williams 450) A prevalent point made by the author is the crashing productivity of our democracy and how it could not survive if we only watch personal appeals of opinion.
In agreeance with William’s argument that the “Generation of Me” which is incorporated into the Web 2.0 is in fact taking over the basic structure of collecting information and news, we see the possibly of destroying democracy. Although some might say that Web 2.0 has the potential to contribute a lot to our education, rather it has taught the new generation to be careless about the world issues and has transformed our society to look for the one way street answer on all issues. Williams also raises the question of how can we be a functional society if we are not active participants in our democracy. The vast amount of information available on Web 2.0 could cause many of us to miss a key story or piece of information crucial to making decisions. The documentary by Frontline, “Cheney’s Law” is a great example of how Web 2.0 hindered news related to war. Web 2.0 allowed the mass to be consumed with distractions.
Web 2.0 and the media are fluttered with useless information. Our national news channels are too busy figuring out which side is too much left or too much right. As Williams says in his article, “It is now possible… to go about your day in America and consume what you wish to see and hear. There are television networks that already agree with you” (450). Fox is extreme and so is MSNBC, we live in a bipolar world, you are either on the far left or on the far right. And every American has a favorite talk show host and a network that they would not want to change, not because of the physical effort but because it would require changing a mindset. We are directly impacted by this partisan information and such trend is also occurring in Web 2.0; and everybody uses the Internet but only looks up information relevant to their daily lives and does not stray away from their path. And in such cases when the public is too consumed with its own lives, information is missed and this no longer could be considered a democracy. The Bush Administration is a perfect example of how an important piece of informational news did not reach the public not because it wasn’t available but because they were too busy reading the new gossip or updating their status on Facebook.
Democracy is a big word and before we go into further discussion, we should ask ourselves what is our perception of its functions and how we can contribute and work together as a society. “Although there is no universally accepted definition of democracy, most scholars agree that democracy includes two basic principles: first, that all members of a society enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties, and second, that these members have equal access to power (Schumpeter 8). These principles are based on the concept of popular sovereignty, which holds that the legitimacy of the state and its laws is based on the will of the people; as citizens are the source of all political power, they must be able to play a role in shaping the political decisions that affect their lives”.
American people had given up their civil rights during the time of crisis and nobody said anything. Bush also had unitary executive power; the theory and reality of the unitary executive asserts that all executive authority must be in the President’s hands, without exception. "He [Dick Chaney] believes the president should have the final word -- indeed the only word -- on all matters within the executive branch.” says Former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman. Unitary executive means that the president had the right to act with unparalleled authority. President George W. Bush had the power to “detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review”. Judging by these factors of our government and no opposition of the public, we have been having a dictatorship for the past eight years.
The main area of controversy discussed in the documentary “Cheney’s Law” is the issue of Presidential “Signing Statements”. All documents from the “Patriot Act”, to Emergency Presidential Powers to CIA Interrogation Tactics were established in the Vice President’s Office and sighed in absolute secrecy. Everything was signed behind closed doors and in a very fast manner. All of the signed documents deny rights from either American citizens or prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay. The documentary “Cheney’s Law” uses first hand sources such as Goldsmith and John Yoo who were there to witness and take part in the doings of the Bush’s Administration. The most important reason why Bush administration was allowed to expand presidential power in this fashion was because we were attacked and matters of national security take priority over laws. As Cheney said, “this country will need to be governed by men not laws.” This fulfilled his long time agenda to give the President more power that anybody else. The issue of prisoner treatment under the Geneva conventions was handled badly. The Bush administration tried everything to make sure these rules did not apply since torture was one of their main interrogation tactics. The issue of Presidential authority over the wiretapping of American citizens was one of the most crucial of the time and most of the American citizens were not even aware it was happening. The scene in which White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft, while he was on his death bed, to overrule the department's decision that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. Only then, did the Bush Administration reconciled. All of this information was made available through the media, online and on the international news channels. Explain then, how do only a slim percentage of citizens are aware of such atrocities? The answer is, we have too much information and people just don’t know where to look.
In his new book, "The Cult of the Amateur," Andrew Keen expresses many of the things that are of concern to Web 2.0 consumers, such as the disappearing democracy which is an occurring trend since the late 90s curiously enough, since the Internet became widely used. For example, he says, "(Web 2.0) democratization, despite its lofty idealization, is undermining truth, souring civic discourse, and belittling expertise, experience and talent ... it is threatening the very future of our cultural institutions." In this quote the author is presenting his concerns of how the vast majority of people are innocent bystanders of an event that they have been creating and foreseeing the inevitable damage. Andrew Keen is troubled with the future of the cultural institutions that might not be over looked by the population because of the Internet. Web 2.0 has transformed our view of the world and inserted the notion that the commonality of the newspaper and the news is something we should stay away from and stick to the recently know web sites agreeing with us. As Williams states, “The problem is that there’s a lot of information out there that citizens in an informed democracy need to know in our complicated world…” (450). The information is available to us but who has time to go through it when you have four e-mails to check, a Facebook account and a Twitter that needs to be updated at least every hour. This society has too much on their plate to really experience it all. Even though we have this pool of information we still cannot get around basic geographical knowledge or try and read how the lives of other cultures are impacted by actions taken by the United States.
The Millennials also known as the Generation Y or the most recent name for us (13—25) is the “Generation of Me”. Yes, it is a revolutionary concept that we are in control of everything we do, watch, and hear but to our generation is just the normality of life. According to the Urban Dictionary we have strong sense of citizenship, moral, confidence, and sociability; Millennials are usually optimistic, stubborn and civic. Important events of our generation include the Columbine High School shooting, the death of Princess Diana, World Trade Center attacks, and the Iraq/Afghanistan War. We live in the world of internet chat rooms, the boom of reality TV, and multiculturalism. Generation Y or Millennials are primarily children of Baby Boomers and in some cases Generation X. The Baby Boomers cannot understand, but have to deal with GenMes especially in the work place or in advertisement.
The idea that Millennials will watch what suits their interests is a concern raised my Williams. He attacks our generation and suggests that we are naturally biased because we only care about ourselves. Many would agree with the William’s claim which states that we have become obsessed with ourselves and as he puts it “it’s the User- Generated Generation” (Williams 449). There is a great quote by Frank Herbert that expresses this exact notion of freedom; "Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." Our generation has been spoiled to think that the world revolves around our own interests and if the outside world doesn’t present what appeals to our bubble of life we simply won’t watch it. “Generation Me” is receiving what they want even from the media, which is currently competing for best useless technology award; For example, CNN is constantly coming up with Touch Screens TVs and gadgets that appeal to the younger crowd. During the 2008 Presidential Elections they introduced a hologram of a reporter in Chicago. Firstly, it defeated the purpose of having journalists away (which is to show the surrounding and atmosphere through the TV screen) secondly, the hologram made the show look sloppy and stupid, and thirdly, the reporter looked like a video game character. Even our news networks are trying to satisfy all needs and desires of the audience only to have a few more, maybe younger viewers.
And as Millennials have proven numerous times, we speak the language of the “self” fluently. So much of the "common sense" advice that's given these days includes some variation on "self:" For example, "Just be yourself.", "I learned a lot about myself.", "Believe in yourself." (Often followed by "and anything is possible."), "Yes, express yourself.", "You have to respect yourself.", "Be honest with yourself.", "You have to love yourself before you can love someone else.", "Yes, stand up for yourself". We were so consumed by our lives and selves we neglected to see the larger picture. As Williams says, “We’ve raised a generation of Americans on a mantra of love and importance of self” (450) and this generation will miss the next great book, idea or a dictatorship and an unjust invasion of a foreign country. The Bush Administration enforced strict consumerism in order to keep away from all the secretive and usually illegal steps the government was taking. If Americans were fully aware of the situation, the war in Iraq would not have happened. Information that was summarized in “Cheney’s Law” was missed by the mass back then and is still unknown to American citizens.
Information is power and key for all intended functions of our political sphere. In the article “It’s All about Us” by Steven Johnson advocates the view that when people are involved, on small-scale community blogs or local news they can achieve great work. In such cases ordinary people become the experts and initiators to the communal work. In his opinion Web 2.0 is used as a crutch to society in order to work together. In which case as Kevin Kelly from New York Magazine says, “When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it's not unreasonable to call that socialism.” By connecting everybody through Web 2.0 and having them contribute to the end results is a “revised version of socialism”. And in a way Web 2.0 is more communist that any of you has thought about. An activist, provocateur, and aging hippy John Barlow called it "dot-communism" in the late '90s, he defined it as a "workforce composed entirely of free agents," a decentralized gift or barter economy where there is no property and where technological architecture defines the political space. And as we know from not far ago “communism” has a very negative connotation in this country. So are we all communists then? Because we all enjoy the fruits of labor done by others every day. We are indeed mistaken about this so called communism, it turns out that the governing kernel of Wikipedia, Linux, or OpenOffice shows that these efforts extend a lot farther than people putting up information and updating software. There are millions of writers contributing to Wikipedia but the numbers of editors (around 1,500) are responsible for the majority of the editing. As Mitch Kapor, founding chair of the Mozilla open source code factory, observed, "Inside every working anarchy, there's an old-boy network”.
In conclusion, we as a society are very strong and should not let our division in our private lives separates us nationally. We are united and so should our Internet and the knowledge we have on issues should be made available to everybody. Americans need to hear what they do not what to because at the end of the day, that is democracy. If America wants to keep the image of the liberator, the one who invades other countries for the sake of bringing democracy to them and should set an example for the rest of the nations. America is an Empire because it is a democracy but what happens when you cannot hear the voices of the people because they are all talking at once? We are experiencing this exact phenomenon NOW, as Wikipedia, Digg, Twitter, blogs and all sorts of scholarly and non- scholarly information clouds our judgment. Future of Web 2.0 is dependant only of this generation. There is no quick fix to anything but this issue should be addressed. Enough with the “self caring”. As Johnson says there should be “public discussion who designs [search tools, recommendation engines, RSS feeds] and what values are encoded in then” (Johnson, 447). Those are very important recommendations to our society but there’s the possibility that people in different regions would not be informed about the discussions happening in another one. Web 2.0 is too big to contain. There cannot be a good discussion of the Web restrictions if half of the population is unaware of the topic, its background and a personal solution.
ENGL 155
Professor Huey
In the article “It’s All about Us” by Steven Johnson it is argued that by addressing the local issues on Web 2.0, ordinary people become the experts and therefore more involved in their own community. In his opinion Web 2.0 is a good approach for society because it presents the idea that we can all work together with a common path to achieve success. In the opposing argument, Brian Williams “Enough about You” criticizes Web 2.0 because he sees the negative affects it has produced. In his opinion people have become self-centered and search for information in their own interest box and nobody is really trying to expand their horizons, which causes the decay of democracy. Web 2.0 is all about what “you” want and it generates the idea that “I am the most important”, strengthening the virtues of “Generation Me”. The author uses sarcasm to prove his points and for example, this is referring to the death of the newspaper; “It doesn’t greet us by name. It’s for everyone!”(Williams 450) A prevalent point made by the author is the crashing productivity of our democracy and how it could not survive if we only watch personal appeals of opinion.
In agreeance with William’s argument that the “Generation of Me” which is incorporated into the Web 2.0 is in fact taking over the basic structure of collecting information and news, we see the possibly of destroying democracy. Although some might say that Web 2.0 has the potential to contribute a lot to our education, rather it has taught the new generation to be careless about the world issues and has transformed our society to look for the one way street answer on all issues. Williams also raises the question of how can we be a functional society if we are not active participants in our democracy. The vast amount of information available on Web 2.0 could cause many of us to miss a key story or piece of information crucial to making decisions. The documentary by Frontline, “Cheney’s Law” is a great example of how Web 2.0 hindered news related to war. Web 2.0 allowed the mass to be consumed with distractions.
Web 2.0 and the media are fluttered with useless information. Our national news channels are too busy figuring out which side is too much left or too much right. As Williams says in his article, “It is now possible… to go about your day in America and consume what you wish to see and hear. There are television networks that already agree with you” (450). Fox is extreme and so is MSNBC, we live in a bipolar world, you are either on the far left or on the far right. And every American has a favorite talk show host and a network that they would not want to change, not because of the physical effort but because it would require changing a mindset. We are directly impacted by this partisan information and such trend is also occurring in Web 2.0; and everybody uses the Internet but only looks up information relevant to their daily lives and does not stray away from their path. And in such cases when the public is too consumed with its own lives, information is missed and this no longer could be considered a democracy. The Bush Administration is a perfect example of how an important piece of informational news did not reach the public not because it wasn’t available but because they were too busy reading the new gossip or updating their status on Facebook.
Democracy is a big word and before we go into further discussion, we should ask ourselves what is our perception of its functions and how we can contribute and work together as a society. “Although there is no universally accepted definition of democracy, most scholars agree that democracy includes two basic principles: first, that all members of a society enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties, and second, that these members have equal access to power (Schumpeter 8). These principles are based on the concept of popular sovereignty, which holds that the legitimacy of the state and its laws is based on the will of the people; as citizens are the source of all political power, they must be able to play a role in shaping the political decisions that affect their lives”.
American people had given up their civil rights during the time of crisis and nobody said anything. Bush also had unitary executive power; the theory and reality of the unitary executive asserts that all executive authority must be in the President’s hands, without exception. "He [Dick Chaney] believes the president should have the final word -- indeed the only word -- on all matters within the executive branch.” says Former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman. Unitary executive means that the president had the right to act with unparalleled authority. President George W. Bush had the power to “detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review”. Judging by these factors of our government and no opposition of the public, we have been having a dictatorship for the past eight years.
The main area of controversy discussed in the documentary “Cheney’s Law” is the issue of Presidential “Signing Statements”. All documents from the “Patriot Act”, to Emergency Presidential Powers to CIA Interrogation Tactics were established in the Vice President’s Office and sighed in absolute secrecy. Everything was signed behind closed doors and in a very fast manner. All of the signed documents deny rights from either American citizens or prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay. The documentary “Cheney’s Law” uses first hand sources such as Goldsmith and John Yoo who were there to witness and take part in the doings of the Bush’s Administration. The most important reason why Bush administration was allowed to expand presidential power in this fashion was because we were attacked and matters of national security take priority over laws. As Cheney said, “this country will need to be governed by men not laws.” This fulfilled his long time agenda to give the President more power that anybody else. The issue of prisoner treatment under the Geneva conventions was handled badly. The Bush administration tried everything to make sure these rules did not apply since torture was one of their main interrogation tactics. The issue of Presidential authority over the wiretapping of American citizens was one of the most crucial of the time and most of the American citizens were not even aware it was happening. The scene in which White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft, while he was on his death bed, to overrule the department's decision that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. Only then, did the Bush Administration reconciled. All of this information was made available through the media, online and on the international news channels. Explain then, how do only a slim percentage of citizens are aware of such atrocities? The answer is, we have too much information and people just don’t know where to look.
In his new book, "The Cult of the Amateur," Andrew Keen expresses many of the things that are of concern to Web 2.0 consumers, such as the disappearing democracy which is an occurring trend since the late 90s curiously enough, since the Internet became widely used. For example, he says, "(Web 2.0) democratization, despite its lofty idealization, is undermining truth, souring civic discourse, and belittling expertise, experience and talent ... it is threatening the very future of our cultural institutions." In this quote the author is presenting his concerns of how the vast majority of people are innocent bystanders of an event that they have been creating and foreseeing the inevitable damage. Andrew Keen is troubled with the future of the cultural institutions that might not be over looked by the population because of the Internet. Web 2.0 has transformed our view of the world and inserted the notion that the commonality of the newspaper and the news is something we should stay away from and stick to the recently know web sites agreeing with us. As Williams states, “The problem is that there’s a lot of information out there that citizens in an informed democracy need to know in our complicated world…” (450). The information is available to us but who has time to go through it when you have four e-mails to check, a Facebook account and a Twitter that needs to be updated at least every hour. This society has too much on their plate to really experience it all. Even though we have this pool of information we still cannot get around basic geographical knowledge or try and read how the lives of other cultures are impacted by actions taken by the United States.
The Millennials also known as the Generation Y or the most recent name for us (13—25) is the “Generation of Me”. Yes, it is a revolutionary concept that we are in control of everything we do, watch, and hear but to our generation is just the normality of life. According to the Urban Dictionary we have strong sense of citizenship, moral, confidence, and sociability; Millennials are usually optimistic, stubborn and civic. Important events of our generation include the Columbine High School shooting, the death of Princess Diana, World Trade Center attacks, and the Iraq/Afghanistan War. We live in the world of internet chat rooms, the boom of reality TV, and multiculturalism. Generation Y or Millennials are primarily children of Baby Boomers and in some cases Generation X. The Baby Boomers cannot understand, but have to deal with GenMes especially in the work place or in advertisement.
The idea that Millennials will watch what suits their interests is a concern raised my Williams. He attacks our generation and suggests that we are naturally biased because we only care about ourselves. Many would agree with the William’s claim which states that we have become obsessed with ourselves and as he puts it “it’s the User- Generated Generation” (Williams 449). There is a great quote by Frank Herbert that expresses this exact notion of freedom; "Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." Our generation has been spoiled to think that the world revolves around our own interests and if the outside world doesn’t present what appeals to our bubble of life we simply won’t watch it. “Generation Me” is receiving what they want even from the media, which is currently competing for best useless technology award; For example, CNN is constantly coming up with Touch Screens TVs and gadgets that appeal to the younger crowd. During the 2008 Presidential Elections they introduced a hologram of a reporter in Chicago. Firstly, it defeated the purpose of having journalists away (which is to show the surrounding and atmosphere through the TV screen) secondly, the hologram made the show look sloppy and stupid, and thirdly, the reporter looked like a video game character. Even our news networks are trying to satisfy all needs and desires of the audience only to have a few more, maybe younger viewers.
And as Millennials have proven numerous times, we speak the language of the “self” fluently. So much of the "common sense" advice that's given these days includes some variation on "self:" For example, "Just be yourself.", "I learned a lot about myself.", "Believe in yourself." (Often followed by "and anything is possible."), "Yes, express yourself.", "You have to respect yourself.", "Be honest with yourself.", "You have to love yourself before you can love someone else.", "Yes, stand up for yourself". We were so consumed by our lives and selves we neglected to see the larger picture. As Williams says, “We’ve raised a generation of Americans on a mantra of love and importance of self” (450) and this generation will miss the next great book, idea or a dictatorship and an unjust invasion of a foreign country. The Bush Administration enforced strict consumerism in order to keep away from all the secretive and usually illegal steps the government was taking. If Americans were fully aware of the situation, the war in Iraq would not have happened. Information that was summarized in “Cheney’s Law” was missed by the mass back then and is still unknown to American citizens.
Information is power and key for all intended functions of our political sphere. In the article “It’s All about Us” by Steven Johnson advocates the view that when people are involved, on small-scale community blogs or local news they can achieve great work. In such cases ordinary people become the experts and initiators to the communal work. In his opinion Web 2.0 is used as a crutch to society in order to work together. In which case as Kevin Kelly from New York Magazine says, “When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it's not unreasonable to call that socialism.” By connecting everybody through Web 2.0 and having them contribute to the end results is a “revised version of socialism”. And in a way Web 2.0 is more communist that any of you has thought about. An activist, provocateur, and aging hippy John Barlow called it "dot-communism" in the late '90s, he defined it as a "workforce composed entirely of free agents," a decentralized gift or barter economy where there is no property and where technological architecture defines the political space. And as we know from not far ago “communism” has a very negative connotation in this country. So are we all communists then? Because we all enjoy the fruits of labor done by others every day. We are indeed mistaken about this so called communism, it turns out that the governing kernel of Wikipedia, Linux, or OpenOffice shows that these efforts extend a lot farther than people putting up information and updating software. There are millions of writers contributing to Wikipedia but the numbers of editors (around 1,500) are responsible for the majority of the editing. As Mitch Kapor, founding chair of the Mozilla open source code factory, observed, "Inside every working anarchy, there's an old-boy network”.
In conclusion, we as a society are very strong and should not let our division in our private lives separates us nationally. We are united and so should our Internet and the knowledge we have on issues should be made available to everybody. Americans need to hear what they do not what to because at the end of the day, that is democracy. If America wants to keep the image of the liberator, the one who invades other countries for the sake of bringing democracy to them and should set an example for the rest of the nations. America is an Empire because it is a democracy but what happens when you cannot hear the voices of the people because they are all talking at once? We are experiencing this exact phenomenon NOW, as Wikipedia, Digg, Twitter, blogs and all sorts of scholarly and non- scholarly information clouds our judgment. Future of Web 2.0 is dependant only of this generation. There is no quick fix to anything but this issue should be addressed. Enough with the “self caring”. As Johnson says there should be “public discussion who designs [search tools, recommendation engines, RSS feeds] and what values are encoded in then” (Johnson, 447). Those are very important recommendations to our society but there’s the possibility that people in different regions would not be informed about the discussions happening in another one. Web 2.0 is too big to contain. There cannot be a good discussion of the Web restrictions if half of the population is unaware of the topic, its background and a personal solution.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Essay #3 Final Draft
Josh Clemons
12.2.09
Huey, Julie
Eng_155
Web 2.0 and Android
Web 2.0 is a valuable resource and a way to keep in touch with friends and family. With web 2.0 you are no longer on the outside looking in. Web 2.0 allows the locals in the community to talk about their community and the media “experts” are ignored. As stated by Johnson “those experts realize that they can’t compete with the real experts”, who are the small community locals. Williams view is quite different. He believes the web is too self-centered and when you are on the web you can search for only your point of view leaving the debating side left out. In Web 2.0 everyone is talking at once, so no one can hear another’s opinion. Although Web 2.0 makes it easy to leave out the debating side it is great because there are many ways to keep in touch with others and take part in discussions that can make a difference.
In the early stages of the Internet there were only pages that were posted and could be read. There was a rare occasion for people to use the Internet for anything but looking up information. As the Internet has become more and more popular, it has expanded and become more technical. Instead of using the Internet for jus looking up information, it could be used to talk to others via e-mail. E-mail proved to be to slow unfortunately for the growing amount of impatient teens using the Internet. The e-mail client developers came out with such programs as AOL instant messenger and yahoo instant messenger. This was the beginning of the Web 2.0 era. It is now possible to do virtually anything on the web. Teens and adults use Facebook to communicate with friends loved ones and to find old friends. Web 2.0 is also used for leisurely task such as watching videos on you tube and blogging. By posting a single blog about an idea a company can get many positive responses and investors from around the world to start making that idea into a reality. A single blog post a few years ago made Google’s Android operating system a reality.
In August 2005 Android was an idea thought up by a small company in Palo Alto California, it was the thought of having an open source operating system for a phone. Many accepted the idea and it picked up a following until Google recognized it. Google bought Android and began using their own high profile blogs to create a bigger following. Just by posting a small blog some people made millions of dollars for an idea that could or could not have been used by Google (news.cnet.com). For the original Android developer team, Web 2.0 is amazing! Google had already had certain services for mobile devices since 2001 and it was time for them to venture into making their own operating system.
An official Android blog was posted in 2007 called “where’s my G-phone?” It asked questions about when the highly anticipated phone would be released. It also gave information about what android would be and what carriers it would be on and what companies would work with Google to make the handsets (blogspot.com). In 2008 and SDK was released online. This was something that could only be done using Web 2.0. It allowed developers from all around the world to download the program for Android and start creating applications for it before the actual phones release date. Google hosted a contest online for the developer who created the best phone application. Because of many hardware design ideas turned down by the online community there was a hold on the release date of the phone. On October 3 2008 the HTC dream also known as the G1 was released on the T-mobile network. The phones many flaws were pointed out on countless blogs across the Internet and many comparison blogs were started. At the time the G1 was the only phone comparable to Apples iPhone. Not only is Android a new system competing with smaller phone companies, but it is also competing with the mobile giant, apple. Originally the first Android device was not meant to be an “iPhone killer” but the blogs people posted made it seem as if it was, which is great because it forces both companies to keep making their products better and more reliable. Apple has released two updates since the release of Android because it needed to keep up with Androids progress.
The Android story is a prime example of Web 2.0 at its finest. Two big companies competing and the winner in the long run is the consumer. Even to this day the two companies search forums and blogs and whatever else is posted talking about their products so that the good work can be kept up and the things that need improvement can be worked on. There are many other aspects of Web 2.0 that can be associated with Android. T-mobile sells Androids phones on their website which uses secure connections to conceal peoples identities and information when buying products online such as phones. Many people pay bills online as well which uses a secure connection keeping all of persons information private. Web 2.0 can be viewed as a great asset to the world in today’s time.
Johnson’s view of web 2.0 is very optimistic; web 2.0 is easily a show of what is to come in the future. Now instead of picking up a telephone one is able to video chat over the Internet, virtually getting rid of the traditional way of communicating. Android has been rumored on working on a project that will enable this chatting over their devices that are being distributed. Almost anything that can be done in everyday life can be done over web 2.0. Not only can a person look up information but they can also participate in providing the information, and debating information by participating in blog discussions.
In Androids official blog, that hundreds of thousands of people follow, there is a section for comments and what needs to be improved in the operating system. The blog is not just for the developer to inform the users of what is happening with their phones, but it makes the user apart of the experience by taking the suggestions made into consideration, and sometimes applying it. For example in the blog a fair amount of users wanted android to add video recording to the device in its first stages, three to four months later android released an update called cupcake that fulfilled the request. Android and “Web 2.0 is organized around people and not just those special people who appear on TV screens”(Johnson). Android is one of the companies that show how Web 2.0 lets people take part in discussions that can make a difference.
Williams will argue that web 2.0 is not a good thing unfortunately; he believes that the web is too impersonal and one-dimensional. Using Web 2.0 keeps people from interacting with the outside world. Teens and adults alike sign on to Facebook or MySpace and it seems like they don’t sign off. The Internet is said to be secure but hackers have many ways of getting personal account information transmitted through the Internet, It’s just an easier way of identity theft. When people go on the Internet they do not look for the downsides of things, such as what is wrong with Android only the promising aspects of it. In the blogs that are posted there are only the good things depending on the person who wrote it. They will be biased against the other party. It is possible that without seeing the other side then, the next new thing or big challenge will not be met because people are stuck in a rut of sorts, not wanting to see outside of their own world. By putting in a lot of work a person could always get their view across. Networking, blogging and creating websites can force a person to see another ones opinion. They can always click out if something unwanted, but if it is there enough then a person’s curiosity is sparked and they are compelled to read it. All things aside, the majority uses web 2.0 worldwide.
Johnson believes that web 2.0 is one of the greatest things to happen. When the little persons voice needs to be heard it’s only a few clicks away. Any person who needs to be reached no matter how far away they are is also only a few clicks away. Williams believes that this new version of the web can only do more harm than good. With the ability to choose what one wants to see and hear on the Internet, then the opposition is left out. He believes the Internet is too impersonal and one-sided leaving no room for future development because no one wants to listen to something they don’t already like. Web 2.0 is a valuable resource, without it many of the issues cannot be heard or seen anyway.
Web 2.0 houses many different social networking sites as well as business sites and blogging sites. These sites produce business and healthy competition. Web 2.0 will not be slowing down anytime soon, the ability to compete and conduct business and advertise for free will never be looked down upon. It will definitely be more democratic, some can try but the web can’t be censored, so a person can always voice their opinion no matter how ridiculous. Unfortunately this means there will be a lot of material that is inaccurate and just plain ridiculous but just as we find resources that are accurate today we will be able to find them in the future. In this day and time and in the future the web will be a valuable resource and it won’t be going anywhere.
Annotated Bibliography
Blogspot.com. Google.com, 5 Nov. 2007. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.
This source was the first official blog created by android after its purchase by Google. It gives a lot of the history of Android; release dates upgrades etc.
Johnson, Steven. Signs of Life. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009.
Johnson’s view of Web 2.0 that believes it is a good thing. It is a valuable resource and it connects people while assisting the little person voice their opinions without being overshadowed by the media.
News.cnet.com. CBS interactive, 17 Aug. 2005. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.
Covers the beginning of android when it was first bought out by Google. Androids purpose is explained as well as what it is.
Williams, Brian. Signs of Life. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009.
Williams view of Web 2.0 that disagrees with Johnson’s claim that Web 2.0 is useful. Web 2.0 is too impersonal and it only focuses on what one wants to see and if is not something one cares about then they wont look at it. This puts a hold on progression.
Blog Essay Final Draft
Arthur Chung
Professor Huey
English 155
11/22/09
Blogging
What is the big deal between Johnson’s article over William’s? It is the big deal of the difference of the mass media and what controls it takes on its audience. Within this blog there are many controversies that will be discussed such as the description of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Also there will be two people that will be discussed and what is their theory on the mass media and how it takes a major role in majority of our lives. The mass media plays a role of what we see and hear on the news channels. The media displays the news they want us to hear so that they would have control and power over the small people. Although William’s article opens ideas to one party but it is Johnson’s article that is better because it has more pros over cons and Johnson’s article is a benefit tool. First off Johnson’s article helps new writers and journalist get a good foundation, it allows them to build up their reputation in local areas before reaching to the next level. It is also good to think Johnson because Johnson’s article deals with local news and it allows people within the community to know what is going on.
First off that will be discussed is Johnson and is claim as an author. Johnson believed that Web 2.0 is a beneficial tool. Johnson says it is a beneficial tool because it allows small people or local communities to discuss variety of different issues or ideas that is ignored by the large mass media. It is not the mass media’s fault for not understanding or talking about local ideas. It is that the mass media aren’t experts at everything. That they don’t understand everything until it is notice on national level. How it all starts is with an idea or discussion that starts from the beginning of local or online discussions until it is notice in the upper media. It is with this that new ideas come up as Johnson says, “amateur journalism and encyclopedia authoring in the vast marketplace of ideas that the web has opened up” (Johnson, pg. 447). It is William that is next up on what is his take on Web 2.0. William believes Web 2.0 is negative and that it can hurt us by being closed minded to other information. William believes that web 2.0 is an abundance of information that is too democratic. This means that we as people give out everything in terms of information to people. From those people only find information or view point that agrees to theirs and they will isolate all other information that doesn’t agree within their terms. For this is very closed-minded and negative, this is what William believes. The difference of Johnson and Williams take on Web 2.0 is that Johnson believes that it is a beneficial tool, as William believes it is negative. It is that Johnson believes it allows people to discussion their ideas with local conversations. As William believes that no one is going to care for the information unless it pertains to him or her. It is that William said, “Consume only what you wish to see and hear” (William 450). This quote means that people only want to hear and see information that agrees with their viewpoints. It is that most people who are not well known journalist or as labeled “small people” would like Johnson’s view because it gives people a chance to get a idea or story out to the public. It is for some their foundation on building their name as a journalist. It allows journalist to build their foundation by reaching out to local communities and online discussion and state their claims. It is reasons that make both Johnson’s and William’s claim reasonable and creditable is that Johnson can help build new writers in local communities and be still known around the area. That Johnson claims that media is not experts to online discussions well this could help amateurs because in the beginning when a journalist writes they are not well known until the get notice to a national level. But this could be a negative to Johnson to the fact that once a journalist becomes a someone their information would probably wont be notice to some audience for it might not agree to their terms. This would be William’s claim, to the fact that some people will only pay attention to what they want to hear. It would depend to the audience to which Author would fit them best. If a reader had to determine which side would be best picked for them. What would have to be determined? It mostly deals with what a person does in their daily life and political views. As Johnson deals with media on how local ideas aren’t notice in the large media and Williams deals with people only looking up news and information that pertains to them. So it really depends on the person to which side is best for them. If a person were an amateur journalist, Johnson would fit that person. So that person could build a foundation and get experience of the media. Now if a person was a politician and had to protect their political beliefs, Williams would fit that person because the politician would only look up their beliefs. It is what most people would stand for is for Johnson because Johnson’s claim is more of a opened mind view as Williams just sounds closed minded as only people would look up news that relates to them.
There are much local news that would be talked within communities that would never get notice by big news channels such as NBC, CNN, Fox News, and etc. There are many people that make websites to talk about major issues and problems within their community. Such as, there is a website made by people who are angered about the research they have done and the importance to our planet and that it wont be introduce to the large media. This website talks about many local news but today we will only talk about one of the articles. This article talks about how the Ph balance in our waters are in critical trouble. There has been many research that our ocean waters are in danger for soon we would all have to make decision to protect our planet or it would be to late. This website is www.projectcensored.org and it talks about many issues that doesn’t make head line news. For my article is number three on top news that doesn’t make it. Its that this article fits best for Johnson because its research is done by many local people and that the reason it is not notice to the mass media is probably because the mass media might not understand the meaning and the issue that is being said. For the media are experts at everything and this might be one news article that the media might not understand. This article gives good reason why Johnson’s article is better because that probably this ocean danger article wasn’t notice because of the complexity that might be not understood to the media. As for it wasn’t ignored because this didn’t agree to someone’s views, as Williams article would say.
This is for people that are against Williams would agree with Johnson simply because Johnson holds more useful tools over William’s claim. It is that Johnson is more useful because it lets people know what is going on in local area, helps gives foundation to new writers, it teaches the large media new things from reading local ideas and discussions and it provides new information to the public. It is that William’s claim is simple but a little to simply. It basically states that people only want to hear and see information that pertains to them and that is why William claims it is negative. Though there is only one negative to Johnson’s claim is that “experts in traditional media have largely ignored” meaning it is the reason why local ideas are not known because it is not announced in the large media until it is reached out. It is like Wikipedia, it was until recently my class has learned that Wikipedia has added a new policy to their terms of being a user or editing pages. This Wikipedia article we had read is an example of the large media vs. the small media. It is that this article was only known the local discussions and didn’t make the upper news line. For this was important to the larger audience.
With a little of research it is founded with evidence to support the media and Web 2.0. Within the research that would fit best in this blog is founded two articles that talks about the upcoming of Web 2.0 and the new media technologies and success of Web 2.0. Within the first article it talks about the media and how it puts forward five observations of the up coming era of web 2.0. “(1) New media communication belongs to the domain of relations communication; (2) the communication character of the new media is telelog; (3) Metcalfe's Law offers a good description for the communication effectiveness of new media; (4) the study of new media communication should be shifted from message communication (which focuses on websites) to relations communication (which regards people as the center of the study); and (5) the essence of new media communication is not technical” (Chen and Ding pg. 13). The purpose of this quote is for my audience to understand that these are the views of other people on their take of web 2.0
Within the second article of new media technologies and success, it talks about the media on how it plays a role in our daily lives. “Platforms has put at the centre of academic and industry discussions the participatory potential of internet-based media” (Nico and Salvatore). With this quote it is talking about the develop of the new media from using an alternative to traditional systems. It is the world of the media we live in. Media takes a major role in all of our lives. From the research that is shown it is that Johnsons article that makes the most sense. It is that Johnson’s views are the most useful tool over Williams. Even not picking which one would fit a person best, Johnson’s article plays in the role of our lives even though we don’t know it. Such as many young adults are using Myspace, Live Journal, Facebook, and many other different blogs these days. These live blogs all play in the role of Johnson’s claim.
Annotated Bibliographies
Johnson, Steven. It's All about Us. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2009. Print.
Johnsons is a bright man that has many good ideas and views of how our media works. It is that Johnson says that the media aren’t experts to everything and the reason for using this quote is to show my audience on what Johnson is saying. It is that this short quote talks about how new and amateur journalism brings new ideas to the media. That I is good to have new ideas.
Williams, Brian. Enough about You. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2009. Print.
William is also a creative man, but in his article it talks about how people only pay attention to media that pertains to them and that is the reason I had choose this quote because it is the direct words on what he is arguing. That people only want to consume what they want to see, hear and to ignore everything that disagrees to their views
Nico, Carpentier, and Scifo Salvatore. "Introduction: Community media's long march." 27.2 (2010): 115-18. Print.
The reason for using this quote it to show people on how people think on the new media. On how tradition is being broken and that the internet is are new source of information. That now in days we don’t read the news paper anymore but that we get our information for the internet.
Chen, Xianhong, and Guilan Ding. "New media as relations." 2.3 (2009): 367-79. Print.
It is that Xianhong and Ding are researchers and that they study on how media works. It is that I had liked this quote because it talks about how media is major role in our life and how it works. Also it is the same agreeing view as Johnson. So it shows my audience that Johnson isn’t just one person with one claim. that it is more than that because other people think the same on our media.
Professor Huey
English 155
11/22/09
Blogging
What is the big deal between Johnson’s article over William’s? It is the big deal of the difference of the mass media and what controls it takes on its audience. Within this blog there are many controversies that will be discussed such as the description of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Also there will be two people that will be discussed and what is their theory on the mass media and how it takes a major role in majority of our lives. The mass media plays a role of what we see and hear on the news channels. The media displays the news they want us to hear so that they would have control and power over the small people. Although William’s article opens ideas to one party but it is Johnson’s article that is better because it has more pros over cons and Johnson’s article is a benefit tool. First off Johnson’s article helps new writers and journalist get a good foundation, it allows them to build up their reputation in local areas before reaching to the next level. It is also good to think Johnson because Johnson’s article deals with local news and it allows people within the community to know what is going on.
First off that will be discussed is Johnson and is claim as an author. Johnson believed that Web 2.0 is a beneficial tool. Johnson says it is a beneficial tool because it allows small people or local communities to discuss variety of different issues or ideas that is ignored by the large mass media. It is not the mass media’s fault for not understanding or talking about local ideas. It is that the mass media aren’t experts at everything. That they don’t understand everything until it is notice on national level. How it all starts is with an idea or discussion that starts from the beginning of local or online discussions until it is notice in the upper media. It is with this that new ideas come up as Johnson says, “amateur journalism and encyclopedia authoring in the vast marketplace of ideas that the web has opened up” (Johnson, pg. 447). It is William that is next up on what is his take on Web 2.0. William believes Web 2.0 is negative and that it can hurt us by being closed minded to other information. William believes that web 2.0 is an abundance of information that is too democratic. This means that we as people give out everything in terms of information to people. From those people only find information or view point that agrees to theirs and they will isolate all other information that doesn’t agree within their terms. For this is very closed-minded and negative, this is what William believes. The difference of Johnson and Williams take on Web 2.0 is that Johnson believes that it is a beneficial tool, as William believes it is negative. It is that Johnson believes it allows people to discussion their ideas with local conversations. As William believes that no one is going to care for the information unless it pertains to him or her. It is that William said, “Consume only what you wish to see and hear” (William 450). This quote means that people only want to hear and see information that agrees with their viewpoints. It is that most people who are not well known journalist or as labeled “small people” would like Johnson’s view because it gives people a chance to get a idea or story out to the public. It is for some their foundation on building their name as a journalist. It allows journalist to build their foundation by reaching out to local communities and online discussion and state their claims. It is reasons that make both Johnson’s and William’s claim reasonable and creditable is that Johnson can help build new writers in local communities and be still known around the area. That Johnson claims that media is not experts to online discussions well this could help amateurs because in the beginning when a journalist writes they are not well known until the get notice to a national level. But this could be a negative to Johnson to the fact that once a journalist becomes a someone their information would probably wont be notice to some audience for it might not agree to their terms. This would be William’s claim, to the fact that some people will only pay attention to what they want to hear. It would depend to the audience to which Author would fit them best. If a reader had to determine which side would be best picked for them. What would have to be determined? It mostly deals with what a person does in their daily life and political views. As Johnson deals with media on how local ideas aren’t notice in the large media and Williams deals with people only looking up news and information that pertains to them. So it really depends on the person to which side is best for them. If a person were an amateur journalist, Johnson would fit that person. So that person could build a foundation and get experience of the media. Now if a person was a politician and had to protect their political beliefs, Williams would fit that person because the politician would only look up their beliefs. It is what most people would stand for is for Johnson because Johnson’s claim is more of a opened mind view as Williams just sounds closed minded as only people would look up news that relates to them.
There are much local news that would be talked within communities that would never get notice by big news channels such as NBC, CNN, Fox News, and etc. There are many people that make websites to talk about major issues and problems within their community. Such as, there is a website made by people who are angered about the research they have done and the importance to our planet and that it wont be introduce to the large media. This website talks about many local news but today we will only talk about one of the articles. This article talks about how the Ph balance in our waters are in critical trouble. There has been many research that our ocean waters are in danger for soon we would all have to make decision to protect our planet or it would be to late. This website is www.projectcensored.org and it talks about many issues that doesn’t make head line news. For my article is number three on top news that doesn’t make it. Its that this article fits best for Johnson because its research is done by many local people and that the reason it is not notice to the mass media is probably because the mass media might not understand the meaning and the issue that is being said. For the media are experts at everything and this might be one news article that the media might not understand. This article gives good reason why Johnson’s article is better because that probably this ocean danger article wasn’t notice because of the complexity that might be not understood to the media. As for it wasn’t ignored because this didn’t agree to someone’s views, as Williams article would say.
This is for people that are against Williams would agree with Johnson simply because Johnson holds more useful tools over William’s claim. It is that Johnson is more useful because it lets people know what is going on in local area, helps gives foundation to new writers, it teaches the large media new things from reading local ideas and discussions and it provides new information to the public. It is that William’s claim is simple but a little to simply. It basically states that people only want to hear and see information that pertains to them and that is why William claims it is negative. Though there is only one negative to Johnson’s claim is that “experts in traditional media have largely ignored” meaning it is the reason why local ideas are not known because it is not announced in the large media until it is reached out. It is like Wikipedia, it was until recently my class has learned that Wikipedia has added a new policy to their terms of being a user or editing pages. This Wikipedia article we had read is an example of the large media vs. the small media. It is that this article was only known the local discussions and didn’t make the upper news line. For this was important to the larger audience.
With a little of research it is founded with evidence to support the media and Web 2.0. Within the research that would fit best in this blog is founded two articles that talks about the upcoming of Web 2.0 and the new media technologies and success of Web 2.0. Within the first article it talks about the media and how it puts forward five observations of the up coming era of web 2.0. “(1) New media communication belongs to the domain of relations communication; (2) the communication character of the new media is telelog; (3) Metcalfe's Law offers a good description for the communication effectiveness of new media; (4) the study of new media communication should be shifted from message communication (which focuses on websites) to relations communication (which regards people as the center of the study); and (5) the essence of new media communication is not technical” (Chen and Ding pg. 13). The purpose of this quote is for my audience to understand that these are the views of other people on their take of web 2.0
Within the second article of new media technologies and success, it talks about the media on how it plays a role in our daily lives. “Platforms has put at the centre of academic and industry discussions the participatory potential of internet-based media” (Nico and Salvatore). With this quote it is talking about the develop of the new media from using an alternative to traditional systems. It is the world of the media we live in. Media takes a major role in all of our lives. From the research that is shown it is that Johnsons article that makes the most sense. It is that Johnson’s views are the most useful tool over Williams. Even not picking which one would fit a person best, Johnson’s article plays in the role of our lives even though we don’t know it. Such as many young adults are using Myspace, Live Journal, Facebook, and many other different blogs these days. These live blogs all play in the role of Johnson’s claim.
Annotated Bibliographies
Johnson, Steven. It's All about Us. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2009. Print.
Johnsons is a bright man that has many good ideas and views of how our media works. It is that Johnson says that the media aren’t experts to everything and the reason for using this quote is to show my audience on what Johnson is saying. It is that this short quote talks about how new and amateur journalism brings new ideas to the media. That I is good to have new ideas.
Williams, Brian. Enough about You. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2009. Print.
William is also a creative man, but in his article it talks about how people only pay attention to media that pertains to them and that is the reason I had choose this quote because it is the direct words on what he is arguing. That people only want to consume what they want to see, hear and to ignore everything that disagrees to their views
Nico, Carpentier, and Scifo Salvatore. "Introduction: Community media's long march." 27.2 (2010): 115-18. Print.
The reason for using this quote it to show people on how people think on the new media. On how tradition is being broken and that the internet is are new source of information. That now in days we don’t read the news paper anymore but that we get our information for the internet.
Chen, Xianhong, and Guilan Ding. "New media as relations." 2.3 (2009): 367-79. Print.
It is that Xianhong and Ding are researchers and that they study on how media works. It is that I had liked this quote because it talks about how media is major role in our life and how it works. Also it is the same agreeing view as Johnson. So it shows my audience that Johnson isn’t just one person with one claim. that it is more than that because other people think the same on our media.
No More Yourspace final draft
Ashley Sumii
Professor Huey
English 155
November 22, 2009
No More Yourpace
In Steven Johnson’s article “It’s All About Us,” he writes about how Web 2.0 is very beneficial and he celebrates it; however, a professional journalist named Brian Williams explains in his article “Enough About You,” that Web 2.0 is not very valuable for society. In Johnson’s article, he says, “Web 2.0 is made up of ordinary people: hobbyists, diarists, armchair pundits, people adding their voice to the Web’s great evolving conversation for the sheer love it” (“It’s All about Us”, 446). Steven Johnson likes the fact that regular people write their opinions and their views on society today on the internet. Brian Williams writes, “What is more, Williams worries, with the ability to tailor our media consumption today to only those sources that reflect our already held view, we may be missing out on alternative perspectives ‘that citizens in an informed democracy need to know” (“Enough about You”, 449). Brian Williams writes that people will not be informed of the important things going on in the world, because they will only read about the things they care about or are interested in. Also, Williams believes that the generation with Web 2.0 is transforming into an era that only focus on themselves. Although Web 2.0 does help people in the community share their views and opinions about various topics, it does not benefit our society because it just encourages us to focus more on only things we want to see, instead of opening our eyes to the more important news events that are occurring.
Brian Williams makes a good argument in the sense that Web 2.0 does not benefit our society and that people are obsessed with networking sites, such as Facebook or YouTube. Instead of focusing on the important news that is going on in our nation, people today are more focused on their own personal information on the internet and Web 2.0 is promoting a “me-centered” generation. According to Brian Williams, “It’s all about you. Me. And all the various forms of the First Person Singular. Americans have decided that the most important person in their lives is…them, and our culture is now built upon that idea. It’s the User-Generated Generation” (“Enough about You”, 449). Facebook for example is a huge website that allows users to focus on themselves and what is going on in their own personal lives. People blog about events going on in their lives, leading them to believe that other people will read what they write, and comment on it. Because people are so obsessed with websites like Facebook, they overlook the ongoing news happening in the world today.
A news story that is being overlooked by society today is the promotion of a foundation that is giving 335 million dollars to support the effective teaching going on in certain schools, known as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This foundation awards teachers that show tremendous abilities in the way they teach and provide their students with the education they deserve. An article written about this organization says, “We are convinced that in order to dramatically improve education in America, we must first ensure that every student has an effective teacher in every subject, every school year,” (Melinda French Gates, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”). Many people believe that this foundation is well-deserving for the teachers, because it is a critical component of an education strategy that will ensure quality teaching and student achievement. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is going to have such a big impact on our society because it deals with the education of the next generation and how sufficient the teaching methods should be. This is an important news story, especially in the academic society; however, many people are not even aware that this foundation exists. The harsh reality is the fact that people would rather be on Myspace or Facebook and blog about themselves, instead of looking at the important news stories that are changing our society and trying to make it a better place.
Brian Williams’ article “Enough about You” talks about how Web 2.0 is not benefiting society; that it is actually hindering us because we are oblivious to what is going on in the world. This is true on many levels, one being the fact that people usually go on the internet to socially network and write about what is going on in their lives, instead of looking at the breaking news that is going on in the world. Brian Williams writes in “Enough about You” that, “The danger might be that we miss the next great book or the next great idea, or that we fail to meet the next great challenge…because we are too busy celebrating ourselves and listening to the same tune we already know by heart” (Williams, “Enough about You”). This quote establishes the fact that people today are much too focused on themselves and use the internet for their own personal gain.
It is true that people go on the internet to look up things that they want to see for themselves, and in the end they could be missing out on important breaking news because of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 could be a good thing because it gives us an unlimited amount of information, or it could hinder us from essentially seeing significant things going on in the world today. Williams writes in his article, “The larger dynamic at work is the celebration of self. The implied message is that if it has to do with you, or your life, it’s important enough to tell someone” (“Enough about You”). In the end, although Web 2.0 has some qualities that could help society today, it does not change the fact that people only look at the websites they want to look at and miss out on the things that are actually going on in the world today.
Brian Williams writes in his article that people today have become more self-centered, especially in the Web 2.0 world. Websites such as YouTube clearly show how “me-centered” society is and that Web 2.0 is increasing this aspect tremendously. In modern society, we encourage me centered websites and take pride in the loss of intelligence that happens as a result. It is not difficult to find a person on YouTube focusing on themselves and trying to make a living by being a “YouTube star,” and the funniest part is that many of us watch them for entertainment even though there could be many other productive activities we could do.
In an article written about YouTube, it says, “YouTube has quickly become the internet's go-to platform for music videos and all manner of corporate-produced and homemade video clips, many of them heartwarming, hilarious or simply bizarre,” (SOSTEK Anya, “Addicted to its web of content”). This website is a prime example of how society today is transforming into a world where we only focus on ourselves, especially through the use of Web 2.0. A specific video on YouTube that depicts a person taping themselves and putting it on the web is called “Life as a Guido.” In the video, a man shows his audience what his daily routine is like from when he gets up in the morning, to when he goes to bed at night. By just reading about what this video is regarding, you would think that it would be unpopular; however, “Life as a Guido” has gotten over 500,000 views. This video shows just how self-centered Web 2.0 has become and that people only go on the internet for pure enjoyment and do not focus on the bigger picture at hand.
Although many people agree with how Web 2.0 is changing society for the worse, there are some critics that believe Web 2.0 is actually benefiting people today. For example, Steven Johnson is one person that believes that Web 2.0 is doing more good than harm because it allows ordinary people like us to have a voice in society and put our positions out there for the world to see. He writes in an article, “It’s All about Us,” that, “the democratic opportunities of the Internet offer a chance for ordinary people to converse about the local issues in their lives that the professionals largely ignore,” (Johnson, 446). A prime example that supports the beliefs of Steven Johnson is a singer named AJ Rafael. The internet helped him get is name out in the public eye because he would post videos of himself singing and playing the guitar on YouTube. After a while, people started to watch AJ Rafael frequently and he started using his newly-gained popularity to create benefit concerts to raise money for the Philippines and the misfortunes going on in Manila. Even though AJ Rafael used his social networks to raise awareness for the Philippines, there are still many people today that are not as kind-hearted as him and use the internet for their own personal gain or satisfaction. Web 2.0 is filled with people that blog everyday about random things that do not benefit our society in any way, and the people putting this nonsense on the internet are the ones that do not focus on the important issues going on in the world.
“Enough about You” is an article that really allows you to think about what Web 2.0 is doing to our society and Brian Williams makes it clear that it is transforming us into a generation that only thinks and focuses on ourselves and does not pay attention to the rest of the world. Steven Johnson disagrees with Williams completely with his article “It’s All about Us” and feels that Web 2.0 is allowing the ordinary people to have a say in what society should look at on the internet and make people more aware of local issues occurring in the communities. Even though both articles give valid reasons and support, Brian Williams’ beliefs are true in the sense that society is definitely changing and it has a lot to do with Web 2.0 and the fact that the internet creates websites that basically guide people to focus on the enjoyable aspects, instead of the breaking news going on in the world.
By looking at how the internet has changed dramatically over a couple of years, Web 2.0 will definitely become more democratic and have more nonsense material than ever before. Because there are so many people obsessed with Facebook and YouTube, there will obviously be more people that will be willing to create websites like these for enjoyment and social networking purposes. The internet will not be as accurate as it was previously because many people will create websites that have no relevance to the important news going on in our nation. Hopefully, if people more people will read Brian Williams’ article, they will realize that Web 2.0 is changing our society for the worst and creating a new generation that only focuses on themselves.
Annotated Bibliography
Anya, SOSTEK. "Addicted to its web of content." LexisNexis Academic. Web.
The article, “Addicted to its web of content,” talks about the fact that YouTube is such a popular website and how fast its popularity has grown in the last four years. YouTube is a website where you can find basically any video you would want to watch on someone, whether it is cute animals to hip hop music videos. This article helped me have support in my essay in a form of a scholarly journal. It gave me a quote that reinforced the fact that YouTube has transformed our society into a generation that only cares about entertainment and not the important issues at hand.
Gates, Bill, and Melinda Gates. "Foundation Commits $335 Million to Promote Effective
Teaching and Raise Student Achievement." Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Web.
This website displayed a summary of what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is all about and how it is going to help the next generation of children. The organization is giving a huge amount of money to schools that will promote effective teaching and raise student achievement. This foundation really helped me give a good supporting evidence for my essay and allowed the readers to see that there are things being done to our nation that people are not even aware of. Something as big as the education of children is something that people need to pay more attention to, instead of focusing on networking sites, like Facebook.
Johnson, Steven. “It’s All about Us.” Signs of Life in the USA (2009): 446-48. Print.
The article “It’s All about Us,” written by Steven Johnson, describes the argument that Web 2.0 really does benefit our society. It allows the community to have a voice and share their issues with the world through the internet. This article really helped me have a good counter-argument because I was able to find an opposing critic and use their supporting evidence to further my own supporting evidence. I was able to use quotes from Johnson’s article to explain where he was coming from on this specific topic.
Williams, Brian. "Enough about You." Signs of Life in the USA (2009): 449-51. Print.
In the article “Signs of Life in the USA”, Brian Williams explains his argument that Web 2.0 does not help society in any way. He believes that Web 2.0 is creating a “me-generation” and that people are not focusing on the important news going on in the world. I definitely used Williams’ article numerous times to support my evidence. I agreed with his argument, so it was very helpful to use quotes from his article.
Professor Huey
English 155
November 22, 2009
No More Yourpace
In Steven Johnson’s article “It’s All About Us,” he writes about how Web 2.0 is very beneficial and he celebrates it; however, a professional journalist named Brian Williams explains in his article “Enough About You,” that Web 2.0 is not very valuable for society. In Johnson’s article, he says, “Web 2.0 is made up of ordinary people: hobbyists, diarists, armchair pundits, people adding their voice to the Web’s great evolving conversation for the sheer love it” (“It’s All about Us”, 446). Steven Johnson likes the fact that regular people write their opinions and their views on society today on the internet. Brian Williams writes, “What is more, Williams worries, with the ability to tailor our media consumption today to only those sources that reflect our already held view, we may be missing out on alternative perspectives ‘that citizens in an informed democracy need to know” (“Enough about You”, 449). Brian Williams writes that people will not be informed of the important things going on in the world, because they will only read about the things they care about or are interested in. Also, Williams believes that the generation with Web 2.0 is transforming into an era that only focus on themselves. Although Web 2.0 does help people in the community share their views and opinions about various topics, it does not benefit our society because it just encourages us to focus more on only things we want to see, instead of opening our eyes to the more important news events that are occurring.
Brian Williams makes a good argument in the sense that Web 2.0 does not benefit our society and that people are obsessed with networking sites, such as Facebook or YouTube. Instead of focusing on the important news that is going on in our nation, people today are more focused on their own personal information on the internet and Web 2.0 is promoting a “me-centered” generation. According to Brian Williams, “It’s all about you. Me. And all the various forms of the First Person Singular. Americans have decided that the most important person in their lives is…them, and our culture is now built upon that idea. It’s the User-Generated Generation” (“Enough about You”, 449). Facebook for example is a huge website that allows users to focus on themselves and what is going on in their own personal lives. People blog about events going on in their lives, leading them to believe that other people will read what they write, and comment on it. Because people are so obsessed with websites like Facebook, they overlook the ongoing news happening in the world today.
A news story that is being overlooked by society today is the promotion of a foundation that is giving 335 million dollars to support the effective teaching going on in certain schools, known as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This foundation awards teachers that show tremendous abilities in the way they teach and provide their students with the education they deserve. An article written about this organization says, “We are convinced that in order to dramatically improve education in America, we must first ensure that every student has an effective teacher in every subject, every school year,” (Melinda French Gates, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”). Many people believe that this foundation is well-deserving for the teachers, because it is a critical component of an education strategy that will ensure quality teaching and student achievement. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is going to have such a big impact on our society because it deals with the education of the next generation and how sufficient the teaching methods should be. This is an important news story, especially in the academic society; however, many people are not even aware that this foundation exists. The harsh reality is the fact that people would rather be on Myspace or Facebook and blog about themselves, instead of looking at the important news stories that are changing our society and trying to make it a better place.
Brian Williams’ article “Enough about You” talks about how Web 2.0 is not benefiting society; that it is actually hindering us because we are oblivious to what is going on in the world. This is true on many levels, one being the fact that people usually go on the internet to socially network and write about what is going on in their lives, instead of looking at the breaking news that is going on in the world. Brian Williams writes in “Enough about You” that, “The danger might be that we miss the next great book or the next great idea, or that we fail to meet the next great challenge…because we are too busy celebrating ourselves and listening to the same tune we already know by heart” (Williams, “Enough about You”). This quote establishes the fact that people today are much too focused on themselves and use the internet for their own personal gain.
It is true that people go on the internet to look up things that they want to see for themselves, and in the end they could be missing out on important breaking news because of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 could be a good thing because it gives us an unlimited amount of information, or it could hinder us from essentially seeing significant things going on in the world today. Williams writes in his article, “The larger dynamic at work is the celebration of self. The implied message is that if it has to do with you, or your life, it’s important enough to tell someone” (“Enough about You”). In the end, although Web 2.0 has some qualities that could help society today, it does not change the fact that people only look at the websites they want to look at and miss out on the things that are actually going on in the world today.
Brian Williams writes in his article that people today have become more self-centered, especially in the Web 2.0 world. Websites such as YouTube clearly show how “me-centered” society is and that Web 2.0 is increasing this aspect tremendously. In modern society, we encourage me centered websites and take pride in the loss of intelligence that happens as a result. It is not difficult to find a person on YouTube focusing on themselves and trying to make a living by being a “YouTube star,” and the funniest part is that many of us watch them for entertainment even though there could be many other productive activities we could do.
In an article written about YouTube, it says, “YouTube has quickly become the internet's go-to platform for music videos and all manner of corporate-produced and homemade video clips, many of them heartwarming, hilarious or simply bizarre,” (SOSTEK Anya, “Addicted to its web of content”). This website is a prime example of how society today is transforming into a world where we only focus on ourselves, especially through the use of Web 2.0. A specific video on YouTube that depicts a person taping themselves and putting it on the web is called “Life as a Guido.” In the video, a man shows his audience what his daily routine is like from when he gets up in the morning, to when he goes to bed at night. By just reading about what this video is regarding, you would think that it would be unpopular; however, “Life as a Guido” has gotten over 500,000 views. This video shows just how self-centered Web 2.0 has become and that people only go on the internet for pure enjoyment and do not focus on the bigger picture at hand.
Although many people agree with how Web 2.0 is changing society for the worse, there are some critics that believe Web 2.0 is actually benefiting people today. For example, Steven Johnson is one person that believes that Web 2.0 is doing more good than harm because it allows ordinary people like us to have a voice in society and put our positions out there for the world to see. He writes in an article, “It’s All about Us,” that, “the democratic opportunities of the Internet offer a chance for ordinary people to converse about the local issues in their lives that the professionals largely ignore,” (Johnson, 446). A prime example that supports the beliefs of Steven Johnson is a singer named AJ Rafael. The internet helped him get is name out in the public eye because he would post videos of himself singing and playing the guitar on YouTube. After a while, people started to watch AJ Rafael frequently and he started using his newly-gained popularity to create benefit concerts to raise money for the Philippines and the misfortunes going on in Manila. Even though AJ Rafael used his social networks to raise awareness for the Philippines, there are still many people today that are not as kind-hearted as him and use the internet for their own personal gain or satisfaction. Web 2.0 is filled with people that blog everyday about random things that do not benefit our society in any way, and the people putting this nonsense on the internet are the ones that do not focus on the important issues going on in the world.
“Enough about You” is an article that really allows you to think about what Web 2.0 is doing to our society and Brian Williams makes it clear that it is transforming us into a generation that only thinks and focuses on ourselves and does not pay attention to the rest of the world. Steven Johnson disagrees with Williams completely with his article “It’s All about Us” and feels that Web 2.0 is allowing the ordinary people to have a say in what society should look at on the internet and make people more aware of local issues occurring in the communities. Even though both articles give valid reasons and support, Brian Williams’ beliefs are true in the sense that society is definitely changing and it has a lot to do with Web 2.0 and the fact that the internet creates websites that basically guide people to focus on the enjoyable aspects, instead of the breaking news going on in the world.
By looking at how the internet has changed dramatically over a couple of years, Web 2.0 will definitely become more democratic and have more nonsense material than ever before. Because there are so many people obsessed with Facebook and YouTube, there will obviously be more people that will be willing to create websites like these for enjoyment and social networking purposes. The internet will not be as accurate as it was previously because many people will create websites that have no relevance to the important news going on in our nation. Hopefully, if people more people will read Brian Williams’ article, they will realize that Web 2.0 is changing our society for the worst and creating a new generation that only focuses on themselves.
Annotated Bibliography
Anya, SOSTEK. "Addicted to its web of content." LexisNexis Academic. Web.
The article, “Addicted to its web of content,” talks about the fact that YouTube is such a popular website and how fast its popularity has grown in the last four years. YouTube is a website where you can find basically any video you would want to watch on someone, whether it is cute animals to hip hop music videos. This article helped me have support in my essay in a form of a scholarly journal. It gave me a quote that reinforced the fact that YouTube has transformed our society into a generation that only cares about entertainment and not the important issues at hand.
Gates, Bill, and Melinda Gates. "Foundation Commits $335 Million to Promote Effective
Teaching and Raise Student Achievement." Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Web.
This website displayed a summary of what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is all about and how it is going to help the next generation of children. The organization is giving a huge amount of money to schools that will promote effective teaching and raise student achievement. This foundation really helped me give a good supporting evidence for my essay and allowed the readers to see that there are things being done to our nation that people are not even aware of. Something as big as the education of children is something that people need to pay more attention to, instead of focusing on networking sites, like Facebook.
Johnson, Steven. “It’s All about Us.” Signs of Life in the USA (2009): 446-48. Print.
The article “It’s All about Us,” written by Steven Johnson, describes the argument that Web 2.0 really does benefit our society. It allows the community to have a voice and share their issues with the world through the internet. This article really helped me have a good counter-argument because I was able to find an opposing critic and use their supporting evidence to further my own supporting evidence. I was able to use quotes from Johnson’s article to explain where he was coming from on this specific topic.
Williams, Brian. "Enough about You." Signs of Life in the USA (2009): 449-51. Print.
In the article “Signs of Life in the USA”, Brian Williams explains his argument that Web 2.0 does not help society in any way. He believes that Web 2.0 is creating a “me-generation” and that people are not focusing on the important news going on in the world. I definitely used Williams’ article numerous times to support my evidence. I agreed with his argument, so it was very helpful to use quotes from his article.
Web 2.0 Is Valuable
Jasmine Najar
Huey
English 155
December 3, 2009Web 2.0 is Valuable
Internet is a very fast growing technology. Once a big machine with only a black and green screen, now smaller then ever. As small as a portable phone that weights in at less then 3 pounds. Today the world focuses on what pleases the individual by making everything customized to who they are. There are two articles that point out if this fast growing technology of Web 2.0 is a great thing for people to have. First is Steven Johnson writer of It’s all about Us. Johnson believes that Web 2.0 has been a great way for people to find things of interest online. With him launching a Web company Johnson expresses how much the company has grown because people blog on their page things the they think are important. Giving the people a chance at freedom of speech. Second is Brian Williams writer of Enough about You. Williams writes about Web 2.0 not being such a great thing for people to continue to have. Since so many people are already focusing on what they want to do everyday, Williams expresses how Web 2.0 continues to add to people being tuned out to what’s really going on in the world. Williams believes that people don’t pay enough attention to what the world is going through. Both writers have great points made in their articles but Johnson has a stronger claim then does Williams. For one: people may be focused on what they want to hear or see, but reality is that the majority of people always know what’s going on in the world. Second: if it wasn’t for Web 2.0 then people wouldn’t have the freedom to write topics of interest that inform others. Although Williams is right about people having too much to do with themselves, Johnson makes it clear that people need Web 2.0 for knowledge of their surrounding, have the freedom to blog about what they want, and find things that are of interest to them. Besides, it improves peoples writing skills.
Web 2.0 is a great way to stay connected to what is going on in the world. Majority of this world people live in may be consumed with what each person wants to hear or listen to but this includes everyone. Everyone does what they want to do and everyone has some kind of an interest in what’s going on today. While doing some research for a topic that had to include something off of Web 2.0 a new product was discovered off the Web. It was a sustainable product made to better our environment. Something that caught peoples attention when finding out that they were destroying the plant. When people find this information alarming people automatically want to fix it, correct? Well this one product helps everyone to better the environment. What’s the big deal? Well people/ buyers would have not found this product if it wasn’t for Web 2.0 and it’s bloggers. Just like Johnson says, “But without that extraordinary wave of place logging, we’d have nothing to work with”. With this information Williams claim that people are not looking at what’s going on in today’s world is out beat by Johnsons claim.
This new and improved product that was found on the Web is called a Skoy. “ a fabulous, absorbent, biodegradable and natural multi-use cloth”(par 1). This product is made to help prevent the use of so many paper towels in America! It last for a little over a year and is very affordable for the common man on earth. Did you know that the “USA generates 250 million tons of trash per year, of which around 34% is paper. That is 85 million tons of paper waste per year!” Skoy provides Americans with the statistics of just how much there product works which helps everyone out a whole lot more because they get to see exactly how it saves the environment. With a product like this we can definitely make this Earth a better planet to live on.
Now that Web 2.0 is consumed with bloggers that inform the world about different topics it has allowed our communities to be more informed. More informed with the daily issues happening around the world, countries, state’s, cities, and neighborhoods. So many students go onto the internet daily even more then once a day. As for reasons to why people go on some many times is unsure, but posting topics of interest is usually the first thing people may do. What’s even better is all the information given from people who share the interest of topic adding to the conversation. Peter Magolda and J. Platt Glenn writers of Untangling Web 2.0's influences on student learning wrote about what they see Web 2.0 doing for students lives and lives of others. “Easy and cost-effective access to Web 2.0 technologies enhances learning. Shrinking budgets and historical reliance on expertise from information technology staff complicate efforts to deploy new software applications.”(pag 13). This clearly states that the Web does have a strong effect on people, simply because it has an importance in life. Think about it, in every situation involving a school assignment, what might a teacher/professor ask for? Sources, right? Via the web, from finding articles to books. Everything is made to be in our face in an instant so it makes clear sense that students learn the most from the Internet then they do in a class room. Not just a few but everyone. Especially students who are in college. College students now have the option to take classes online and learn everything through the computer rather then in person.
Since college students have the biggest say so in what Web 2.0 really does for them, majority of students will tell you exactly how it helps. The biggest reason students visit Web 2.0 is because of research needed for class, or essays. While doing a research project for a design class, it was asked of students to find a new product of interest to present to the class. There was one product found that was a new product made to save the environment. Without Web 2.0 no one would have found this product because it wasn’t well known of a product yet. Web 2.0 gave it that chance of making their product known, allowing other people to find their webpage so people could buy the product and save the environment. While on the Webpage of Skoy, there are many blogger comments, news articles, videos, radio interviews and more. This just proves that this green product has continued to grow and grow because of happy customers wanting to spread the news on the Web. “ We love the Skoy pads. Our paper towel consumption has dropped dramatically since we bought ours, saving us money in the long run. I would also call them more convenient than paper towels! Honestly, I will probably give some as gifts to everyone I know this Christmas. Thanks for a wonderful product!” Michael, Abingdon from VA sent this blog out to Skoy Cloths webpage September of this year. Comment just like this fill up the web page of Skoy. The owners of the product rarely ever speak about how their company continues to grow but they do mention that “We have been working and researching for almost a year on our product”. Clearly they needed Web 2.0 themselves to make their dream product come to life. They also take part of park showings, where Environmental product businesses come together to put up venues to sell their products. This allows people to talk about new upcoming products and then people take it to the web, which is how more people find the product. In the end Web 2.0 has a huge impact on everyone in the world. It helps them to complete so many things in school and in life. Johnson’s claim continues to shine of Williams claim simply because there is more evidence to prove how important the Web really is to people.
With Web 2.0 being so important to people everywhere, the need for internet goes deeper then just education. Although people would agree that the web is more of a self centered invention, others find it a great way to write freely with out having to worry about pleasing people. Web 2.0 is a great way for people to talk about topics of interest and while writing about it may seem like it feeds people into being self centered it helps people to grow in their writing skills. If people continue to write about how they feel about what’s going on in the community, it only benefits them in the long run. There writing skills will continue to improve and they would be able to write a topic of interest. Even it wasn’t something they were interested in, people would still have the opportunity to write how they felt about what they read, found, experienced, etc. Students especially, it would motivate students more knowing that they have freedom of writing what ever they want about topics they may or may not like. Rama Ramaswami, writer of the article The Prose (and a Few Cons, Too) of Blogging wrote that “bloggers are far more prolific writers than their non-blogging counterparts. For example, more teen bloggers (47 percent) write outside school for personal reasons than do teens who don't blog (33 percent). What's more, 65 percent of teen bloggers consider writing essential to later success in life, compared to 53 percent of non-bloggers” (Par. 5). Although these sentence focus on teens and just ordinary blogging, the point behind it is that they are blogging about topics of interest that seems to provide evidence that people are self centered. The truth is that statistics show just how much it improves students writing habits.
Students and people in general having the ability to write freely to what ever they want to write about does seem to help in may ways. Going back to the environmentally friendly product Skoy Cloths, it is clearly seen how writing or blogs can be posted by freedom of will so that people can see exactly how one may feel about the product. Besides the already posted webpage provided by the owners of the product Skoy was spread via the web through blogs from people all over. One of their first blogs was in 2000 when Skoy was given to people as a sample, not yet on it’s way to being talked about world wide. Over the years people have been able to write about a product of interest. Even bloggers can say that “You will love this product once you try it” no matter who finds the product. From kid friendly to mother approved. Skoy continues to grow because of Web 2.0 allowing more and more people find it and to talk about it.
The focus of how much people find Web 2.0 helpful in so many ways still continues to worry those who still believe that it does nothing to benefit people. It’s agreed that at this point in time people spend way to much time on the computer doing nothing with there lives but thinking about themselves. Can’t deny that part and writer Williams can agree with that as well. People who agree with Williams also consider Web 2.0 an personal broadcaster, there to tell the world about every personal move and intimacy you have with a person. There fear of Web 2.0 is that it gives too much exposure to even the things we don’t need to know about. Yes freedom of speech is one thing but laying your whole life open for random people to see draws the line. They also fear that people want nothing to do with being updated with what’s going on in the world. People can go on in there day and not pay attention to the red alert words on the computer, television, news, etc because they have no interest in the news and watch and listen to whatever they feel like. Although these serve excellent points, today’s world is surround by the news and updates about what’s going on. With people living in fear, now that global warming is known world wide and so is predicting when the world will end. There is now bigger interest in the latest news then ever before. People take to scary things going on the world therefore giving more attention to the news. Proof to show how is through teachers/professors. Many have started to give homework assignments on current events, or read updates about topics that have to do with the class. Therefore students and people become more and more aware of their surroundings. And also gives everyone even students the idea to write about the things going on in the world the interest them. For many it’s science, how can it affect the world? Or Going green, What will help the world become better?
Williams has many great points in his article but Johnson over rides his thoughts. When looked at Web 2.0 provides more great qualities then not having Web 2.0 at all. People wouldn’t know what to do with theirs lives. Learning would be difficult, and not many would make it. No one would know what’s going on in the world. Simply because not everyone can own a televison let alone sit and watch it. That’s why cell phones now have the option to add internet to them because it makes life easier for those on the go. There are things that do go a little far with Web 2.0 but in the end the pros out weigh the cons.
The future of web 2.0 does lie in the hands of everybody. Personally Web 2.0 can either become worse if America continues to allow it or it can stay as is. Where Web 2.0 lies at this moment, it has a very fair balance of good and bad. Which has not completely gone crazy. Although there is even a possibility that at the rate Americans go at with putting personal information on blast, it wouldn’t be a shock if the rules bent and everyone all of a sudden could put explicit things on the Web with no advisory. It seems like Americans continue to let Web 2.0 get more and more corrupted. But the scholarly Information should be able to hold it’s place on the web. No matter how bad Internet viewing may get.
Works Cited
Johnson, Steve. “It’s all about Us.” Maasik & Solomon. “Signs of Life.” Boston, Bedford/St.Martins. 2009.
Johnson believes Web 2.0 is a great way for communities to get the latest news on
everything going on where ever they live. This allows people to be more aware of their surroundings. I was able to take that claim he made and give reasons as to why he has a great point. He has a great point because Web 2.0 helps students out in school. Giving them a tool to make school a little bit easier.
Magolda, Peter M., and Glenn J. Platt. "Untangling Web 2.0's influences on student learning." About Campus 14.3 (2009): 10-16. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.
These writers wrote that Web 2.0 helps students in academics. I used this article as support for why I believe Web 2.0 is really important and has a big role in our lives. This article clearly states that Web 2.0’s main purpose is to educate people. Also to carry more information then any library can and any teacher can give you.
Michelle. Karen. Skoy. http://www.skoycloth.com/?gclid=CPSrr9jaop4CFSFRagodkXmklg
This was my evidence as to why I think Web 2.0 is great for students. This is a webpage that talks about one environmental friendly product. This product only became famous via the web. The web is where it continues to grow and how the product is sold. With out Web 2.0 it would not have been as big of a buying product as it has been.
Williams, Brian. “Enough about You.” Maasik & Solomon. “Signs of Life.” Boston, Bedford/St.Martins. 2009.
Williams believes that Web 2.0 does nothing but destroys people being more connected with what’s going on around us. His claim is that Web 2.0 encourages people to be self- centered, anti social and tunes everything out that people may not want to hear. I used Williams as my counter argument. He’s claim allowed me to understand where he comes from and how I can argue why I disagree with him.
Ramaswami, Rama "The Prose (and a Few Cons, Too) of Blogging. (Cover story)." T H E Journal 35.11 (2008): 21-25. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 3 Dec. 2009.
Rama’s article gives statistics as to how much freedom of writing via the web helps improve students writing skills. I used this as a reason to why Johnson makes a great argument. This article helps me tie in the improvement of writing skills with writing topics of interest. Also being able to keep up with what is new in the community, they have the chance to find things that interest them or may not interest them but still be able to have a voice in why they may not like something.
Huey
English 155
December 3, 2009Web 2.0 is Valuable
Internet is a very fast growing technology. Once a big machine with only a black and green screen, now smaller then ever. As small as a portable phone that weights in at less then 3 pounds. Today the world focuses on what pleases the individual by making everything customized to who they are. There are two articles that point out if this fast growing technology of Web 2.0 is a great thing for people to have. First is Steven Johnson writer of It’s all about Us. Johnson believes that Web 2.0 has been a great way for people to find things of interest online. With him launching a Web company Johnson expresses how much the company has grown because people blog on their page things the they think are important. Giving the people a chance at freedom of speech. Second is Brian Williams writer of Enough about You. Williams writes about Web 2.0 not being such a great thing for people to continue to have. Since so many people are already focusing on what they want to do everyday, Williams expresses how Web 2.0 continues to add to people being tuned out to what’s really going on in the world. Williams believes that people don’t pay enough attention to what the world is going through. Both writers have great points made in their articles but Johnson has a stronger claim then does Williams. For one: people may be focused on what they want to hear or see, but reality is that the majority of people always know what’s going on in the world. Second: if it wasn’t for Web 2.0 then people wouldn’t have the freedom to write topics of interest that inform others. Although Williams is right about people having too much to do with themselves, Johnson makes it clear that people need Web 2.0 for knowledge of their surrounding, have the freedom to blog about what they want, and find things that are of interest to them. Besides, it improves peoples writing skills.
Web 2.0 is a great way to stay connected to what is going on in the world. Majority of this world people live in may be consumed with what each person wants to hear or listen to but this includes everyone. Everyone does what they want to do and everyone has some kind of an interest in what’s going on today. While doing some research for a topic that had to include something off of Web 2.0 a new product was discovered off the Web. It was a sustainable product made to better our environment. Something that caught peoples attention when finding out that they were destroying the plant. When people find this information alarming people automatically want to fix it, correct? Well this one product helps everyone to better the environment. What’s the big deal? Well people/ buyers would have not found this product if it wasn’t for Web 2.0 and it’s bloggers. Just like Johnson says, “But without that extraordinary wave of place logging, we’d have nothing to work with”. With this information Williams claim that people are not looking at what’s going on in today’s world is out beat by Johnsons claim.
This new and improved product that was found on the Web is called a Skoy. “ a fabulous, absorbent, biodegradable and natural multi-use cloth”(par 1). This product is made to help prevent the use of so many paper towels in America! It last for a little over a year and is very affordable for the common man on earth. Did you know that the “USA generates 250 million tons of trash per year, of which around 34% is paper. That is 85 million tons of paper waste per year!” Skoy provides Americans with the statistics of just how much there product works which helps everyone out a whole lot more because they get to see exactly how it saves the environment. With a product like this we can definitely make this Earth a better planet to live on.
Now that Web 2.0 is consumed with bloggers that inform the world about different topics it has allowed our communities to be more informed. More informed with the daily issues happening around the world, countries, state’s, cities, and neighborhoods. So many students go onto the internet daily even more then once a day. As for reasons to why people go on some many times is unsure, but posting topics of interest is usually the first thing people may do. What’s even better is all the information given from people who share the interest of topic adding to the conversation. Peter Magolda and J. Platt Glenn writers of Untangling Web 2.0's influences on student learning wrote about what they see Web 2.0 doing for students lives and lives of others. “Easy and cost-effective access to Web 2.0 technologies enhances learning. Shrinking budgets and historical reliance on expertise from information technology staff complicate efforts to deploy new software applications.”(pag 13). This clearly states that the Web does have a strong effect on people, simply because it has an importance in life. Think about it, in every situation involving a school assignment, what might a teacher/professor ask for? Sources, right? Via the web, from finding articles to books. Everything is made to be in our face in an instant so it makes clear sense that students learn the most from the Internet then they do in a class room. Not just a few but everyone. Especially students who are in college. College students now have the option to take classes online and learn everything through the computer rather then in person.
Since college students have the biggest say so in what Web 2.0 really does for them, majority of students will tell you exactly how it helps. The biggest reason students visit Web 2.0 is because of research needed for class, or essays. While doing a research project for a design class, it was asked of students to find a new product of interest to present to the class. There was one product found that was a new product made to save the environment. Without Web 2.0 no one would have found this product because it wasn’t well known of a product yet. Web 2.0 gave it that chance of making their product known, allowing other people to find their webpage so people could buy the product and save the environment. While on the Webpage of Skoy, there are many blogger comments, news articles, videos, radio interviews and more. This just proves that this green product has continued to grow and grow because of happy customers wanting to spread the news on the Web. “ We love the Skoy pads. Our paper towel consumption has dropped dramatically since we bought ours, saving us money in the long run. I would also call them more convenient than paper towels! Honestly, I will probably give some as gifts to everyone I know this Christmas. Thanks for a wonderful product!” Michael, Abingdon from VA sent this blog out to Skoy Cloths webpage September of this year. Comment just like this fill up the web page of Skoy. The owners of the product rarely ever speak about how their company continues to grow but they do mention that “We have been working and researching for almost a year on our product”. Clearly they needed Web 2.0 themselves to make their dream product come to life. They also take part of park showings, where Environmental product businesses come together to put up venues to sell their products. This allows people to talk about new upcoming products and then people take it to the web, which is how more people find the product. In the end Web 2.0 has a huge impact on everyone in the world. It helps them to complete so many things in school and in life. Johnson’s claim continues to shine of Williams claim simply because there is more evidence to prove how important the Web really is to people.
With Web 2.0 being so important to people everywhere, the need for internet goes deeper then just education. Although people would agree that the web is more of a self centered invention, others find it a great way to write freely with out having to worry about pleasing people. Web 2.0 is a great way for people to talk about topics of interest and while writing about it may seem like it feeds people into being self centered it helps people to grow in their writing skills. If people continue to write about how they feel about what’s going on in the community, it only benefits them in the long run. There writing skills will continue to improve and they would be able to write a topic of interest. Even it wasn’t something they were interested in, people would still have the opportunity to write how they felt about what they read, found, experienced, etc. Students especially, it would motivate students more knowing that they have freedom of writing what ever they want about topics they may or may not like. Rama Ramaswami, writer of the article The Prose (and a Few Cons, Too) of Blogging wrote that “bloggers are far more prolific writers than their non-blogging counterparts. For example, more teen bloggers (47 percent) write outside school for personal reasons than do teens who don't blog (33 percent). What's more, 65 percent of teen bloggers consider writing essential to later success in life, compared to 53 percent of non-bloggers” (Par. 5). Although these sentence focus on teens and just ordinary blogging, the point behind it is that they are blogging about topics of interest that seems to provide evidence that people are self centered. The truth is that statistics show just how much it improves students writing habits.
Students and people in general having the ability to write freely to what ever they want to write about does seem to help in may ways. Going back to the environmentally friendly product Skoy Cloths, it is clearly seen how writing or blogs can be posted by freedom of will so that people can see exactly how one may feel about the product. Besides the already posted webpage provided by the owners of the product Skoy was spread via the web through blogs from people all over. One of their first blogs was in 2000 when Skoy was given to people as a sample, not yet on it’s way to being talked about world wide. Over the years people have been able to write about a product of interest. Even bloggers can say that “You will love this product once you try it” no matter who finds the product. From kid friendly to mother approved. Skoy continues to grow because of Web 2.0 allowing more and more people find it and to talk about it.
The focus of how much people find Web 2.0 helpful in so many ways still continues to worry those who still believe that it does nothing to benefit people. It’s agreed that at this point in time people spend way to much time on the computer doing nothing with there lives but thinking about themselves. Can’t deny that part and writer Williams can agree with that as well. People who agree with Williams also consider Web 2.0 an personal broadcaster, there to tell the world about every personal move and intimacy you have with a person. There fear of Web 2.0 is that it gives too much exposure to even the things we don’t need to know about. Yes freedom of speech is one thing but laying your whole life open for random people to see draws the line. They also fear that people want nothing to do with being updated with what’s going on in the world. People can go on in there day and not pay attention to the red alert words on the computer, television, news, etc because they have no interest in the news and watch and listen to whatever they feel like. Although these serve excellent points, today’s world is surround by the news and updates about what’s going on. With people living in fear, now that global warming is known world wide and so is predicting when the world will end. There is now bigger interest in the latest news then ever before. People take to scary things going on the world therefore giving more attention to the news. Proof to show how is through teachers/professors. Many have started to give homework assignments on current events, or read updates about topics that have to do with the class. Therefore students and people become more and more aware of their surroundings. And also gives everyone even students the idea to write about the things going on in the world the interest them. For many it’s science, how can it affect the world? Or Going green, What will help the world become better?
Williams has many great points in his article but Johnson over rides his thoughts. When looked at Web 2.0 provides more great qualities then not having Web 2.0 at all. People wouldn’t know what to do with theirs lives. Learning would be difficult, and not many would make it. No one would know what’s going on in the world. Simply because not everyone can own a televison let alone sit and watch it. That’s why cell phones now have the option to add internet to them because it makes life easier for those on the go. There are things that do go a little far with Web 2.0 but in the end the pros out weigh the cons.
The future of web 2.0 does lie in the hands of everybody. Personally Web 2.0 can either become worse if America continues to allow it or it can stay as is. Where Web 2.0 lies at this moment, it has a very fair balance of good and bad. Which has not completely gone crazy. Although there is even a possibility that at the rate Americans go at with putting personal information on blast, it wouldn’t be a shock if the rules bent and everyone all of a sudden could put explicit things on the Web with no advisory. It seems like Americans continue to let Web 2.0 get more and more corrupted. But the scholarly Information should be able to hold it’s place on the web. No matter how bad Internet viewing may get.
Works Cited
Johnson, Steve. “It’s all about Us.” Maasik & Solomon. “Signs of Life.” Boston, Bedford/St.Martins. 2009.
Johnson believes Web 2.0 is a great way for communities to get the latest news on
everything going on where ever they live. This allows people to be more aware of their surroundings. I was able to take that claim he made and give reasons as to why he has a great point. He has a great point because Web 2.0 helps students out in school. Giving them a tool to make school a little bit easier.
Magolda, Peter M., and Glenn J. Platt. "Untangling Web 2.0's influences on student learning." About Campus 14.3 (2009): 10-16. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.
These writers wrote that Web 2.0 helps students in academics. I used this article as support for why I believe Web 2.0 is really important and has a big role in our lives. This article clearly states that Web 2.0’s main purpose is to educate people. Also to carry more information then any library can and any teacher can give you.
Michelle. Karen. Skoy. http://www.skoycloth.com/?gclid=CPSrr9jaop4CFSFRagodkXmklg
This was my evidence as to why I think Web 2.0 is great for students. This is a webpage that talks about one environmental friendly product. This product only became famous via the web. The web is where it continues to grow and how the product is sold. With out Web 2.0 it would not have been as big of a buying product as it has been.
Williams, Brian. “Enough about You.” Maasik & Solomon. “Signs of Life.” Boston, Bedford/St.Martins. 2009.
Williams believes that Web 2.0 does nothing but destroys people being more connected with what’s going on around us. His claim is that Web 2.0 encourages people to be self- centered, anti social and tunes everything out that people may not want to hear. I used Williams as my counter argument. He’s claim allowed me to understand where he comes from and how I can argue why I disagree with him.
Ramaswami, Rama "The Prose (and a Few Cons, Too) of Blogging. (Cover story)." T H E Journal 35.11 (2008): 21-25. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 3 Dec. 2009.
Rama’s article gives statistics as to how much freedom of writing via the web helps improve students writing skills. I used this as a reason to why Johnson makes a great argument. This article helps me tie in the improvement of writing skills with writing topics of interest. Also being able to keep up with what is new in the community, they have the chance to find things that interest them or may not interest them but still be able to have a voice in why they may not like something.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The glitches with Web 2.0
Erica Hermé
Julie Huey
English 155
November 23, 2009
Argumentative Blogging
In modern society, use of the Internet is a daily occurrence. Whether or not this tool is more harmful then helpful is the problem we are faced with. In the article “It’s All About Us” Steven Johnson claims that web 2.0 has provided a place for “local conversations that involve experiences that the experts in traditional media have largely ignored…”(448). On the contrary, Brian Williams perceives Web 2.0 to not be as beneficial as we think, in his work “Enough about You”, he states that even though “the whole notion of ‘media’ is now much more democratic” the effect on democracy will be negative because the user has sole control over what they are exposed too; therefore, only paying attention to what they want or agree with. Although Johnson makes a good point, 2.0 users have a tendency to ignore news that isn’t directly related to them, which causes us to develop one sided opinions, and ignore news that is relevant to the world as a whole, not just the individual. Web 2.0 lets the user choose what they are exposed too, creating an obsession with celebrities, and hindering the public from receiving news and information that is important to all of society.
Williams’ argument that web 2.0 is extremely celebratory on one’s-self is stronger because although the Internet is designed to give people easy access to personal communities, and the freedom to express personal opinions, user’s often have the tendency to only pay mind to things they exclusively perceive to be important. The idea that “It’s all about you. Me. And all the various forms of the first person singular” is the fuel that drives America to focus on communities and news that is relevant to themselves (449). As Williams bluntly puts it, “Americans have decided the most important person in their lives is . . . them, and our culture is now built upon that idea. It’s the User-Generated Generation” (449), and he’s right, if something relates to us, it’s level of importance is higher then anything else. This idea influences us to see things from only one point of view, which not only causes us to remain biased, but it keeps us from expanding our horizons and looking at the world sans horse blinders. It keeps us from being informed about world news, such as advancements in medical research and treatments.
In February of 2009, a huge advancement in the treatment of HIV/AIDS was made. Scientists discovered a way to use the viral mutation to “mutate itself to death”. Unfortunately, as Philip Defranco Pointed out in his Youtube.com Vlog, the only thing that was being focused on by the media was the possibility that porn star Stormy Daniels may be running for senator against David Vitter of Louisiana, and the country’s fascination with Nadya Suleman, also known as “Octomom”. The idea that a possible cure for a disease as prominent, deadly, and worldwide as AIDS was easily overshadowed by rumored news, and a clearly deranged woman artificially impregnated with eight children at a time, is hard to grasp. Daniels was “drafted” run against David Vitter to sort of shine a light on his previous prostitution scandals, this news was covered by many stations such as CNN, MSNBC, and ABC. It is sad to report that the AIDS discovery was only published on Discovery.com, and nothing else due to the fact that this discovery was simply overlooked.
Web 2.0 is a very “you” centric community, and as much as it’s about you, it’s about everyone else as well. Users find themselves consumed with the lives that other people live. The creation of twitter is enough evidence to back up that statement. Knowing all the details of your favorite celebrities lives can make a person feel important, and connected on a false perception of exclusivity. Knowing semi intimate details of a strangers life gives a person the feeling that they actually know celebrities, when in reality they are just cyber stalking them, but everyone does it, so it’s socially expectable, but still completely creepy. We shouldn’t care where certain celebrities are eating, or what they are doing, but because we have instant access, we make it a priority. It can often provide distraction with ones own life, and give them a fantasy world to consume themselves in.
The obsession that people have with the lives that other people live is apparent with the Stormy Daniels rumors, and the continuous gossip that surrounds Nadya Suleman. For example, when news that Stormy Daniels given her background, was considering running against David Vitter for a spot in the Louisiana senate, users that have an interest in politics exploded with both positive and negative reactions. Why? Because her past is filled with things that don’t emulate “family values” a fascination was evident, questions of who she is and what makes her qualified arose everywhere. The situation was meant to bring attention to the senate race in general. It was an effective way to bring attention to the race, “But a spokesman for the state GOP said voters "are concerned with real issues that affect their everyday lives and not with political or publicity stunts." So, although the GOP didn’t see it as a legitimate threat the public was enthralled with this idea, and it was extensively covered by the media, giving it support, and way too much unnecessary attention for a rumor.
Another issue that Web 2.0 Creates is the mass coverage of pointless news and the overshadowing of world news that is vitally important to society as a whole. It’s too easy to open up an Internet browser and never venture away from Social Networking and Entertainment webpage’s. Users do not pay mind to what is not directly in front of them. It’s simple; people spend their time focusing on news and issues that concern them, and them only. If someone sees something that has potential to be interesting or entertaining, they are drawn to it. The media usually covers news that relates to celebrities, or politics more, however, the media only publicizes the most interesting or relevant topics. They focus on things that will catch the viewer’s eye, but still get their story out. World news is often associated with history, which isn’t exactly the most riveting topic to entertain someone, so instead people read about things they perceive to be interesting instead of focusing on world matters that inadvertently have a large effect on their life.
The obsession people have with popular news serves a great interference in informing people of immense advancements in medical research. The advancement in AIDS research was only discussed on one known website. One would think with numerous advertisements and sponsors via the RED campaign, that more people would have cared to report and read up on this discovery, however, the people obviously care more about public figures, and porn stars. Phillip Defranco, took note of this and opened his vlog with this statement, “You know why I love American media? Scientists may have developed a way to […] kill AIDS, but what is in the news right now is Stormy Daniels might run for US senate. She’s a porn star, might run for US senate, not really sure. That’s got to feel really cool […] like you’re more popular then an AIDS cure.” (0:00 – 0:15). Defranco calls out Web 2.0’s obvious downfalls in less then 15 seconds. Media and people alike casually overlooked something as monumental as a possible AIDS cure, a disease that by 2007 had already been infected by 64.9 million people. This isn’t information people should be nonchalant about; this is information that should be on the tips of everyone’s tongues, and sparking more donations for research to put a stop to the disease. Instead a majority of Internet users were more focused on the fact that a porn star was thinking about running for senate, this story does have more entertainment value, but has absolutely nothing to do with what really matters. This further supports the theory that Web 2.0 causes users to bypass world news and never receive information that is imperative to the society that they live in.
There is no doubt that Web 2.0 is a huge step forward in communication and accessibility. The usefulness of many websites such as Facebook, Autotrader, Craigslist, and Ebay are obvious. Instant Communication with people far away is an amazing way for people to stay in touch with friends and family, and having the ability to search for, buy and sell items with the click of a button is definitely convenient. Steven Johnson is a huge supporter of Web 2.0, he claims that, “it has a power- to- the- people authenticity” (447). It’s democratic structure does enable people to utilize it how they see fit, which is an empowering feeling. However, he also admits that, “There is undeniably a vast increase in the sheer quantity of accessibility of pure crap” (447). It’s true; people spend their time on the Internet for their personal pleasure. They pay no mind to important news stories, if it’s not in their bookmarks, the website has no relevance. This narcissistic side effect is probably the most detrimental to society.
Web 2.0 focuses on the user, inadvertently causing people to ignore important news and information, while supporting celebrity gossip in all of its pointlessness. Our obsession with ourselves is being shamelessly fed by Web 2.0 and its “you centric” atmosphere, giving us more and more ways to talk about things that concern, interest and discuss anything and everything that pertains to one’s self. Despite Johnson’s claim that it is a place to access communities and discuss topics that concern you as an individual, ignoring things that don’t directly relate to you is more harmful then helpful. William’s claim that the democratic nature of the Internet is more negative then anything else is accurate in a sense that the more people focus on themselves, the more they lose the ability to grasp all aspects of everything. Unfortunately in the end, it just leaves us in a world where possible porn star candidates take precedence over a disease that has taken the lives of an unthinkable amount of people.
If people continue to only pay mind to their sole interests that are accessible by web 2.0, the constant exposure to things at the top of their interest list will cause the user to become completely consumed in news and events that pertain solely to themselves. This narcissism will only grow with time, giving people what they want when they want it isn’t helping society, it’s making society one sided in everyway possible. The way it’s going, finding reputable information amongst masses of nonsense will become impossible. Hopefully, user’s will then trade in for the library, and society will once more be normal.
Annotated Bibliography
Bland, Eric. "HIV Mutates to Death With New Drug : Discovery News." Discovery
Channel : Science, History, Space, Tech, Sharks, News. Discovery News, 09 Feb.
2009. Web. 2 Dec. 2009.
The article accurately informs the reader of a possible cure for AIDS, it was also the
only one I could find that discussed the subject matter.
Callebs, Sean. "Push to make porn star a senator no stunt, fan says - CNN.com."
CNN.com International - Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment
and Video News. 09 Feb. 2009. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.
This article informs the reader of the situation, seriousness and randomness that
surrounded Storny Daniels and her possible seat in the senate
Defranco, Phillip. "Sexy Senator Stormy Beats Aids?" Video blog post. YouTube.
10 Feb. 2009. Web. 2 Dec. 2009.
.
Phil’s Vlog was a brief description of American media’s ability to make AIDS a lesser
topic then a possible porn star senator.
Johnson, Steven. “It’s All About Us." Signs of Life in the USA. 6th ed. Ed. Sonia
Maasik and Jack Soloman. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's 2009. 446-48. Print.
Johnson provides reasons that Web 2.0 is beneficial to the individual user, giving
communities a place to share news that relates to their own concerns.
Mullins, Anne S. "Shenanigans: Shenanigans: That could be Senator Stormy to
you - Politico.com." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. 09 Feb. 2009. Web. 03
Dec. 2009.
This article flirts with a more entertaining and straight to the point layout, it explains
that Daniels is thinking about running against Vitter due to a previous scandal. Point
blank.
Williams, Brian. “Enough about You.” Signs of Life in the USA. 6th ed. Ed. Sonia
Maasik and Jack Soloman. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's 2009. 449-50. Print.
The article explains why web 2.0 is hazardous to society, keeping the people
consumed in themselves and ignorant in world affairs.
"USAID Health: HIV/AIDS, News/Info, Frequently Asked Questions." U.S. Agency for
International Development. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.
.
I used this website for statistics that support my argument.
Julie Huey
English 155
November 23, 2009
Argumentative Blogging
In modern society, use of the Internet is a daily occurrence. Whether or not this tool is more harmful then helpful is the problem we are faced with. In the article “It’s All About Us” Steven Johnson claims that web 2.0 has provided a place for “local conversations that involve experiences that the experts in traditional media have largely ignored…”(448). On the contrary, Brian Williams perceives Web 2.0 to not be as beneficial as we think, in his work “Enough about You”, he states that even though “the whole notion of ‘media’ is now much more democratic” the effect on democracy will be negative because the user has sole control over what they are exposed too; therefore, only paying attention to what they want or agree with. Although Johnson makes a good point, 2.0 users have a tendency to ignore news that isn’t directly related to them, which causes us to develop one sided opinions, and ignore news that is relevant to the world as a whole, not just the individual. Web 2.0 lets the user choose what they are exposed too, creating an obsession with celebrities, and hindering the public from receiving news and information that is important to all of society.
Williams’ argument that web 2.0 is extremely celebratory on one’s-self is stronger because although the Internet is designed to give people easy access to personal communities, and the freedom to express personal opinions, user’s often have the tendency to only pay mind to things they exclusively perceive to be important. The idea that “It’s all about you. Me. And all the various forms of the first person singular” is the fuel that drives America to focus on communities and news that is relevant to themselves (449). As Williams bluntly puts it, “Americans have decided the most important person in their lives is . . . them, and our culture is now built upon that idea. It’s the User-Generated Generation” (449), and he’s right, if something relates to us, it’s level of importance is higher then anything else. This idea influences us to see things from only one point of view, which not only causes us to remain biased, but it keeps us from expanding our horizons and looking at the world sans horse blinders. It keeps us from being informed about world news, such as advancements in medical research and treatments.
In February of 2009, a huge advancement in the treatment of HIV/AIDS was made. Scientists discovered a way to use the viral mutation to “mutate itself to death”. Unfortunately, as Philip Defranco Pointed out in his Youtube.com Vlog, the only thing that was being focused on by the media was the possibility that porn star Stormy Daniels may be running for senator against David Vitter of Louisiana, and the country’s fascination with Nadya Suleman, also known as “Octomom”. The idea that a possible cure for a disease as prominent, deadly, and worldwide as AIDS was easily overshadowed by rumored news, and a clearly deranged woman artificially impregnated with eight children at a time, is hard to grasp. Daniels was “drafted” run against David Vitter to sort of shine a light on his previous prostitution scandals, this news was covered by many stations such as CNN, MSNBC, and ABC. It is sad to report that the AIDS discovery was only published on Discovery.com, and nothing else due to the fact that this discovery was simply overlooked.
Web 2.0 is a very “you” centric community, and as much as it’s about you, it’s about everyone else as well. Users find themselves consumed with the lives that other people live. The creation of twitter is enough evidence to back up that statement. Knowing all the details of your favorite celebrities lives can make a person feel important, and connected on a false perception of exclusivity. Knowing semi intimate details of a strangers life gives a person the feeling that they actually know celebrities, when in reality they are just cyber stalking them, but everyone does it, so it’s socially expectable, but still completely creepy. We shouldn’t care where certain celebrities are eating, or what they are doing, but because we have instant access, we make it a priority. It can often provide distraction with ones own life, and give them a fantasy world to consume themselves in.
The obsession that people have with the lives that other people live is apparent with the Stormy Daniels rumors, and the continuous gossip that surrounds Nadya Suleman. For example, when news that Stormy Daniels given her background, was considering running against David Vitter for a spot in the Louisiana senate, users that have an interest in politics exploded with both positive and negative reactions. Why? Because her past is filled with things that don’t emulate “family values” a fascination was evident, questions of who she is and what makes her qualified arose everywhere. The situation was meant to bring attention to the senate race in general. It was an effective way to bring attention to the race, “But a spokesman for the state GOP said voters "are concerned with real issues that affect their everyday lives and not with political or publicity stunts." So, although the GOP didn’t see it as a legitimate threat the public was enthralled with this idea, and it was extensively covered by the media, giving it support, and way too much unnecessary attention for a rumor.
Another issue that Web 2.0 Creates is the mass coverage of pointless news and the overshadowing of world news that is vitally important to society as a whole. It’s too easy to open up an Internet browser and never venture away from Social Networking and Entertainment webpage’s. Users do not pay mind to what is not directly in front of them. It’s simple; people spend their time focusing on news and issues that concern them, and them only. If someone sees something that has potential to be interesting or entertaining, they are drawn to it. The media usually covers news that relates to celebrities, or politics more, however, the media only publicizes the most interesting or relevant topics. They focus on things that will catch the viewer’s eye, but still get their story out. World news is often associated with history, which isn’t exactly the most riveting topic to entertain someone, so instead people read about things they perceive to be interesting instead of focusing on world matters that inadvertently have a large effect on their life.
The obsession people have with popular news serves a great interference in informing people of immense advancements in medical research. The advancement in AIDS research was only discussed on one known website. One would think with numerous advertisements and sponsors via the RED campaign, that more people would have cared to report and read up on this discovery, however, the people obviously care more about public figures, and porn stars. Phillip Defranco, took note of this and opened his vlog with this statement, “You know why I love American media? Scientists may have developed a way to […] kill AIDS, but what is in the news right now is Stormy Daniels might run for US senate. She’s a porn star, might run for US senate, not really sure. That’s got to feel really cool […] like you’re more popular then an AIDS cure.” (0:00 – 0:15). Defranco calls out Web 2.0’s obvious downfalls in less then 15 seconds. Media and people alike casually overlooked something as monumental as a possible AIDS cure, a disease that by 2007 had already been infected by 64.9 million people. This isn’t information people should be nonchalant about; this is information that should be on the tips of everyone’s tongues, and sparking more donations for research to put a stop to the disease. Instead a majority of Internet users were more focused on the fact that a porn star was thinking about running for senate, this story does have more entertainment value, but has absolutely nothing to do with what really matters. This further supports the theory that Web 2.0 causes users to bypass world news and never receive information that is imperative to the society that they live in.
There is no doubt that Web 2.0 is a huge step forward in communication and accessibility. The usefulness of many websites such as Facebook, Autotrader, Craigslist, and Ebay are obvious. Instant Communication with people far away is an amazing way for people to stay in touch with friends and family, and having the ability to search for, buy and sell items with the click of a button is definitely convenient. Steven Johnson is a huge supporter of Web 2.0, he claims that, “it has a power- to- the- people authenticity” (447). It’s democratic structure does enable people to utilize it how they see fit, which is an empowering feeling. However, he also admits that, “There is undeniably a vast increase in the sheer quantity of accessibility of pure crap” (447). It’s true; people spend their time on the Internet for their personal pleasure. They pay no mind to important news stories, if it’s not in their bookmarks, the website has no relevance. This narcissistic side effect is probably the most detrimental to society.
Web 2.0 focuses on the user, inadvertently causing people to ignore important news and information, while supporting celebrity gossip in all of its pointlessness. Our obsession with ourselves is being shamelessly fed by Web 2.0 and its “you centric” atmosphere, giving us more and more ways to talk about things that concern, interest and discuss anything and everything that pertains to one’s self. Despite Johnson’s claim that it is a place to access communities and discuss topics that concern you as an individual, ignoring things that don’t directly relate to you is more harmful then helpful. William’s claim that the democratic nature of the Internet is more negative then anything else is accurate in a sense that the more people focus on themselves, the more they lose the ability to grasp all aspects of everything. Unfortunately in the end, it just leaves us in a world where possible porn star candidates take precedence over a disease that has taken the lives of an unthinkable amount of people.
If people continue to only pay mind to their sole interests that are accessible by web 2.0, the constant exposure to things at the top of their interest list will cause the user to become completely consumed in news and events that pertain solely to themselves. This narcissism will only grow with time, giving people what they want when they want it isn’t helping society, it’s making society one sided in everyway possible. The way it’s going, finding reputable information amongst masses of nonsense will become impossible. Hopefully, user’s will then trade in for the library, and society will once more be normal.
Annotated Bibliography
Bland, Eric. "HIV Mutates to Death With New Drug : Discovery News." Discovery
Channel : Science, History, Space, Tech, Sharks, News. Discovery News, 09 Feb.
2009. Web. 2 Dec. 2009.
The article accurately informs the reader of a possible cure for AIDS, it was also the
only one I could find that discussed the subject matter.
Callebs, Sean. "Push to make porn star a senator no stunt, fan says - CNN.com."
CNN.com International - Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment
and Video News. 09 Feb. 2009. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.
This article informs the reader of the situation, seriousness and randomness that
surrounded Storny Daniels and her possible seat in the senate
Defranco, Phillip. "Sexy Senator Stormy Beats Aids?" Video blog post. YouTube.
10 Feb. 2009. Web. 2 Dec. 2009.
Phil’s Vlog was a brief description of American media’s ability to make AIDS a lesser
topic then a possible porn star senator.
Johnson, Steven. “It’s All About Us." Signs of Life in the USA. 6th ed. Ed. Sonia
Maasik and Jack Soloman. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's 2009. 446-48. Print.
Johnson provides reasons that Web 2.0 is beneficial to the individual user, giving
communities a place to share news that relates to their own concerns.
Mullins, Anne S. "Shenanigans: Shenanigans: That could be Senator Stormy to
you - Politico.com." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. 09 Feb. 2009. Web. 03
Dec. 2009.
This article flirts with a more entertaining and straight to the point layout, it explains
that Daniels is thinking about running against Vitter due to a previous scandal. Point
blank.
Williams, Brian. “Enough about You.” Signs of Life in the USA. 6th ed. Ed. Sonia
Maasik and Jack Soloman. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's 2009. 449-50. Print.
The article explains why web 2.0 is hazardous to society, keeping the people
consumed in themselves and ignorant in world affairs.
"USAID Health: HIV/AIDS, News/Info, Frequently Asked Questions." U.S. Agency for
International Development. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.
I used this website for statistics that support my argument.
Essay 3 Final
Blake Harrington
English 155
23 November 2009
J. Huey
Asher Roth’s Discovery By Web 2.0
In Steven Johnson’s “Its All About Us,” he is arguing that blogging is not a way for people to be experts and rule Wikipedia or express their better knowledge over their professional equivalents. Johnson proclaims that, “These people aren’t challenging David Brooks or George Will; they’re just writing about their lives and the lives of their friends” (Johnson 447). He states that blogging is to express people’s lives and their opinions on the world today. Myspace and Facebook are good examples of these blogs. People post what they are doing or how they feel, or even on political issues. This is not wrong at all and people are granted the right to state whatever they would like on their blogs. Brian Williams, in “Enough about You,” that “The danger just might be that we miss the next great book or the next great idea, or that we fail to meet the next great challenge…” (Williams 450). While Williams praises the fact that society has come to recognize everyone and be more about “You.” He feels that it is a negative aspect of society because people are too busy worrying about themselves that we are not prepared to deal with challenges that come up in the real world. This is bad because we have a large country to run and this can pose a great problem because people are too into themselves and what they have to do, rather than dangers we face as an entire country. Agreeing with Steven Johnson’s article, that Web 2.0 has given an arena for “local conversations that involve experiences that experts in traditional media have largely ignored…”(448); Asher Roth is a self made, Caucasian, hip-hop artist that made it big because of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 gave Roth the chance, through Myspace, to become a major star because the music industry is extremely tough to get into, allowed him to present his music, through a predominantly black industry, and because he was white people became more attracted to him.
Johnson proclaims that Web 2.0 is not negative, and that it has given people chances to use the Internet as a place to voice their opinions, their feelings, and show their artistic abilities. In his article, Johnson’s says, “What’s so interesting about those local conversations is that they involve experiences that the experts in traditional media have largely ignored…”(448). People are now allowed to voice their opinions and show off their abilities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that, “The vast number of people with the desire to perform will continue to greatly exceed the number of openings” (Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment). This statistic shows that the music industry is extremely competitive. Johnson’s idea proposes that the Internet helps people to get their voices out. With, “22.4 million (35 percent) [doing] so daily; more than double the size of the audience last year” (Cellular-News), using the Internet, the chances of people having their voices heard is extremely large.
Asher Roth was born in Morrisville, 20 miles outside of Philadelphia. Growing up, Roth was exposed to little hip-hop. During sophomore year, at West Chester University, Roth posted some of his verses on his Myspace page and sent a Friend Request to Scooter Braun, an Atlanta-based promoter and former VP of Marketing for Jermaine Dupri's So So Def. One week after speaking to Braun, Roth flew down to Atlanta and was immediately signed by Braun, who subsequently became his manager. This is not proving that Roth used Myspace as a marketing tool, but he used it to voice himself and because of it, he was heard. Web 2.0 gave Roth the chance to be heard in a music industry that is almost impossible to even be given a glance by producers.
Johnson’s ideas promote how great Web 2.0 is. Web 2.0 allows people to post bulletins on how their day is going, blog about a specific topic, and for people to share and download music. This idea that Johnson proposes coincides with Asher Roth’s beginnings. He began rapping songs and one day he posted a bulletin on Myspace and because of that bulletin, he was discovered. If this opportunity was never available to Roth, the competitive music industry would still be ignoring him. What other way could Asher Roth have been discovered?
These reasons are proved by Johnson’s idea that, “These people aren’t challenging David Brooks or George Will; they are just writing about their lives and the lives of their friends” (447). Johnson’s idea states that Web 2.0 is not about correcting somebody who is wrong, rather it is about voicing your self. Local communities can talk politics, school issues, and even race issues. Asher Roth’s posting was music. He posted his music in a bulletin and expected nothing, but ended up with a wonderful opportunity.
In a predominantly black industry, Asher Roth was able to get his music into mainstream society, and become successful, due to Web 2.0. Roth was able to be noticed as a white individual because of video streaming. This is also another excellent aspect of Web 2.0. This was very significant for Roth because his music is targeted towards college students, and the video showed that he was both young and studious looking, and also that he was white. Him being white played a lot in his success because for a white artist to be a skilled rapper is very rare. The only other white rapper is Eminem. This coincides with Johnson’s point because Web 2.0 is all about the people and it gave Roth the power to show people who he really was. Did Asher Roth using video prove that Web 2.0 is all about the people?
Johnson’s feeling is that Web 2.0, “For some, it has power-to-the-people authenticity” (447). This means that the people run the Internet, and they have the ability to voice what they would like, and have any opinion they might have. Asher Roth used the power-to-the-people authenticity by posting his video, showing people who he really was. Being a young white rapper poses many struggles, and he needed this video stream to show how unique he was. Having the power to voice yourself and become noticed is so positive, and good for society. It allows people to use the rights given to them by the Constitution, and for many people, Web 2.0 gives them a feeling of pride. It also gives people opportunities that are usually ignored in mainstream society.
In opposition to this point, are the millions of people who are trying to be heard on MySpace andYouTube, These critics believe that Web 2.0 hasn’t given them any better of a chance to become noticed. They might be right because of the great volume of people trying to be heard. According to TechCrunch, in 2006, “YouTube has announced its hit 100 million videos served per day”. That is in 2006, imagine what it is today. Just because they have not been noticed, doesn’t mean others have not either. Many people are becoming famous because of Web 2.0, but those who aren’t just aren’t talented enough, or aren’t trying hard enough to become noticed. Web 2.0 is going to be the new talent show online, and those who are skilled will have great opportunities brought to them, just like Asher Roth did.
Steven Johnson argues that Web 2.0 is not being used to challenge the writings of experts, yet it is used for people to voice themselves. People are just writing about their lives and the lives of their friends. He states that bogging is to express people’s lives and their opinions on the world today. Brian Williams feels that Web 2.0 has made people less careless of the important things that are going on with our society. He also feels that people can choose what they listen too, making them more careless. He feels that it is a negative aspect of society because people are too busy worrying about themselves. Web 2.0 has given people the ability to discuss whatever they would like, and without it, they would be ignored. People are able to discuss how they feel about life, about politics, racial issues, and even just to vent their stress. Web 2.0 is going to give artists that are regularly overlooked a chance to show their abilities easier.
Web 2.0’s future is going to be nothing but growth. There will be many people that will be against it, like Brian Williams, but Web 2.0 will only become more helpful and useful. It will definitely become more dynamic to those who are being ignored by society. Also, Web 2.0 will become more democratic because the whole idea is about the people. Although there is a lot of nonsense material on the Internet already, there will definitely be more because Web 2.0 will have many more users. If people regulate what is put up on the Internet, the information will retain its accuracy.
Annotated Bibliography
Johnson, Steven. "It's All About Us". Signs of Life 2009: 446-448.
This article discusses Steven Johnsons opinion on Web 2.0. Johnson feels Web 2.0 has given people a chance to voice their opinions. This source is credible because Johnson has written other works along with this. He is for one side, but he does acknowledge the opposing viewpoint. It was helpful because my argument was based off of his.
"Mobile Internet Becoming A Daily Activity For Many". Cellular-News. 23 November 2009
This article discusses the growing number of people using the internet with their cell phones. Also States how cell phones are now able to access Web 2.0. Source is credible because it provides great amounts of statistics from credible agencies. It is a good source if you need numbers, as it is not arguing any point. I used this site to prove a statistic.
"Musicians, Singers, and Related Workers". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 23 November 2009
This article discusses the job of a musician, singer, and related artists. It discusses pay, employment numbers, expected growths or drops, and the education needed for this job. The source is very credible because the government runs it. It is mainly only a good site to use for information on jobs. I used the source for a statistic.
YouTube Serves 100m Videos Each Day. Tech Crunch, 17 July 2006. Web. 2 Dec. 2009.
This article discusses YouTube’s announcement of its serving of 100 million videos a day. It is a credible source, because it has quotes from YouTube officials. It is not an argumentative source, so it is mainly good for business related information or statistics. I used it as a statistic for evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)