I Already Know We Agree (second draft)

Mariah Aguinaldo
Julie E Huey
English 155
December 3, 2009
I Already Know We Agree
The topic of discussion made in “It’s All about Us” by Steven Johnson and “Enough about You” by Brian Williams is Web 2.0 and whether or not blogging is helping or hindering society. Johnson argues that blogging offers people a new kind of news that the media fails to report: local issues. He states, “Those experts realize that they can’t compete with the real experts: the people who live in these communities and know all the issues- small and large- that shape their daily lives” (p. 448), meaning that blogging is helping those within the same community report on what is important to them specifically. Williams however believes that Web 2.0 is having a negative effect on society and that people are becoming overly focused on themselves and nothing more. He argues that people are not getting the same type of information that a news paper can give and states, “It is now possible- even common- to go about your day in America and consume only what you wish to see and hear.” (p. 450) Although Web 2.0 highlights smaller stories and local topics that the media fails to report on, Williams’ argument is valid in that people do not pay attention to other viewpoints or what they fail to realize that they need to know. With this notion of “democratic media”, people choose to only listen and view what they know they are already interested in and choose to meet and talk to people online that they already know they have everything in common with.
Williams makes the stronger argument because, even though Web 2.0 is a place for people to write about what is going on in their community, people are still focused only on what they want to read about and that includes reading only about what is going on in their community as opposed to world news. Users of Web 2.0, which includes basically the whole population of internet users, are becoming self centered and closed off to what is going on in a broader spectrum. Williams states, “The larger dynamic at work is the celebration of self…the assumption is that an audience of strangers will be somehow interested…” (p.449-450). He is saying that with the creation of Web 2.0 people are beginning to believe that everything that they say and believe in is what is important. They also assume that others will agree with their opinions. These are the people that one chooses to talk to; those and only those that share their same opinions. This does not offer growth or exploration, merely promotes concern with one’s own interests. An example of the narrow-mindedness of Web 2.0 can be proven through one of the most popular kinds on websites out there today: dating websites.
There are those that praise dating websites such as match.com and eHarmony and believe that they helped them find the love of their life. Whether or not this fact is true is not the point, people should be able to find their perfect match by any means possible. These websites help people find their match using personality assessments, meaning that these sites ask the users to fill out lengthy surveys about their likes, dislikes and belief systems. The website then matches people with those who share the most in common based off of these personality assessments. This ensures that not only will the user be paired up with someone with their same interests but also with someone that believes everything that they believe in too.
From interests such as music and television shows to new stories and novels, Web 2.0 allows users to choose to only listen and view what they know they are already interested in. Web 2.0 websites have created a place for people to look up and download any musician of their choice. They have also created a place for people to look up news stories and topics that pertain to their interests. In an individual’s perfect world, all major events and newsworthy stories would focus around themselves and always be interesting to that specific individual. But nothing is perfect, and no one lives in a world where everything around them is for that one individual. However, Web 2.0 is playing into that desire; the desire to be completely self involved and only have to focus on what one wants to believe is important. Williams says, “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…because we are too busy celebrating ourselves and listening to the same tune we already know by heart.” (p.450) He is saying that by being completely self-centered and focusing only on what one already knows they enjoy, people are going to miss what is out there that they have not explored yet. Just as people may miss out on the next great novel of their generation, they will miss out on the next individual that will challenge them to think outside their comfort zone. They will fail to go on that next big adventure because they have chosen to match themselves with someone they know already agree with and think as they do.
A dating website called eHarmony is said to have its users fill out “a ‘Relationship Questionnaire.’ This information is used to derive a relationship coefficient. Each person is then informed of individuals who are highly compatible and with whom further communication would be useful.” (p.51) Dating websites such as this one matches people purely by surveys such as these. Now, people may look at this system of pairing as nothing but positive because one does not have to go through the grueling process of meeting new people that they have nothing in common with. But this system offers no growth of an individual, no exploration of an opposite that they may be attracted to and creates couples in the world that will be completely closed off to differing opinions. The fact of the matter is that these dating websites are stunting the growth of a couple’s right to differing opinions on a subject. Web 2.0 is creating generation after generation of close-minded people only interested in talking to and discussing important topics with those who they know will agree with everything that they have to say. If people are forever going to be matched with those who mirror themselves or with those who will offer them constant validation for already existing viewpoints, then how is society as a whole going to grow? Like someone choosing to listen only to their favorite song time after time, Web 2.0 is giving people the choice to listen and pick a match that will agree with them time after time.
Choosing to only talk to and pay attention to those that one already knows they have everything in common with not only presents someone with lack of growth and exploration, but it can also cause someone to be completely closed off to the rest of the world. With the media and Web 2.0 being much more “democratic”, people are given the choice to only interact with those who share their common interest. Now on paper this seems perfect; people can close themselves off to the people they know do not think as they do and do not like the same activities or subjects that they are interested in. But this, in turn, can allow people to talk to, and only talk to, the people of their choice. Web 2.0 gives its users a place to replace real face-to-face interaction with individuals. With face-to-face interaction, there is a bit of guess and check work. No, one cannot choose the perfect person all the time that shares everything in common with them, and no, the topics of discussion can move in directions that one may be uncomfortable with, but how else is one supposed to grow socially?
Web 2.0 is all about people and these people share a common interest: themselves. What better way to socialize with people then with those who are just as interested in themselves as the user is? Dating websites use personality assessments to match users up according to their hobbies, belief systems, politics, and anything else that they see may connect two people together and spark an interest. These websites then let their users communicate through the internet. Much like popular networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook, people communicate with others, often complete strangers, and talk about what they have in common. True, it is important to know one’s likes and dislikes and it is not wrong at all to want to discuss these topics with those who enjoy the same topics. But Web 2.0 and websites such as dating websites are giving people a place where it is acceptable to shut out the rest of the world and only focus on the same interests and subjects time after time. Some users enjoy this closed-off experience so much that they replace real human interaction with interaction with a computer screen. In a study of online relationships, participants were asked questions about their relationships that they have with individuals over the internet, “Two hundred two individuals were recruited from an online discussion forum to participate in this study… 74 percent reported that they met their partners in common-interest chat rooms… Of the total number of participants, 36 percent reported that they had face-to-face interactions with their online partners at least once.” (p. 213) This controlled study showed that out of the two hundred two individuals in their study, less than half of them actually had any face-to-face interaction with people they claim they are having a relationship with. Web 2.0 gives people a place to talk to those with common interest and for most unfortunately, a place to replace human interaction.
There are those that believe that Web 2.0 is, for the most part, positive and beneficial. When discussing Web 2.0’s impact on local communities, Johnson says, “...the zone of experience that people care the most passionately about- beyond the intimate zone of family life- is the zone of their local community.” In Johnson’s article he says that Web 2.0 gives people a place to talk about what they are most concerned with that the media fails to report on: their own town and community. People such as teachers, local business owners, parents in charge of neighborhood watch programs or the Parent Teacher Association, are people that can stand to benefit from Web 2.0 and all its coverage on local issues. But after all is said and done, the amount of information on the internet that people actually browse about local community stories and issues in one’s own town that is not said on a news station, pales in comparison to the amount of websites that one can find that gives people a place to highlight their own lives. Even Johnson says, “These people aren’t challenging David Brooks and George Will; they’re just writing about their lives and the lives of their friends.” (p. 447) Web 2.0 gives people a place to be self-centered and gives them the choice to focus on nothing but themselves.
In “It’s All about Us” by Steven Johnson and “Enough about You” by Brian Williams, Web 2.0 is debated and the effect that it is having on the internet and it’s users. Johnson believes that the internet offers local communities a place to converse about issues in a public forum. He believes that people are able to highlight the important issues that the media fails to cover. Williams on the other hand believes that Web 2.0 democratic nature is giving people the opportunity to pay attention to only those things that they already know they are interested in. Williams makes the stronger argument in that people are now capable of shutting themselves off to new ideas and topics that they know nothing about, and therefore, have no interest in. Dating websites are catering to peoples need to meet others like themselves and converse only with those they already know they have a lot in common with and are matched by these dating websites. There is no opportunity for growth or exploration with Web 2.0, just the realization that people are more interested in talking about what they believe is right, and then go out and talk to those who will agree with everything that they have to say.
So what is in store for Web 2.0 in the future? Judging by the leap from Web 1.0, which focused on pages and the accurate information, to what Web 2.0 is now, a place for people to highlight themselves and meet others exactly like themselves, Web 2.0 will become more and more democratic. It will become a place for people to not only focus only on themselves, bt perhaps ignore all that has come before. Web 2.0 will be filled even more with useless information by people who enjoy discussing their favorite topic; themselves. Who knows, perhaps Web 2.0 will become nothing but worthless information and a forum for people to use as a public diary. Using the internet for valid information may become a thing of the past altogether.

Annotated Bibliography
Johnson, Steven. “It’s All About Us." Signs of Life in the USA. Sixth ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's 2009. 446-48. Print.
Steven Johnson discusses Web 2.0 and how it is now more organized around people, as opposed to Web 1.0, which had revolved around pages. Web 2.0 highlights local conversations and gives people a place to talk about local community issues that the media fails to report on. This article was used in this essay to present support for the argument and counter-argument. For the argument, information on how people are writing about themselves and the lives of their friends was used. An example on how Web 2.0 is positive as opposed to a negative entity was used for the counter-argument. People are able to talk about news that is going on in the zone of their interest: their local community.
King, Aimee E., Deena Austin-Oden, and Jeffrey M. Lohr "Browsing for Love in All the Wrong Places." Skeptic 15.1 (2009): 48-55. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 22 Nov. 2009.
The article talks about all aspects of dating and the effectiveness of online dating verses normal face to face contact. It also talks about intimacy and how being close to the person that you are trying to get to know originally was the biggest problem within a new relationship. However, people are now able to get to know their match without having to actually be in close proximity to that person. The writers not only cover the positive sides and negative sides to the argument of the effectiveness of online dating, but they also talk about the techniques that each of the dating websites use and how efficient each tool is. This article was used in this essay to explain the tools internet dating websites use to match up their customers.
Wildermuth, Susan M., and Sally Vogl-Bauer "We Met on the Net: Exploring the Perceptions of Online Romantic Relationship Participants." Southern Communication Journal 72.3 (2007): 211-227. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 2 Dec. 2009.
This article discusses participants in online relationships. It covers five basic themes in online relationships: intense emotional arousal, high levels of caution, strong linguistic connections, high numbers of extramarital affairs, and a lack of social support from offline family and friends. It also highlights a controlled study of two hundred two participants and their reactions and perception of online relationships. This article was used for a statistic of how people found the people that they are interacting with online. It was also used for the statistic of how many people actually meet the people that they have relationships with online face-to-face.
Williams, Brian. “Enough about You.” Signs of Life in the USA. Sixth ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's 2009. 449-50. Print.
In Brian Williams’ article, he talks about the negative outcomes of Web 2.0. He says that the media is much more democratic, meaning that people can choose what they view and listen too. People now can pay attention only to the things that they already know they like and are interested in and choose to only listen to those with the same viewpoints. This article was used as support for the argument. People are becoming more self-centered and Web 2.0 is giving people a place to talk about themselves and to people they know they already have a lot in common with.