Cult of the Amateur-Keen

I agree with Keen’s article but have to admit that I take part in some of the actions he criticizes. I do not read newspapers regularly, do turn to Wikipedia at times, and am a part of social networking, such as Facebook. Today, I almost find it impossible not to engage in the infinite monkey process. If you do not participate in some of these internet obsessions, you are considered an outsider. These websites, links, network groups and many more give people a sense of belonging, as well as connect them to the outside world. Personal blogs may be gaining popularity because people relate to some of these stories or find comfort in stories similar to their own. However, I have yet to come up with a logical reason as to why we are so attracted to the non-sense being exposed on the internet. How is it possible that watching somebody make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich can attract the attention of a couple of viewers, much less make it one of the most viewed videos? It is also a little freighting to read about the stats on Wikipedia’s and personal blogging popularity compared to the lack of interest for news and reliable facts. Yes, meaningless, personal stories can be funny and amusing, but how far are we going to let this go? Are we completely going to disregard that there is a real world out there and that wars, genocides, political unrest, injustice, to name a few, are happening around us while we spend endless hours blogging about our uneventful days? Unfortunately, these changes are almost inevitable, but I think we should spend more time considering the consequences this may bring us in the future.

Cult of the Amateur

I have to say, Keen made me feel a little insulted when reading his article, "Cult of the Amateur." It wasn't just the fact that he likened internet users to "monkeys," but the whole tone of the article was accusing people who use social networking sites or enjoy looking at youtube as being unintelligent and ill-informed. While I agree with Keen's argument that people are more interested in blog posts and myspace pages than the issues of our world, a part of me wonders if that is such a bad thing. Yes, it is important to know what is going on in our community, state, country, and world, but if a funny video or an interesting profile page makes us happy, I think there is nothing wrong with enjoying that instead of depressing news stories.

When the gatekeepers of information are taken away, Keen argues that the lines between real information and false information become blurred. I have to ask, though, how do we know that anything we read is true? Newspapers and magazines can also be biased and misinformed just as blogs or wikipedia can. How do we ever know who holds the actual truth of the matter. As far as the disapperance of sales of printed publications, it is sad, but things change and we must accept them. Change is always hard, but complaining about it won't solve anything. We need to find ways to fix the problems with these new changes instead of comparing people to mindless monkeys.

"Cult of the Amateur" response

This article stood out to me in many ways. I thought that the “infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters” analogy illustrated Keen’s point well. Today’s technology truly does give anyone and everyone publishing capabilities with networks like youtube and wikipedia. As Keen says about blogs, “every posting is just another person’s version of the truth; every fiction is just another person’s version of the facts.” This really does blur the line between expert and amateur. This especially applies to wikipidia. I was interested by the paragraph that talked about corporations that strategically used wikipidia to spread cooperate propaganda. Both McDonalds and Wal-mart were reported deleting certain things off their wiki entries for the betterment of their image. Wikipedia is truly a perfect example of notion that “every posting is just another person’s version of the facts.” People using wikipedia to form opinions and gain knowledge are simply degrading the intelligence the “generation Y utopians.” At first I thought that perhaps reading, listening to, and watching nonsense on the internet could be strictly recreational, and wouldn’t interfere with the mainstream, traditional ways to access information, such as newspapers, magazines, etc… This article swayed me to think otherwise. Profits for major newspaper companies are down, with the New York Times decreasing 69%. One main reason for this is because people can access this information online, and for free. The traditional means of gathering information is slowly disappearing, and is being replaced with an online world in which anyone can be a publisher, “The cult of the amateur.”

my thoughts on technopolitics

Internet related political activism comes in many forms. But as Kahn and Kellner point out, many cultural and political movements have had a major influence on people all over the world. But Kahn and Kellner see that there is an obvious problem with this. We can clearly see the growth of extremist web sites and their influence on troubled youth, but one can also see the grotesque mixture of websites belonging to the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan nation  and Neo-Nazi organizations that are only good for spreading  extreme hate. But on a positive note, political activism presented on the internet can be considered important and maybe even necessary in helping internet users keep up with currrent political issues and struggles. Kahn and kellener suggest that the internet itself has become more democratic and participatory and from this the emergence of the blog, wikis, and other social networking portals came about. Many blogs are highly politcal in their content, and is mentioned in this reading, "warblogging", became increasingly popular after 9/11. The wars in Irag and Afghanistan only kept this "warblogging"  an ongoing phenomenon. Kahn and Kellner also claim that the most common problem with blogs is that they are unable to be found by most users, and this results in nanoaudiences. Thay aslo claim that that it is a well known fact that blogs have a very high turnover rate, meaning they fall just as quickly as they rise. In Kahn's and kellner's reconstructive approach to how the internet should promote technopolitics, they don't fail to mention the positive aspects of blogging, wikis, and other digital technologies. But I think their main objective is to get the reader to also see the pitfalls. Technopolitics has made its mark through blogging, and social networking, and will provably be around for a long time to come. I can definitely appreciate the fact that Kahn and Kellner see the reconstruction of the internet as being necessary because of what it can accomplish. They also mention that oppositional groups that have the capability to utilize the digital tools necessary to develop forms of technopolitics could help to increase social justice, and  liberate both humanity and nature from oppressive forces that are an obvious part of our global reality.