All answers by: James Wrona
1) The web is celebrated as the revolutionary technology that is great leveling of humanity creating equal oppurtunity, equal access, and equal potential. However, there are only a quarter of people on the earth who can use it. How do you explain the controversial argument here?
- The basic issue is regarding countries that are not able to access the internet both in 3rd world locations, such as Africa which was mentioned in the video, and even certain 1st world locations that simply cannot afford a computer or the costs that come with it. So, unfortunately, the 25% of people become handicapped by the web and are unable to connect with the other 75% of the population that cannot use it.
2) How is Wikipedia the best example to implement the leveling ideas of the Web rooted in the cultural revolution of 1960s, namely the Libertarianism in the counter culture? How does it explain some of the digital convergences?
- In Libertarianism, expertise and hierarchy do not matter. That is exactly what Wikipedia is all about. Absolutely anyone from anywhere can post whatever they want onto Wikipedia and have their voices heard regardless of their level of expertise or knowledge on the subject. It's a perfect explanation of digital convergences because it is a bunch of people that are able to connect to each other and share like information through the World Wide Web.
3) How does the Web make it possible for different kinds of digital convergence?
- Like I mentioned in my answer to the previous question, the Web is one of the biggest promoters of digital convergence. It is all about people who, through social media, blogs, and many other forms of communication, are able to access countless content even from their mobile device. That is what digital convergence is all about.
4) How can the Internet become a challenge for traditional authority? Use the political landscape changes in some countries to illustrate your answer.
- The Internet is one of the absolute greatest challenges for traditional authority. The one perfect example is the example of Oly Okollah who began a blog documenting the uncensored truth regarding violence in Kenya. By showing, through the Internet, the harsh treatment people in Kenya were going through, it put immense pressure on the government who started to force change.
5) Do you believe that getting information free can set us free eventually? Why or why not? Do you see any concerns of the complete freedom or self-expression without limit on the Internet? Why or why not?
- I believe that getting information free is good and bad. It's good because, obviously, we all desire to have the access to all the information we can possibly have and we do not like to be kept in the dark regarding anything. However, if we are able to get all our information free, we would begin to settle for information that lacks credibility and expertise. The complete freedom and self-expression without limit on the Internet is also very risky. If something gains credibility when it doesn't rightfully deserve it, people will begin to mistake the opinions of that particular author with fact. There should be limitations to how much expression is possible on the Internet because the Internet isn't written in pencil, it's written in pen. Once something is up, everyone can see it and there's no getting rid of it.
6) In traditional media communication, it has the "vertical" authority. In the Web communication, it becomes "horizontal?" How do you explain the change? How does this create the possibility for digital media convergence?
- In traditional media communication, there was much more credibility behind what is posted on the internet giving it a "vertical" model of authority. However, by eliminating the expertise behind posts, and putting everyone on an equal level of credibility, it becomes more "horizontal." This creates the possibility for digital media convergence because now people can honestly say that what they have to say matters to a great amount of people. With the more users comes more content and more sharing of said content.
7) Why is that the Web is free critical for the success of the Web itself? How does that clash with the corporate business ideology? How does that pose challenges for copyright issues at the same time? What will happen if the Web is not free?
- The fact that the Web is free is absolutely vital to its success because that is what got it all of its users in the first place. It's what lured billions to it, and, if they take that aspect away, it's all downhill from there for the Web. However, there are a lot of issues with corporate business and copyright issues. Napster, for example, was taken to court and shut down due to violation of copyright laws but Napster was a big thing in that it was the start of the steady decline of the amount of money that corporate companies make when they create albums due to free sharing of music among users of the Web. A more recent issue regarding copyright and corporations losing money due to the Web is YouTube and "copyright strikes." Now, YouTube users will get banned after having three instances of uploading copyrighted material without permission. However, that won't stop them from making more and more accounts and sharing with more and more people. There's really no way that the corporations will ever win the battle on copyright regarding YouTube which is terrible for the business and money making aspect of those corporations. If the Web is not free, the digital divide that was mentioned in the first question will get exponentially larger. Along with that, less users will use it and there will be less balance regarding who has access to what than there already is.
No comments:
Post a Comment