Andrew Keen - The Internet Is Killing Our Culture
tags:
Stumble ThisAndrew Keen, a 47-year-old Briton, argues that basic notions of expertise are under assault amid a cultural shift in favor of the amateurism of blogs, MySpace, Youtube and other popularity-driven sites.
"Millions and millions of exuberant monkeys ... are creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity," Keen writes in his recently published book 'The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture'.
--
I just finished reading 'The Cult of the Amateur' and I'll admit he made some truly challenging points. However, all said and done, I'm not persuaded by his basic premise. Though I may just be another exuberant monkey. :-)
"Millions and millions of exuberant monkeys ... are creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity," Keen writes in his recently published book 'The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture'.
--
I just finished reading 'The Cult of the Amateur' and I'll admit he made some truly challenging points. However, all said and done, I'm not persuaded by his basic premise. Though I may just be another exuberant monkey. :-)
Instructables has connections to instructions on how to
The light bulb killed the culture built around fire light. The automobile killed the culture built around horses. The printing press killed the culture built around manual transcription. Culture evolves. And the old culture that's fading away always bemoans the loss of things the way they were.
I do have concerns about the level of intelligent and sensitive discourse in our culture, but I feel that's a social issue rather than an information issue. Sadly, it often appears to me that many gravitate towards ingesting some pretty insipid and shallow content or expressing shrill and combative opinions. But then, who am I to judge? I'm just another idiot expressing his opinion in a sea of opinions. In the end I just want to enlighten and edify myself and hope for the best. I'd rather not become an elitist champion of the web 2.0 on the opposite end of the spectrum of Mr. Keen.
That's why I read 'The Cult of the Amateur'. To challenge my own ideas. It's a healthy exercise. Some of his points are well reasoned, in my opinion. Though his book won't make my top 20 list this year.
For instance, the toppling of Saddam's statue: had you only watched television or read Newsweek, you'd think that it was a square filled with thousands of Iraqi's who tore that statue down.
If you did your research on the internet, you know that it was about 100 of Ahmed Chalabi's mercinary soldiers and our own military.
That guy's a jerk, and we don't need any more like him.
Then Encyclopedia Britannica must have a LOT of errors in it. Wikipedia is great for what it is and I use it all the time. The thing is: you cannot be assured of it's accuracy. You really need to already be an expert in the area you're researching to safely use it. Contrast this with a real encyclopedia where you don't have to worry about getting information that is just flat out wrong.
So is the new inherently and necessarily superior to the old? That's seems a pretty juvenile assumption to make and yet that assumption lays at the foundation of your argument here.
literature is mostly ok. but pages on philosophy, history, religion etc. are the problem.
as for the sociological effects of the internet, and not the PERSONAL, who knows?
I know that most blogs are purveyors of sh*t, and illiteracy. And, in the end, for a revolution you have to have people doing stuff in the real world
Edit: Of course there will always be those who use it to spread misinformation for their own ends but that's not to say they wouldn't if the Net hadn't existed anyway. This guy is stating the obvious...anything that involves humans will in parts be inevitably somewhat flawed and not 100% perfect. That there are amatuers who don't know any better and others who will take that for reality...well, no shit right? Hasn't it already been like that before the internet? You're not limited to one source of information when you log on nor when you go to the library!
This guy to me is sounding more like an enemy of culture than a proponent...
AnimalsForCrackers, your timing is excellent. I was just discussing this very concept moments ago with a friend. I was speculating that while the Internet has made information more available for all of us to fact check public figures and outrageous claims, it has also created a new method for spreading persuasive disinformation on a large scale. I do think that some are incredibly effective at doing this, and it works on even those of us who are wary and perfectly clever.
At the most obvious levels, this is evident to those who pay attention, in viral advertising, product placement and cross marketing methods. I speculate that it runs much deeper than that however. Political and ideological propaganda may be much more sophisticated than many of us realize. Some organizations know how to read the demographics represented on popular interactive sites, as well as the traditional media, and know how to best deliver content that is effective at framing the debate, getting certain buzzwords into the public sphere, informing us how current events make us feel, so on.
Andrew Keen discusses the viral marketing aspect of this a bit in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_n7I0PM3w
Though he doesn't get into anything nearly as broad (or arguably, paranoid) as what I've suggested. Though he does question what Google might do with the vast aggregate information collected on users.
When I was working on early internetworking tools and trying to educate people on this new tool, it was sold as "a new media to allow better free speech".
And now, with youtube, wiki, (this site...), it's finally happening. The people are getting a voice, and the established elite are scared. Their days are numbered.
As a side note on this subject, I recommend watching Epic 2015.
edit: the old internet saying "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routs around it" seems relevant.
edit2: if you want to see the most visionary realization of the end result of all this "user generated mess", read Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge. It's a wonderful - probably highly prophetic - view of how the networks will end up as user-generated "overlays" of information all other information.
All TV news is dumbed down compared to the best blogs. Yes, there's a lot of crap on the internet, but intelligent people can sift through it. The worst examples of stupidity I've seen on the internet are the World of Warcraft forums and the comments on YouTube.
but tv,radio and the papers are worse so what other choice do we have?
what you read on the internet often is different people's real opinions which you wont get in the main media sources cos it's either biased or propaganda. i think we're better off talking between ourselves...
glad i'm not a member of that culture.
1- His message is only being delivered and his book only being sold because of the internet.
2- He himself is an amateur by his definitions. He is not an anthropologist, i.e. "one who studies culture".