The Internet and Democracy

1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?


I feel that the original dictionary definition of democracy still applies even with this new integration and technologies. That definition is somewhere along the lines of, a political system where the thoughts and opinions of the people are the core source of power for the community expressed through the representatives elected by the people.


2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further? 


The unchecked nature of the Web 2.0 technologies definitely makes it harder for politicians to successfully represent their people the best they can because of the openness of the media now. With no control over how one opinion can be counter argued or see a good rebuttal and the exposure that it can gain and receive makes everyone just as capable to make their opinions be heard as much as the politicians elected. So now when a person is not satisfied with the decisions being made by their elected persons they can make their voice heard much louder than ever before. This can be good because it can expose the true opinion and make people think about their government, but at the same time it can create extremist points of view that can develop much easier now, which can offset the normality of our government and lifestyles. 


3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed? Why or Why not?


The media echo-chamber phenomenon that is suggested to be occurring is where this new form of media has made it far to easy to find people that already agree with you and then get all of your information from that group, instead of exposing yourself to many different arguments and opinions to make your own opinion more well rounded and therefore stronger. This can be seen in many blogging sites as well as fake news sources such as The World Weekly News. Completely falsified information that is intended to be funny, is taken seriously by some and therefore is seen as "the news" and fact. This is definitely a problem that could arise but I have to agree with Jimmy at the moment, I don't feel we have enough research and facts to prove that it truly is or is not occurring yet. There are hints that it is or isn't occurring but I don't feel there is enough to prove one true and the other false quite yet. 


4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the Internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they are needed or not needed?


Farhad touched on this in the debate and I believe explained this well. Farhad said that while yes, there are ways and sources for people to check the facts they see online, the problem is that people don't. He gave some examples of websites such as factcheck.com, where you can check your sources and information for it credibility and value. I think these are definitely needed but need to be encouraged more for their use because honestly I had never even heard of said site before. 


5. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.


I really think that Jimmy has created something that has adapted to the changing nature of the internet through Wikipedia. I feel that he has realized that it gives the opportunity for anyone to rewrite the facts on a topic, but at the same time they are consistently checking and advising viewers of said pages that the neutrality or credibility of these opinions or words have been skewed or cannot be fully trusted. With this constant adaptation and editing of this highly used source of information, I feel that Wikipedia is making itself more and more of a credible and reliable source of information, which is now harder to come across online with all of the other competitors and sources. 


7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?


I have to say that I am still uncertain about the amount of threat democracy has by the unchecked nature of the internet, I feel like you cannot deny that there is some threat. I do not believe that it will ruin our culture and our society like Keen, but I do not think that it is doing wonders for us and won't cause any negative impacts on our future like Micah may believe. But I do feel that it is threatened by the openness and overload of opinions and information that it has created for us without any sort of filter, but I do believe that it has created some incredible opportunities for success and valuable information to be created. Like Micah said, these trusted experts that were once the only source of information in the world are often wrong. The internet allows there to be more questioning of said sources and for opinions to be debated and changed. But at the same time this is still such a new concept for society to grasp, that I feel it is not handled well by all of its users. Not everyone understands this concept and allow extreme opinions with no credibility to be viewed as fact. In time I feel that there will be some filter, some way for the user to decipher what is credible and what should really be valued as truth from the internet and what is just garbage. As of right now we are still stuck in the overload, somewhat drowning in our own pool of information we created.