democratized media

1) The way Keen defines democratized media is any media, whether it is a news article, song, film, that’s produced, contributed to or edited by non-professionals. YouTube is a good example of this because anyone is allowed to post videos or comments on the site with out being held to high regards. It is the “great seduction” meaning, everyone that uses the Internet is equal. Keen believes that democracy could potentially change everything we know about the media. Due to this he thinks that the content, information, media, and audience would be democratized as well by Web 2.0 primarily changes within major businesses and the government. Keen was right, the Internet would change because it was open to all views and ideas. 

2) Both Keen and Rushkoff can agree on many similar ideas when talking about social media. The two of them have concluded that our modern society is becoming way to over dependent with using the Internet. Keen believes that web 2.0 is only corrupting all professional content as a whole and it’s terrible. Rushkoff isn’t so much on the opposition of this idea but instead believes that more people are being exposed to web 2.0 and that it isn’t a good thing. I feel the reasoning behind both points of view but I also think that all of this was destine to happen eventually. People tend to take certain things to an extreme especially the Internet. It is the individual’s choice to do what they want with the tools they have at hand. In my opinion the Internet benefits everyone because you are in control of what you put on it or what you take from it, therefore you shouldn’t allow it to affect your life negatively.