Web 2.0: The Downfall of Culture?
I read this article about how Web 2.0 sites are affecting our culture in a negative way. In a nutshell, the content and services offered by Web 2.0 sites are substandard in comparison to slickly produced content offered by corporations and the MSM. As a user of Web 2.0 sites, I think Andrew Keen does have a point when it comes to some content being substandard, yet I disagree that Web 2.0 is solely responsible for harming society as a hole. I’m referring mainly to this quote in the MSNBC article:
He looks at the various user-centered Web activities that epitomize Web 2.0 — YouTube, MySpace, Wikipedia, blogs, file-sharing and so forth — and ties these, variously, to loss of accuracy in news and information, the declining quality of music and video, the troubled economics of the content industries and even an erosion of original thinking (as students use Google to create “cut-and-paste” term papers).
These points are nothing new, so it’s stupid to point the finger at Web 2.0 as the decline in “original thinking.” Before there was a such thing as Web 1.0, let alone the World Wide Web, people dubbed copies of records onto cassette tapes, recorded video sand movies onto VHS/BetaMax, and kids who took shortcuts always managed to cheat their way in school. Back then, Google or Wikipedia wasn’t their main tool of choice. That honor belonged to encyclopedias and term papers sold on campus. The only thing that changed was the medium people used. Casette tapes that people shared or traded with others became CDs or ripped digital files. Movies and videos that people shared or traded with each other are ripped to DVD and shared on Bit Torrents instead of VHS/BetaMax. Encyclopedia Britannica and looking for that kid on campus selling term papers evolved into Wikipedia and Google. This kind of activity has been going on for decades. The technology people used to do these activities has changed, not the people; therefore, it makes no sense to say that Web 2.0 is the problem and the downfall of culture. One could arguably say that’s been going on way before there was even an Internet.
As for Web 2.0 sites dumbing us down, that can only happen if that individual allows that to happen. While I realize everyone does not have honor, I do and therefore do not cheat my way through life. Original thinking is a creed I live by because I made a decision not to be like everyone else. If people choose to cheat by using Google to create “cut/paste” term papers, it’s that individual that’s responsible for their own actions. Blaming it on Web 2.0 or anything else is way too easy.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I see the same rationale with gun owners. They claim that guns don’t kill people, it’s solely the blame of the person pulling the trigger. No, guns don’t kill people, but they make the act considerably easier.
Web 2.0 isn’t responsible for “cut and paste” writing, declining quality of entertainment media, or rampant plagiarism, but it goes a long way in facilitating those things.
I know the irony of my saying this on a blog, especially being a blogger myself, but just because I use Web 2.0 and see a lot of great qualities inherent to the technological and societal innovations, I am also objective enough in my criticism to note the downsides. That is to say, just because I’m a blogger doesn’t mean I’ll mindlessly defend blogging at will.
There are a lot of detrimental effects of Web 2.0 and, culturally, I think we’re a little poorer for choosing a video of a guy taking a dump on YouTube instead of quality television, listening to low-quality music uploads on MySpace instead of future classics, and communicating exclusively through blogs instead of socializing in person.
Again, you can say that it’s all up to the individual, but the fact remains: certain web applications make bad habits easier.