Socrates’ Nightmare

This weeks reading began with a somewhat pessimistic view of the internet. As the chapter introduces you to Andrew Keen’s idea’s of the web and describing it as Socrates’ nightmare, I felt some resistance to the writer. He makes synonyms out of the words narcissism and personalization faulting Web 2.0 for basically creating a platform anyone to express themselves however they choose to. His strong language against our internet culture made me want to disagree with him but as I continued reading the chapter I realized that he has some valid points. 

In the past artists were mostly harassed by paparazzi and tabloids. What fans think of their Hollywood and sports idols is information that now has easier and quicker access to these artists. Honestly though, weren’t these type of people always there? Didn’t we have people sending hate mail to anyone who tried to do something different or great? The opinions of bloggers and disgruntled fans has more light now than ever, but I don’t believe the existence of blogs created them. We’re just able to see them now, unless of course they go anonymous. 

In the chapter Keen argues that conversation “carried out by anonymous, self-obsessed people unwilling to reveal their real identities denigrates into anarchy”. The optimist argues that anonymity encourages vibrant debate and whistleblowing. I believe the variance in opinion gives access to differing thoughts and can encourage individuals to think for themselves, and yes the downside of that is that idiots get to share their opinions too. 

I believe there needs to be allowance for such conversation as it allows different frames of thought to individuals who may be seeking answers on questions they’ve been afraid to ask. 

For example, parents raised me in a particular religion I never felt quite right in. I had many questions about things we learned while congregated with other like believers. I would pose these questions to my parents but would usually get shut down by their parental hierarchy. When my father decided to get dial-up in our home it was a huge step of freedom for me. To navigate the internet and read the opposing thoughts and ideas, some that supported ideas I was starting to believe on my own, helped me to draw out my own conclusions on this religion and eventually helped me to go a different way. I give the internet credit for that because at that time in my life everyone surrounding me was of that particular religion which was somewhat cultish. Having contrary thoughts was not supported and I was treated like the black sheep every time I brought up an opposing view. Finally getting the internet introduced me to thousands of sources I wouldn’t have had access to. 

I believe this is what the internet is allowing consumers, freedom to go their own way. Towards the end of the chapter, Thierer begins to discuss how we should be excited about the change the internet has brought to our culture, and like any new invention brought to society, it still has kinks to work out. I agree with some of the pessimistic points of view on how the internet can be affecting our individuality but I also believe that much of what pessimists are worried about are just learning curves as our culture expands with the addition of Web 2.0 to our lives.