ammo's thoughts (Amber Overguard)

“The idea of a world where everybody has a say and nobody goes unheard is deeply appealing. But what if all of the voices that are piling on end up drowning one another out?” This phrase is how Lanier started his article off, to me it was quite bothersome.  What does he expect? We live in a democracy where everyone is encouraged to speak up, tell people what their thinking and feeling and daily, hourly and even sometimes in seconds reminded of this when someone updates their status on facebook or twitter. Sure when I first got facebook I thought it was a little weird that I could see what my friends daily schedules were  (which often included small daily tasks like cooking breakfast or brushing your teeth) but to this day I still find myself reading these updates and posting my own.. There is something catchy about it. When I think about it I am reminded that in today’s day in age it is all about expressing yourself in any way you can, whether it be blog posts, music, clothes, friends or sexuality are sometimes all expressed in one way or another on the web. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.  What I think this does is help broaden our ability to understand each other- expand, learn and communicate with our society.  To me what Lanier is saying is that only intellectuals should write or post on the internet, if so what defines an intellectual? University level education? People who seem smart? Those of high SES?

Another phrase that bothered me was this one: “Scientists need some time in private before publication to get their results in order. Making everything open all the time creates what I call a global mush”

Since when is expressing  opinion “MUSH”  doesn’t leaving ideas open to millions of people help in finding possible glitches and perhaps present new ideas that  may not have been thought about before? Personally I think that if millions of people could edit a research paper of mine and give me input and ideas about it, I could make it better.  Of course I understand that with every new idea comes new opinions and critics and not every idea can be thoughtfully considered, but doesn’t an open environment such as the freedoms on the World Wide Web not help broaden and strengthen our society?

“As technology gets better and better, more and more jobs will essentially become threatened, just like today’s jobs for reporters or recording musicians.”- Lanier

When Lanier says this I am reminded a lot of Karl Marx who once said that  “capitalism will be its own gravedigger”, what Lanier might as well be saying is that he thinks participatory media will be its own “grave digger” as well, so far Marx has been wrong and so is Lanier- I was never taught ideas such as – sharing is bad, which is prescribed at the end of Lanier’s article, and this is something I will not pass on to my children either. I completely agree with the Caterina Fake when she says: “Additionally Lanier does not understand that people do things for reasons other than bolstering their egos and making money. You shouldn’t need a motivation or justification to correct spelling or factual errors on Wikipedia” . I agree with this because at the end of Lanier’s article he broadens the specter of his argument outside of the internet when he says: “This is all harmless enough, but the pattern can be manipulated in dangerous ways. I don’t want our young people aggregated, even by a benevolent social-networking site. I want them to develop as fierce individuals, and to earn their living doing exactly that.”. If you do something generous or kind you shouldn’t need a reason. If you leave the door open for someone you shouldn’t need to make a profit out of it, or expect one either, and most people don’t. I will not be ashamed next time I do a favor for someone or express my opinion on an article or blog post. What I will do is keep participating in adding my own pictures, videos and comments to Facebook and different blogs and tell Lanier to suck it.

Rated: from 3 votes