Like every significant technology before it, the internet is changing (killing)the =current= culture and ushering in (birthing) the next.

The light bulb killed the culture built around fire light. The automobile killed the culture built around horses. The printing press killed the culture built around manual transcription. Culture evolves. And the old culture that's fading away always bemoans the loss of things the way they were.

the very definition of clueless, elitist, 'only I'M educated enough to be trusted to make wise choices', douche.

the mediocrity thing is true, I think no one will disagree with that.

The Internet is what you want to make of it. I upvote for the discussion of this flippant retard. By the way wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Not only that his entire premise is based on his assumption that all Internet users are retarded and cant handle multiple sources of information. As well as being guilty of believing everything they read like this guys book.

Well although its true that there is an influx of retard content sutch as missinformed youtube posts and just general retardatoin for annyone can creat a webpage. thankfully we have things like dig ore vidoe sift that filter though the shit. the only difrence with the internet shit filter is that its democratic rather than the traditoinal shit filter which is controled by a small number of people. i think there is always the risk of retards sourounding themselfs with crap in compleat ignorence but this is the case with mainstreem news in england we have "news" pappers sutch as the sun with a hlaf naked woman on page 3. Talking about how new midea evolves is a good thing but this guy dosent seem to have evaluated things properly i havenot red the book though maby he knows something i dont.

As someone who came from very modest means, my exposure and access to classic literature, science, philosophy, the arts, et cetera, in my formal academic experience pales in comparison to the easy access to knowledge that I presently enjoy, thanks to the Internet. I actively apply myself to intellectual pursuits and use every resource I can get my hands on to expand my worldview. Certainly the Internet has opened up avenues that weren't readily available to me back when I was in college.

I do have concerns about the level of intelligent and sensitive discourse in our culture, but I feel that's a social issue rather than an information issue. Sadly, it often appears to me that many gravitate towards ingesting some pretty insipid and shallow content or expressing shrill and combative opinions. But then, who am I to judge? I'm just another idiot expressing his opinion in a sea of opinions. In the end I just want to enlighten and edify myself and hope for the best. I'd rather not become an elitist champion of the web 2.0 on the opposite end of the spectrum of Mr. Keen.

That's why I read 'The Cult of the Amateur'. To challenge my own ideas. It's a healthy exercise. Some of his points are well reasoned, in my opinion. Though his book won't make my top 20 list this year.

I know we just need to make wikipedia the ultimate source of truth on the web. Now if you'll excuse me I need to pray towards their server.

That's total bullshit. It's because of the internet that we're getting exposure to some of the most important news stories out there, not mainstream television, radio, or newspapers.

For instance, the toppling of Saddam's statue: had you only watched television or read Newsweek, you'd think that it was a square filled with thousands of Iraqi's who tore that statue down.

If you did your research on the internet, you know that it was about 100 of Ahmed Chalabi's mercinary soldiers and our own military.

That guy's a jerk, and we don't need any more like him.

"By the way wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica."

Then Encyclopedia Britannica must have a LOT of errors in it. Wikipedia is great for what it is and I use it all the time. The thing is: you cannot be assured of it's accuracy. You really need to already be an expert in the area you're researching to safely use it. Contrast this with a real encyclopedia where you don't have to worry about getting information that is just flat out wrong.

"And the old culture that's fading away always bemoans the loss of things the way they were."

So is the new inherently and necessarily superior to the old? That's seems a pretty juvenile assumption to make and yet that assumption lays at the foundation of your argument here.

there's a wikipedia page on wikipedia - purportedly the science articles are on the mark, but the humanities are in a state of disarray. As far as I know the non controversial culture pages are OK.
literature is mostly ok. but pages on philosophy, history, religion etc. are the problem.
as for the sociological effects of the internet, and not the PERSONAL, who knows?

I know that most blogs are purveyors of sh*t, and illiteracy. And, in the end, for a revolution you have to have people doing stuff in the real world

It's becoming harder and harder to get away with a lie these days. I attribute that largely to the availability/practicality of the Interwebs...Aegis of Truth in a world where the bigger the lie, the better...

Edit: Of course there will always be those who use it to spread misinformation for their own ends but that's not to say they wouldn't if the Net hadn't existed anyway. This guy is stating the obvious...anything that involves humans will in parts be inevitably somewhat flawed and not 100% perfect. That there are amatuers who don't know any better and others who will take that for reality...well, no shit right? Hasn't it already been like that before the internet? You're not limited to one source of information when you log on nor when you go to the library!

This guy to me is sounding more like an enemy of culture than a proponent...

"...a world where the bigger the lie, the better..."

AnimalsForCrackers, your timing is excellent. I was just discussing this very concept moments ago with a friend. I was speculating that while the Internet has made information more available for all of us to fact check public figures and outrageous claims, it has also created a new method for spreading persuasive disinformation on a large scale. I do think that some are incredibly effective at doing this, and it works on even those of us who are wary and perfectly clever.

At the most obvious levels, this is evident to those who pay attention, in viral advertising, product placement and cross marketing methods. I speculate that it runs much deeper than that however. Political and ideological propaganda may be much more sophisticated than many of us realize. Some organizations know how to read the demographics represented on popular interactive sites, as well as the traditional media, and know how to best deliver content that is effective at framing the debate, getting certain buzzwords into the public sphere, informing us how current events make us feel, so on.

Andrew Keen discusses the viral marketing aspect of this a bit in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_n7I0PM3w
Though he doesn't get into anything nearly as broad (or arguably, paranoid) as what I've suggested. Though he does question what Google might do with the vast aggregate information collected on users.

what, you mean the internet is doing what it was designed for?!

When I was working on early internetworking tools and trying to educate people on this new tool, it was sold as "a new media to allow better free speech".

And now, with youtube, wiki, (this site...), it's finally happening. The people are getting a voice, and the established elite are scared. Their days are numbered.

As a side note on this subject, I recommend watching Epic 2015.

edit: the old internet saying "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routs around it" seems relevant.

edit2: if you want to see the most visionary realization of the end result of all this "user generated mess", read Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge. It's a wonderful - probably highly prophetic - view of how the networks will end up as user-generated "overlays" of information all other information.

The guy in this video doesn't know the first thing about Wikipedia. Most bad edits get removed within minutes, and they're footnote-aholics.

All TV news is dumbed down compared to the best blogs. Yes, there's a lot of crap on the internet, but intelligent people can sift through it. The worst examples of stupidity I've seen on the internet are the World of Warcraft forums and the comments on YouTube.

Upvote for the inteview. Downvote for the guy!

i think his book would only do well because people are looking for some way out of this net culture, because it is quite anti-social.
but tv,radio and the papers are worse so what other choice do we have?
what you read on the internet often is different people's real opinions which you wont get in the main media sources cos it's either biased or propaganda. i think we're better off talking between ourselves...

Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society, has written a critical review of Andrew Keen's 'The Cult of the Amateur' on his blog here: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003784.shtml

wanker.

apparently, his 'culture' is threatened by the free exchange of ideas and information.

glad i'm not a member of that culture.

The irony here is twofold:
1- His message is only being delivered and his book only being sold because of the internet.
2- He himself is an amateur by his definitions. He is not an anthropologist, i.e. "one who studies culture".

*books

Adding video to channels (Books) - requested by kronosposeidon.