Andrew Keen

1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? Use examples from the web in the form of links. Include this idea of "disintermediation".

Keen defines democratized media as any sort of media that is created by non-professionals. The thing about the Internet and most social networking sites are that anyone is able to sign up and post whatever they want for the public to see. Whether media is any form of a movie, song, or newspaper clip, these can be created by anyone, which proves that the media is a democracy.

The main criticism of Keen is whenever something is gotten for free then someone else is being robbed. “Of course, every free listing on Craigslist means one less paid listening in a local newspaper”. This is obviously a flaw of the democratized media. This leads to many certain questions including, are amateurs taking the place of professionals in the media? Websites, such as Wikipedia, are examples of amateurs doing the work of professionals. Ironically, this is the most commonly used encyclopedia used today.

2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. What are these differences in opinion? Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why? You may include the ideas of such utopian technophiles as Larry Lessig, Chris anderson, and Jimmy Wales (who are these guys?)

I personally believe that the Internet can be a great thing and the main difference between these two authors is that Rushkoff is more opened to the Internet and media, while Keen is looking at the other end of the spectrum. It seems this way because of how harsh Keen s when speaking or writing. Rushkoff is more willing to learn about the democratized media. I agree with him more because of his positive acknowledgements. Keen is more negative and extreme.