CLAY SHIRKY: END OF AUDIENCE!

CLAY SHIRKY: END OF AUDIENCE:

 Looking over the article as a whole, what are some of the positive developments due to the internet highlighted by Bill Thompson?

 we don’t generally have to think about the power grid, or how roads work, or whether there’ll be water in our toilets. The network connects us to other people, it provides a great source of information, it can be used for campaigning and political action, to draw attention to abuses and fight for human rights. It’s a great place for gaming and education, which can also be used to make a lot of money (for a few people) as well as a place where you can meet your friends.

What are the negatives or dangers linked to the development of the internet?

A lot of bullying and abuse takes place there. There’s pornography that you don’t want to see, and illegal images of child abuse that you might come across. Extremists and radicals can use the network to try to influence people to join their cause, and fraud, scams, ripoffs and malicious software are everywhere. Then there’s the dark web, made up of websites and online services accessed via specialised browsers and tools that make it very hard to identify who is using them, which is used to sell drugs and for other illegal activity.

What does ‘open technology’ refer to? Do you agree with the idea of ‘open technology’?

The idea of ‘openness’ lies at the centre of this debate: I believe that if we want an open society based around principles of equality of opportunity, social justice and free expression, we need to build it on technologies which are themselves ‘open’, and that this is the only way to encourage a diverse online culture that allows all voices to be heard.

Bill Thompson outlines some of the challenges and questions for the future of the internet. What are they?

what could the internet do for you and your friends, and what could you make it do? We journalists describe the world, but you have the opportunity to shape it; and a connected world that runs on the internet is a great tool if you know how to use it.

 Where do you stand on the use and regulation of the internet? Should there be more control or more openness? Why?

I believe that everyone deserves and prefers to have their privacy, but I also believe that there are times when the internet should be regulated to ensure that nothing negative or excessive occurs and that everything is in order.

Clay Shirky: Here Comes Everybody

Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody charts the way social media and connectivity is changing the world. Read Chapter 3 of his book, ‘Everyone is a media outlet’, and answer the following questions:

How does Shirky define a ‘profession’ and why does it apply to the traditional newspaper industry?

To label something a profession means to define the ways in which it is more than just a job. In the case of newspapers, professional behavior is guided both by the commercial im- perative and by an additional set of norms about what news- papers are, how they should be staffed and run, what constitutes good journalism, and so forth. 

What is the question facing the newspaper industry now the internet has created a “new ecosystem”?

We've long regarded the newspaper as a sensible object because it has been such a stable one, but there isn't any logical connection among its many elements: stories from Iraq, box scores from the baseball game, and ads for everything from shoes to real estate all exist side by side in an idiosyncratic bundle. The old bargain of the newspaper-world news lumped in with horoscopes and ads from the pizza parlor has now ended. The future presented by the internet is the mass amateurization of publishing and a switch from "Why publish this ?" to "Why not?"

Why did Trent Lott’s speech in 2002 become news?

The weekend after Lott's remarks, weblogs with millions of readers didn't just report his comments, they began to editorialize. The editorializers included some well-read conservatives such as Glenn Reynolds of the Instapundit blog, who wrote, "But to say, as Lott did, that the country would be better off if Thurmond had won in 1948 is, well, it's proof that Lott shouldn't be majority leader for the Republicans, to begin with. And that's just to begin with. It's a sentiment as evil and loony as wishing that Gus Hall [a perennial Communist candidate for president] had been elected." Even more damaging to Lott, others began to dig deeper.

What is ‘mass amateurisation’?

Mass amateurization is a result of the radical spread of expressive capabilities, and the most obvious precedent is the one that gave birth to the modern world: the spread of the printing press five centuries ago.

Shirky suggests that: “The same idea, published in dozens or hundreds of places, can have an amplifying effect that outweighs the verdict from the smaller number of professional outlets.” How can this be linked to the current media landscape and particularly ‘fake news’?

The same idea, published in dozens or hundreds of places, can have an amplifying effect that outweighs the verdict from the smaller number of professional outlets. The change isn't a shift from one kind of news institution to another, but rather in the definition of news: from news as an institutional prerogative to news as part of a communications ecosystem, occupied by a mix of formal organizations, informal collectives, and individuals. 

What does Shirky suggest about the social effects of technological change? Does this mean we are currently in the midst of the internet “revolution” or “chaos” Shirky mentions?

Because social effects lag behind technological ones by decades, real revolutions dont involve an orderly transition from point A to point B. Rather, they go from A through a long period of chaos and only then reach B. In that chaotic period, the old systems get broken long before new ones become stable. In the late 1400s scribes existed side by side with publishers but no longer performed an irreplaceable service.

Shirky says that “anyone can be a publisher… [and] anyone can be a journalist”. What does this mean and why is it important?

To a first approximation, anyone in the developed world can publish anything anytime, and the instant it is published, it is globally available and readily findable. If anyone can be a publisher, then anyone can be a journalist. And if anyone can be a journalist, then journalistic privilege suddenly becomes a loophole too large to be borne by society.

What does Shirky suggest regarding the hundred years following the printing press revolution? Is there any evidence of this “intellectual and political chaos” in recent global events following the internet revolution?

The comparison with the printing press doesn't suggest that we are entering a bright new future-for a hundred years after it started, the printing press broke more things than it fixed, plunging Europe into a period of intellectual and political chaos that ended only in the r600s.

Why is photography a good example of ‘mass amateurisation’?

The amateurization of the photographers' profession began with the spread of digital cameras generally, but it really took off with the creation of online photo hosting sites.

 What do you think of Shirky’s ideas on the ‘End of audience’? Is this era of ‘mass amateurisation’ a positive thing? Or are we in a period of “intellectual and political chaos” where things are more broken than fixed? 

Because no one actually needs to train to be an expert at anything and because everyone could be anything they wanted to be, I believe that our society is more broken than it is fixed.