Web 2.0 is amazing. I really appreciate the impact we all have experienced due to its creation. However, some resources are a little overused. Specifically, I'm referring to Twitter.
I like twitter as a resource for journalists to "break" news stories. This was especially helpful a couple years ago in the Middle East where some outlets were blocked, but Twitter was not and it was used to release photographs and information. Likewise, I appreciate reading headlines for breaking news before articles and analysis can be provided.
At the same time, I do not understand the literally millions of people who follow celebrities just so they can keep up-to-date on where and what the celebrities are eating. While I personally do not follow any celebrities, I can ignore this. It is dangerous to me in our democracy when celebrities who are not experts post their opinions for people who might be susceptible to others' opinions. Although this has happened for decades, twitter allows the celebrities to post their opinions without explanation or oportunity for rebuttal.
This brings me back to my original question: "just because we can, does it mean we should?" One of the limitations of Web 2.0 is that it creates an environment that is really easy for people to disseminate information without the rigors of peer-reviewed publishing. I hope that as Web 2.0 evolves, people develop a better filter and there are less "followers" of Web 2.0 and more "discerning users" of Web 2.0.
I think this "following" trend existed long before Web 2.0 (there have always been fans, including super-rabid ones), but Web 2.0 has simply made the process easier. If there weren't such a market for this information, it wouldn't be generated. Certainly, however, Web 2.0 and other trends are marking a shift in cultural thought and norms.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the positives of having the ability to find out what celebs are eating or thinking (do I really want to know what actors or models think?) is that the same technology allows otherwise silenced voices to be heard in the mainstream as well. The power of citizen journalism has been profound, particularly in countries with oppressive regimes.
That is a good point about fans following and even idolizing celebrities long before Web 2.0. I guess now it is just easier and more out in the open.
DeleteI also completely agree that citizen journalism is an incredibly powerful tool. How different would our world be if people spent as much time reading analysis and acting upon advice from researchers and professional analysts instead of(insert name of celebrity)?
Well, we pride ourselves on freedom, the abilities to choose what we do and what we believe, etc. I could add several other "how different" questions (if people were active rather than watching TV and made healthy food choices rather than opting for convenience foods, etc. immediately comes to mind -- thinking of conversations related to health care that have come up lately). Individual choices do affect the collective whole of society, and we have to allow those choices in order to have the ones that we personally believe in available to us as well. Which leads to the question: Why do people make those choices? Why would someone believe a celebrity over an analyst? Or care more about what a celebrity ate for breakfast than about what happened in another country's election?
Delete