Brave New World

Google – the ever – growing empire produces nothing but seems determined to control everything. This quote comes from Henry Porter who criticises the monopolist character of the Internet. And indeed, regarding businesses like Google, which seems to take over every single bit of the Internet, he might be right.

It even seems to take over the role of the owner of intellectual property, when announcing that every book will be scanned and available to everybody through the Web now. This is just an extension of the already existing debate around pirate bay, regarding the infringement of copyright of music and films.

To be honest, my opinion about all this is a bit two hearted.

I totally agree that Google developed into a monopoly in the Web and this is questionable regarding the freedom and individuality the Web promises. This is the question many producers and authors face as well, since Google announced its plans with the books.

The authors do not have a chance against Google, as they were not asked beforehand. The only way Google could be stopped would be through users taking action and denying the use of the online books, like it happened in Broughton, when villagers prevented Google to take pictures of their village for Street View.

It is feared that through moving the literature into the Internet a loss of culture will take place.
But then, regarding reading and writing as a basis for democracy, the digital books might be a possibility to encourage more people to read.

And regarding all the information in the Internet through blogs etc. a question of loss of culture could be asked here as well. Wouldn’t it be a chance to enhance the quality of ‘literature’ in the Web, if some real literature would be available?

So, Google might not produce something, but maybe it can help to maintain parts of culture through storing it and making it available?

In March 2009 the Guardian reported about the draft for a new curriculum for primary school. It intends that pupils should be taught on how to use social media tools like Twitter and Weblogs as well as how to use Wikipedia as an information source. The worst on this proposal is that it is not an additional subject rather than a replacement for traditional lessons. It is thought to put less emphasise on science, history and geography.

That does not sound good to me to be honest: although a huge part of our communication might be transferred to the Internet, I do not really see a reason in not knowing where we come from and how the society and the world we live in developed to what it is now.

Would it not be important to have knowledge about other parts of the earth, other cultures and how history unifies and separates countries? Especially regarding the Web, where communication happens all over the world easily and where lots of different culture can be unified in communication.

As a research revealed, one in six children spend more than three hours a day in the Internet and a quarter of five-years old have Internet access in their rooms.

This shows that social media has become a naturally part of our lives, as well for young people. They will use these tools anyway, but they will possibly not teach themselves about history. When teaching them something about the Web, I think it would be much more important to make them sensitive for the risks the Web holds for them. And maybe on how to communicate outside the Web…

“A.J. Liebling once said, ‘Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.’ Now, millions do.” Bowman and Willis (2003) summarise in this quote the new press landscape.

No wonder then that print media are threatened with extinction and seem to have no chance against new media. The internet is literally taking over old media: earlier this year Google bought a paper mill in south-eastern Finland from a local paper company, which had to close down as a consequence to the decline in print media. Google plans to set up another data centre on site to expand its server capacity. That is just a picture for the consequences web 2.0 has for print media.

Andrew Keen asks in his ‘Cult of the Amateur’ where the online news sites should get their content from if not from valuable newspapers? Will citizen journalists replace it? If so, he claims, our culture will die. And if it is true that online sources are becoming the main sources for the press, than his view is quiet alarming.

However, before declaring the culture as dead through these developments, lets have a look at the positive outcomes:

People still seem to go for the ‘qualitative, reliable’ journalism. The leading newspapers’ online sites in the UK all list increasing numbers of web traffic to their pages.

I guess online newspapers are more attractive to many readers than are the traditional ones, due to their interactivity: the articles are accompanied by corresponding Youtube clips and the reader has the opportunity to comment on the article immediately.

The interactive opportunities even seem to increase the interest of young people, which were (or are still) perceived as political inactive and disinterested: the 18-year-old American student Alexander Heffner proves this perception wrong. During the 2008 elections he set up scoop08, an online magazine where young people are given the opportunity to contribute their opinions in blogs to the elections and politics. The site is still running, now called scoop44. This online magazine is considered to gain a permanent place in the blogosphere. And Alexander Heffner is no amateur in this field.

The bad thing: how long will the online newspapers be able to provide their content for free? Times online amongst others are already considering setting up a paywall. I think one of the main attractions of web 2.0 is the fact that it is free. If people had to pay for online news the traffic will be directed to free sites – and they might include the unprofessional ones.

In this case Andrew Keens fears could become true. Whereas I still wouldn’t say the culture dies. I’d rather say it changes. The question is, if we’ll like it…