Overall, Danah Boyd’s article
“Streams of Content, Limited Attention” is something I do not agree with. I think because I am living in this time of
constant technology that I do not see a problem with it. I believe it is a good thing to constantly
know what is going on with out peers, heroes, and government. With that being said, Boyd thinks that this
shift from broadcast to network is a disaster and that we are consuming garbage
instead of what is actually important.
Well, who is she to label what stimulates us and our minds garbage? To us that could be food for the soul, and
from a personal standpoint it is.
Getting
into the article, at first glance I thought I agreed with her as she explained
this far-fetched idea of Web 2.0 and how glorious it would be. Sure, I think that it would be awesome to
live in a constant world of technology, which is so respects we do now, but not
as she explained it. I agreed with her
picture of Web 2.0 only because I am in awe when it comes to technology and the
new knowledge it brings to the table.
Her idea of “flow” was genius because we thrive on the flow of
information and how we consume gossip, news, and messages from chat rooms.
But, as I
kept reading I started to believe she was actually cynical and on the opposing
side of the argument of the “flow” of technology. Her four core issues is when I began to
seriously disagree because I feel as though the aspects she is putting down
about technology is what is so great about it.
In her paragraph about democratization, Boyd said that we are not paying
attention to the important aspects in our world, but only what we see as
important. I think that what we pay
attention to is what is important to us as individuals. Who wants to read things that we don’t care
about? Certainly not me.
Also, she
said that what stimulates our minds is not a good thing. Why? I
feel like if my mind is being stimulated and I am interested in what I am
looking at, then what is the problem? I
set time aside to look at what interests me aside from schoolwork and school
related things. My brain needs time to
enjoy a couple hours of what Boyd would probably consider garbage.
Boyd says
that she believes that we live in the world we create and we cannot see past
that. Yes, I agree with that however I
do not see that in a negative way the way Boyd sees it. I think that who we talk to online and what
we look at is a reflection of us. So why
would we do anything different? That may
be a close-minded statement, but I am not saying that I am not for doing
something different. We all fall into
comfort zones and it is very hard to come out of it.
She ends
with saying that what is happening is both exciting and terrifying, but that is
like with anything else. Life is both
exciting and terrifying. It is important
to take the good with the bad because everything is like that. However, I believe that technology is helping
us in ways that nothing else could help us in.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your point of view on this. I think that technology has a lot of beneficial aspects instead of a lot of negative views that boyd has. Maybe it is because we are from the same generation where we were raised with so much information at our fingertips. I don't know. I also agree with the point you made about stimulating information. I definitely do not want to read stuff that has nothing to do with me! I really liked how you ended your post as well. I think it put both perspectives into consideration and it made me really contemplate both aspects!