There was another really interesting quote in the article about Zeke which I think is worth talking about.
“The absence of any correlation between internet usage and civic engagement could mean that the internet attracts reclusive nerds and energizes them, but it could also mean that the Net disproportionately attracts civil dynamos and sedates them.”
I am not sure if I agree with this whole quote, but it definitely provides some food for thought. Do activists write their hearts out on the internet, and then fail to take action in real life because they feel like they have already done their part? Is the act of discussing your beliefs online the same as doing so offline? While I am not sure about the validity of his second statement, I really agree with the first one. I believe that people who normally would never speak up about an issue in the real world have no problem talking about it and speaking passionately online. Do the positives outweigh the negatives in this case? Is it better for a cause to have people actively discussing it on the internet? I think that the answer to that is undeniably yes, as Barak Obama can readily attest to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree to a certain extent. I believe it is important for people to be able to voice their opinions, and if the internet is the only way they can do that, then that's okay. I understand that there are people who are unable to speak publicly, but I think it is much more powerful when someone says something in real life, as opposed to writing about it online. I do however think it is an issue that anyone can come online and make outrageous claims with nothing to back them. I believe the internet will in fact cause unnecessary issues because people will say things that upset others, and thus the issue will have to be dealt with.
ReplyDelete