in the beginning...

In the beginning, there were blogs. Ok, so maybe not in the actual beginning, but in the beginning of something. The blogosphere has been criticized by many as tainting the integrity of traditional journalism. Additionally, the internet has been the subject of controversy for many due to the way in which it gives amateurs the ability to spread their amateurish ideas and inexperience to those with even less experience than themselves. A technologically enabled case of the blind leading the blind.

This phenomenon is discussed by Andrew Keen in his book: The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture. While most would concede that the internet is full of useless diversions and craptacular content, I think that Keen misses the point. Most realize that Wikipedia may not be the most accurate source for knowledge. However, what Keen fails to recognize is that without the empowerment that the internet offers, the 1-2% of worthwhile content would have gone wholly unshared. Aside from that is the ability that it grants to those that would have had little to no voice at all without their access to like minded individuals in cyberspace.

Keen's fallacy is one committed by many and it stems from a fear of what people will do with their freedom. Keen, as an author, clearly values the right to free speech and the spread of ideas. However, he fears the content that may be generated when anyone can write and publish their ideas for consumption by the general public. In Keen's world, he needs access to the publics eyes controlled by the industry of publishing houses and editors. As if this somehow maintains a high standard for the words, images, and videos that are available to the public. When we desire freedom for ourselves, we must accept that it means freedom for all. We must not allow the fear of what some may do with their freedom to allow us to forfeit ours. If one desires the freedom to speak openly of god, he must accept the freedom of others to speak openly of atheism. If one desires the freedom of retailers to sell The Koran, he must also accept their freedom to sell pornography. That doesn't mean that they must sell both or either, it's simply their free choice.

At the end of the day it comes down to this: There is something very wrong about criticizing a tool that imbues people with greater ability than they have without it. In this case, the ability to cheaply publish whatever content their minds can churn out, be it priceless or worthless.