“Because We Are Digital” and "Mythinformation"
“Because We are Digital” puts forward the ideal of a species called the “creative interlocutor.” This beast is some sort of a socially motivated thinker-doer who exists to realize true multimedia. The creative interlocutor is meant to use the internet to achieve the multimedia goal, in some sort of a spirit of humanism. It's a very perky, optimistic idea. To be frank, the whole thing seems a little lofty to me, and a little unnecessary. It is lofty, because the article gives humanity more credit than it deserves; if given perfect multimedia integration, most people will not use it for art or the betterment of society. It is unnecessary, because -I would argue - the internet has already brought us there.
The biggest problem with this article, I think, is that it is simply outdated. In May 1999,there was no MySpace, no YouTube, no Facebook, no flickr, no Wikipedia. In short, Web 2.0 didn't exist yet. Web 2.0 has brought the internet into the hands of users. Traub and Lipkin argue that the internet is a one sided conversation. It certainly isn't any more. I would argue that it wasn't in 1999, either. Anyone could set up a shrine to anything, even back in the internet dark ages of the late 90s. It's just easier now.
The bit that makes me angry, though, is at the end. Traub and Lipkin use Linux as an example of what the internet has the potential to be. They use the word “generous” to describe Linus Torvalds. That's where they shoot themselves in the foot. By terming Linus' open sourcing of the beginnings of the Linux kernel as “generous,” Traub and Lipkin imply that sharing should not be the norm. By treating collaboration as unusual generosity, they reinforce the traditional, proprietary model of software development. There's no excuse for that. It would be quite generous if Linus had created Linux, all by himself, and then handed out a fait accompli, completely for free, not expecting anything in return. However, that was not the case. The Linux kernel, and what it and the movement surrounding it have grown into, are a case of a variety of people scratching each others' itches. The motivation and hard work of thousands upon thousands of people are not a result of simple altruism. This is the main flaw in the article. Traub and Lipkin seem to believe that people will contribute to culture, collaboration, etc., just for the hell of it, maybe because it's the right thing to do, or just out of a spirit of humanism. It doesn't work that way. People do things for themselves. Microsoft makes software for profit. They determine what consumers want or need, and create products that meet that need. By selling them, they profit. The individuals in the Open Source community work on software because they see something that they want or need. They are their own consumers, cutting out the middleman and the monetary transaction. The motivator is not humanism and a desire for a more cultured culture, it's just scratching an itch.
On the complete other hand, "Mythinformation" is all doom and gloom. It's always amazing to look at what people thought of the internet before we all had it. But the fact is, we do everything now that the article says has the potential to ruin us. And maybe it has. But I can talk to people halfway around the world without running up my phone bill. I can stay in contact with people from primary school. I haven't gone into a bank in ages, and that's fine by me. I have almost infinite news sources at my disposal. It's hard to imagine all of that being bad. Granted, our privacy is compromised, but it would be, even without the internet. And with the advent of things like Project Gutenberg and Google Book Search, I really don't think literature and literacy are in danger. Give a kid the internet, and prepare to be amazed. "Mythinformation" puts too heavy an emphasis on traditional media. It's the perfect opposite of “Because we are Digital.” And they both got it wrong.