Is the internet Killing our culture? Nah.

The workshop task was to read the debate between Andrew Keen and Emily Bell on the subject of whether or not the Internet is killing our culture. The room was divided into two groups and one side was given the task of putting across Andrew Keen's view that the Internet is killing our culture and the other with Emily Bell's. I was on the Emily Bell's side and read the article with great interest with both sides’ viewpoints. Andrew Keen's point of the Internet being bad for copyright costing music industries millions every year, however he sees it as a negative thing that anyone and everyone can publish something online. I am in agreement with Emily Bell on this one, amateur content will not destroy the careers of musicians etc. Surely because there is so much amateur stuff online it makes the professionals look even greater? The only problem would be that there is so much of it to sift through that the professionals could be buried under the amateur content.
The point Bell made about musical artists being discovered through the internet, such as Artic Monkeys and Lily Allen. The Internet offers fame of different sorts in a way. Youtube allows the user to publish their own ideas, thoughts and feelings on the Internet, this gives them their fifteen minutes of fame and even an opportunity to make money. Bell's point about how smart musicians and businesses and other creators are using the internet to promote their work was a point that i knew existed yet didn't really think about before. As an avid user of the Internet i was brought up around it and the opportunities it has offered the users has always been something that was there but i knew no better so acts like The Klaxons being discovered via the internet is the norm. Anybody can get their 15 minutes of fame but the elite hold it and get discovered.
Keen seemed fixated on how the Internet is changing society. He appears to be stuck in the dark ages and is blind to see the point that society is changing and will continue to change along with technological development whether it is wanted or not. Change happens and he is clinging onto the notion that a less technological advanced society is more beneficial. "Today's under-25 generation should be more focused on the laborious work of learning about the world than in expressing their often inchoate and ill-informed opinions." His view of the under 25s is arguably negative and therefore fogging his view of how beneficial the Internet is as a mode of freedom of speech.
It is strange that Keen is so set on criticising the Internet and it's abilities but he would have to have used the Internet himself to discover its faults, which seems hypocritical to me. If the internet is so terrible in what it offers to everyone who uses it then cease use of it. He could not possibly say that the Internet is a bad thing to have when he uses it himself.

The task, however, was throroughly enjoyable to express our own use of the Internet to try and get our point across.