Web 2.0 vs. Assumed Democracy

McAfee's SiteAdvisor uses site analysis report.^democracy. Why Can't I ??

An example (here) in the event you don't want to download & install. About half way down the report is the User Review Summary.

I thought it was interesting for the product to include a Web 2.0 presence for users. I also though it was rather thoughtful of the developers to leave an option for site owners to leave comments.

It seems that the basic argument today is breaking down as to whether the general public has the 'right' to dispute any entity's 'official statement' or their 'modus operandi'. This can be illustrated by the release of YouTube's Video from Michael De Kort and the subsequent rebuttal from Lockheed's spoksperson. (source: TIME)

"Anybody with a webcam & something to say, regardless of whether it's true or not, can say it on YouTube... "

And yes, that IS precisely the POINT.

Long before it's implementation & use, the Web 2.0 concept was being hailed by both the academic and blogosphere communities that it had the potential to raise the bar on the process of 'democratic debate' & 'user interactivity' on the web. Nobody complained about this issue when it was hidden behind the veil of BBS, Forums, & Private Sites of the late 80's. Remember the Tidal Wave of 2005, and how bloggers & similar means of communication were the very first elements to be utilized until the actual 'recognized authorities' were able to respond !! Remember how the entire blogosphere was praised by the world press, for weeks ??

But today, when it's out in the open, either in print in a blog, or as a video, on such a site that has a million or so users, subscribers, viewers, whatever; Yes, now 'freedom' might be a bad thing.

Let's face it:

Individuals tend to have varying levels of 'common sense' & the ability to determine between 'right & wrong'.

Entities (governments, corporations, organizations, affiliations, groups, etc) however must review & apply policies & procedures that resemble 'common sense' & define 'right & wrong' within their actions. Entities do not have the power of individuality! Nor will they ever.

According to Oxford American Dictionary ISBN: 0-380-60772-7, the definition of 'individualism' is as follows: n. 1. self-centered feeling or conduct. 2. independence in thought and action. 3. a social theory advocating free and independent action of the individual.

My friends (yes, I do get out some) know I have a few blogs & pages. Most of them do not utilize the internet as much as I do. They tend to know that I can be a bit individualistic, within reason at times. Sometimes they disagree with my viewpoint & we discuss it over dinner or a beer. Sometimes, they agree with my viewpoint, & we still discuss it. We have similarities & differences. We know that diversity has some advantages. And we all tend to still get along. "Attention all other drunks in the bar! . . . . . We have assumed democracy."

In minimalistic terms, Web 2.0 is for individuals' within a democratic concept. It allows one to customize their web interfacing experience, customize their homepage, write blogs, distribute videos, distribute art, music, & pictures, publish very specific mapsets, etc . . .

This does not go without saying that there are responsibilities that go in hand, such as not slandering, lying, misleading, or otherwise tarnish the truth.

But hey, if you actually experienced it & you believe in it, well . . .

Every viewer, reader, commentor, and the like are all endowed by their creator with the abilities of judgment, logic, review; & in a truly democratic setting, editorial.

Let's hope we can keep it that way !!

Courtesy Mike WalshFourth Estate Google Video