Response to framing questions – Week 4

According to Benkler, ” The first-generation critique of democratizing effect of the Internet was based on various implications of problem of information overload, or the Babel objection. According to the Babel objection, when everyone can speak, no one came be heard, and we devolved either to a cacophony or to the reemergence of money as the distinguishing factors between statements that are heard and those that wallow in obscurity. ”

Benkler basically says that many site go unnoticed, which is true since there are billions of sites, but is it really true that with every speaking, no one is heard? Or does the speaker just need to express themselves in a different way?

I think a little bit more about this and I definitely think that the speaker just needs to speak in a clear and or unique way.  With all of the voices in the world it is hard to hear just one but it is possible.  Look at phenomenons like popular blogs or YouTube videos.  While there may be millions of people on the Internet fighting for everyone’s attention there has to be a reason why certain blogs are known by everyone and certain YouTube videos have millions of views.  Since most of these posters are everyday people, they embody the idea of ‘everyone speaking.’  These people, however, were able to be heard so I think that it is more about the content of the message and the way that it is portrayed that is really important.

Benkler also says that because of the Internet, free information is available everywhere, and easier to put out by anyone.

Thinking ahead to my research project, how does this affect advertising? Does a multi-billion dollar ad campaign run by coca-cola or a small internet run campaign, such as “The Story of Stuff,” gain more attention, if the message is for the betterment of society?

I think that this question directly relates to my first question.  Since a company like Coca-cola can afford to get their message and their brand out everywhere consumers look from television to movies to billboards I think that Coca-cola would gain more attention just because they are a globally run company and a household name.  Where as a smaller campaign such as “The Story of Stuff,” will be seen by less people but that may be okay.  “The Story of Stuff” doesn’t necessarily need to be a worldwide campaign to make the impact that it needs, while Coca-cola does need to be seen worldwide.  The Internet lets the general masses put their opinions out there no matter how valid, and a smaller website may be able to reach thousands of users at once, and before the internet it would only be able to reach  dozens.  For marketing and advertising purposes, the Internet lets smaller companies and causes get their ideas out there.

Benkler discusses Wikipedia, and how it is a site governed by the people. He discusses how the website is so well policed by the people that even when acts of vandalism are committed they are reverted back to their original format very quickly. He suggests that this keeps the group on track. Is this true? Is that really why Wikipedia is so successful today? It seems to me that such a website would fail because there are so many people in the world to edit out or edit in content so that it is to their liking. Do social norms really help to police the website?