Technopoly part 2

When I began reading the second part of Technopoly I refused to agree with Postman and the fact that technology has taken control over our lives. I refused to believe that we were passive consumers being fed tons and tons of information to be believed as true or that we have become so heavily reliant of computers that we hold them responsible for our errors, perceptions and actions. Then I really began to think about Postman's statement that "Questions, then, are like computes or television in that they are mechanisms that give direction to our thoughts, generate new ideas, venerate old ones, expose facts, or hide them." (p.127). After reading this I began to think differently as our roles as consumers. As i do research on a paper or project, or read for my pleasure I assume all the information is correct without awarness of WHO/WHAT is controlling or distrbuting the information I consume. Postman goes on to talk about this idea of scientism and how society has become so dependednt and trustworthy of scientific facts and statistics. We no longer question where these messages come from or what the underslying intention is.Scienve has come to dictate our worldviews thorugh advertisements, television and the loads of information scattered thorughout the internet and ineveitable become the standard. Just as television tells us what a family should be the internet tells us what to believe. I liked Postman's comparison to the industry of advertising and I saw many similarities. Like advertising technopoly sells worldviews to generate a profit-Twitter pays celebrities to tweet to gain more exposure and generate the idea that if a celebrity is tweeting it must be cool. Nonetheless, we do chose what we read,, watch, and consume just moer ofthen then not we are unaware of the effects these messages creat and are reluctant to question where they really come from.

P.S-  Last weekend I saw the film The Social Network with some preconceived notions that it would be ridiculously exaggerated and have little to no truth in the actual story of how Facebook was created. Yes, the film may have been exaggerated to society's assumptions of what cool fun college kids like and I am not too sure about the accuracy of the legalities presented. The film pretty much went back and forth between the depositions between two lawsuits  of Marx Zuckerberg's best friend- who co-founded facebook and business partners who originally proposed the idea to Mark. I really enjoyed the film I felt like it was made for my generation. It had this theme of new opportunities for young entrepreneurs. Mark may not have been represented as the most ethical individual but he was portrayed as almost an innovator and revolutionist. The characters of  Mark and Napster's creator played by Justin Timberlake gave me the sense of "If he could do it, why cant I?" The film spoke to technology's possibilities and how fast paced it is.They thought Facebook would be nothing but a "cool" site for meeting girls and it turned into a worldwide phenomenon. I give the film a 4 start rating!