Kommentar schreiben

Kommentare: 36
  • #1

    Morghan (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 15:18)

    Although the article is right in several points, such as our disappearing privacy, I would not demonize the internet! It is the most powerful weapon we have these days, providing us with information, entertainment and the possibility to communicate across the globe. #letsvaluetheweb

  • #2

    Morghan (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 15:19)

    Damn, wtf, why has this been posted twice

  • #3

    Morghan (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 15:21)

    Ups, my fault!
    Anyways: As the Internet represents freedom, we should not forget that we are free to decide which information we share! Especially children should learn how to interact correctly with their data and the web, so #letsvaluetheweb

  • #4

    Morghan (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 15:25)

    It is true that the web is a stage for demagogues and fake-news, but why do we blame the tool instead of the useres? It is not Wikipedia or Google that share false or hate-related information, it is the human behind it! #letsvaluetheweb

  • #5

    Annabelle (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 16:54)

    @Morghan I agree with you 100% and I rarely agree with anyone… I think the user destroys himself by posting fake-news, changing the information on Wikipedia and more. We should #letsvaluetheweb and treat it like we treat our friends. We would never purposely manipulate our own friends, why would we to the same to strangers on the internet by purposely posting false information?

  • #6

    Annabelle (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 16:54)

    The Article is also over 10 years old and a lot of things have changed (eg. Wikipedia can’t be as easily manipulated as it used to anymore) everyone always blames Google but we are the ones giving them the information… just use a different search engine for example:
    Or Deusu (a German search engine)
    They are a Business enterprise of course they only care about profit. Is it morally correct? Not always, but that’s the world we live in.

  • #7

    Hannah (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 16:55)

    As @Morghan said, it is the people not the medium who share information. Also, the author himself stated that he prefered wikipedia over other "proper" sides but blames it for its incredibility and wonders and is angry about the sides success ? Doesn't make sense!

  • #8

    Annabelle (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 16:55)

    I also like to add the book he talks about (The Cult of the Amateur) has very mixed reviews on the internet some say he criticises things but does them himself. So why should I trust that kind of source just because he is an “insider”? A good thing about the article is the alternative he offered to Wikipedia, I personally just have the problem it’s quite confusing to use and it doesn’t offer as many languages as Wikipedia (not everyone speaks English).

  • #9

    Annabelle (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 17:00)

    The only point I agree on with the article is being afraid of the data they have about me, that’s why I would want to know what “they” (the big companies) know about me. So I can always keep in mind to be careful what to share #givethedatatotheusers!

  • #10

    Hannah (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 17:01)

    That he had never realised how Wikipedia works before he read the book just shows the worst case scenario. #weareresponsible to inform ourselves about the sources we use, the sources we trust. The excuse, "But X said this and this" never counted and will never count, neither online nor in the real world.

  • #11

    Hannah (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018)

    I agree with you @Annabelle. This article is outdated and nowhere near accurate. So are the problems, like the way youtube handles ads, solved. The only point I see in this article is the one regarding our privacy, that google's goal is apperantly to be able to answer quetsions like "What shall I do tomorrow?" etc. is just shocking, since when do we need a computer to make personal decisions?
    Thats just sad.

  • #12

    Hannah (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 17:16)


  • #13

    Helena (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 19:38)

    It is easy to see that this article written by A.N. Wilson is a manipulating one sided article about the web but especially against Wikipedia. Why should readers trust the author when everybody see the intention behind this article? He wants to persuade the readers.

  • #14

    Helena (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 19:58)

    I totally agree with Hannah and Annabelle, this an old article and brings outdated arguments which are not important today. We have to focus on new articles about the dangers of the internet. It is still a "monster", but not in the way Wilson described it.

  • #15

    Helena (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 20:01)

    This article could be used to compare the dangers of the internet in 2007 and nowadays.

  • #16

    Helena (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 20:05)

    A.N. Wilson writes about "Web 2.0.". We all have the opinion that the internet changed in the last 10 years. Are we living right now in the time of Web 3.0.?

  • #17

    Fishy (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 20:23)

    @Annabelle @ Hannah
    I agree with the fact that lots of aspects regarding the article are outdated though in my opinion the article does raise awareness.
    Especially the hidden use of advertisement is very dangerous +aims to affect + manipulate us + reality

  • #18

    Fishy (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 20:27)


  • #19

    Lea (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:15)

    I don't get why everyone is acting as if advertisement is a new thing that just appeared on the internet. Seriously? Hidden advertisement has been everywhere, even before we had the internet. I mean, do you really think every product that celebrities talk about in magazine interviews are their personal favorites?

  • #20

    Lea (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:19)

    The most horrible thing about the internet is how easy it has become to say very mean Things to one another. Cybermobbing is getting worse and worse because it's so easy to insult someone anonymously. There have been suicides because of the internet!

  • #21

    Lea (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:22)

    @Morghan Yes, the internet represents freedom but total freedom is not always good. In the internet everyone is free to say whatever he wants, noone has to fear any consequences. We should value #safetybeforefreedom

  • #22

    Morghan (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:27)

    @Lea I couldn't agree more with you!!! I think one should neither demonize the Internet, nor advertisement, as they both have become a huge part of our life, but one should restrict it! #letsvaluetheweb #safetybeforefreedom

  • #23

    shaaron@hotmail.com (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:32)

    Heye guys :*
    I think you are having a really interesting discussion here, and on an extremely high level. I myself am a lawyer specialized in data privacy law, and am working on a case in Germany right now. There is a new law that will come into full effect this may, that will change all these things completely. The law is about how companies and firms have to tell you about ANY information they have about you. For example, you go in for a job interview, and the employer will have to tell you, what they will be doing with your resume, your email address, and any other personal information they have about you. They will have to tell you: "Hey! This is the information we have about you, and we will be storing it for this period of time, and these people will have access to it." This will be the case when you go to the shops and pay by card (it will be on the recipe most likely) and it will be the case when you give any internet site you give your data to (read the new "Datenschutzerklärung" guys!). I think this is a really big change and is a step in the right direction for the problem you are discussing. I think, that through this, people will have more knowledge on what and how their data is being used, and, as knowledge is power, so it is giving some kind of power back to the users. What do you think?
    Have a nice day! Shaaron xx

  • #24

    Mia (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:35)

    Hello @shaaron! It's so nice that you've joined our discussion!
    I think that this law might help give users some power back, but the inherent problem is that 1. Lots of people don't care, because they feel as if their data isn't very important, and 2. People are lazy, meaning the wouldn't read the "datenschutzerklärung" or be informed about these kinds of things.

  • #25

    Luise (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:41)

    @Lea I totally agree with you! Instead of trying to rescue the Web from its bad reputation we should try to change it so everyone can freely speak out on platforms without endangering someone elses freedom- emotionally or physicaly. #safetybeforefreedom

  • #26

    Mia (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:42)

    Relating this back to the article, I think that this is the problem here. We all don't really care enough about our data, because that's hard work. And platforms use our personal information for monetary purposes, and we still don't really care. We look for information on wikipedia because it's easy and fast and mostly accurate.

  • #27

    Mia (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:44)

    We, as humans, are the ones responsible, as was said, for what is on the internet, and if we are too lazy to use completely reliable sources or protect our data, then I think it's fully our fault! #don'tbeanidiot

  • #28

    Mia (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 21:45)

    @Lea I agree! We have to find ways to make the internet a safer space, but I think that is our responsibility, and not Google's.

  • #29

    Luise (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 22:45)

    @shaaron That´s so good to know! I think it is very dangerous that we don´t know anything about the existing amounts of our data. To secure savety we should try to get things like that in control!

  • #30

    Luise (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 22:47)

    I agree with you @Mia! we are the only one who can make a change by changing our own behaviour. #don'tbeanidiot #weshouldstarttrying

  • #31

    Luise (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 22:50)

    There is a reason why it's called participatory media... Participants determine the content. #everyonestartactingfair!

  • #32

    Fishy (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 22:57)

    1. This long article proves your point:

    2. @Lea @Mia
    I think it is an illusion that we can really take up the fight against e.g. Google and the other big players...

  • #33

    Fishy (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018)


  • #34

    Luise (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 23:32)

    @Fishy I don’t think this is what they meant. I understood it as if we should not blame google for the nonexistent safety online but ourselves. And that’s why we need #everyonestartactingfair!

  • #35

    Joana (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 23:36)

    Hey guys,
    very acurate opinions. Personally, I find Googles aims of developing a feature which will tell you what to do the next day and what Jobs would suit you best, rather terrifying. Everyone knows that the invention of the net was, in fact, revolutionary. But has it come to a point, where we depend and trust a machine, which we barely even understand, more than ourselfes? The primal intention of the internet was to inform, to educate and years later, to entertain. I do not see, how this new feature will match the fundamental purpose of the net

  • #36

    Joana (Dienstag, 16 Januar 2018 23:56)

    As to safety measurements: Nowadays there are certain restrictions to decide which information falls into the category of appropriate information and what doesn´t. How we use the net is for us to decide. We are worried about the contents shown on the internet and whether or not it is appropriate for kids to see. Well, if it is such a big deal to some of the parents, they can set up a children lock for inappropriate websites, which prevent kids to see its content. I also support hiring teachers or TAs (teacher assistants) for primary and secondary schools, who are specialised on media, its benefits and their drawbacks!