Mythinformation

Mythinformation Summary Winner wrote Mythinformation to try to highlight to the public the fact that the technological/ computer revolution is not really going to revolutionize the political and social structures of a country. Access to all this new information and technology is not immediately going to make the world a better place either. Winner calls “mythinformation the almost religious conviction that a widespread adoption of computers and communications systems along with easy access to electronic information will automatically produce a better world for human living. (592)” Many people who claim that there is going to be a computer revolution overlook the fact that the problems that computers are going to solve can’t be remedied by the computer. I think that the author’s audience was people who were for the “computer revolution.” He begins his article by building up the computer revolution, and then in the middle, phrases his argument in a way as to how these revolutionaries are misguided. He writes about how the idea of increasing access to information is supposed to enhance democracy, but the belief is misguided. Every day, people have access to more and more information, including through the television. Since the advent of the television, there has actually been a decline in the participation of voting, because many people don’t have a real connection to the candidates now. I felt like this author must have some type of history background simply based on the style of his writing. He started the article off by writing about typical revolutions in Europe, and the way he structured his arguments was much the way one would read a historical document. I didn’t get the feeling from him that he was saying, “I’m right, you’re wrong”, but rather that he was trying to correct misconceptions about this so-called “revolution.” I think that this author has his reputation at stake. He is going against public opinion, and can be seen as controversial, which can become a positive or negative thing. Maybe the author is seeking to be more famous by writing something that is against popular opinion. I truly think that the author is just trying to make people be more aware of the fact that improvement in technology does not necessarily equate to a better society. Inquiry I don’t think that just because we have more information available to society, we are going to automatically be better off. There needs to some kind of active involvement with the knowledge that we gain from all this new technology before we become better off. I could search the internet, and probably find instructions on how to build a computer. However, I don’t know how to follow the instructions because I am unfamiliar with computer lingo/ hardware/ etc. I first need to be taught these concepts before I can “work” with them. However, I can search the internet for a recipe to make a cake, and make a cake. The reason for this is ONLY because I have the prior knowledge of how to bake. If I had never baked before in my life, I probably wouldn’t be able to make a very good cake. Questions How (if at all) does availability of technology lead to a better democratic and/or social process? New means of communication (facebook, twitter, texting) have changed the way that people communicate with one another. Are these changes for the better or worse? Winner argues that technology isn’t really a great equalizer with big business and government gaining more power, while others keep the same amount of power or lose it. Can you think of examples where technology has actually leveled the playing field for those involved?