Scholarly Article #2

I have never given much thought to how much internet has catered to us until reading this. I found it very intriguing that the idea is much like our toddler days, where things are "mine." While reading I found myself realizing the interactions of the internet in my own life as well as our families. As great as internet is, it really does eliminate jobs, as well as social connection. Instead of visiting my family for holidays, instead I can save money and skype with them. Or instead of physically going out to do "Black Friday" or holiday shopping for the experience, I can simply log onto the internet, basically shop from any store I want, and get the item shipped straight to their doorstep-something Ullman called disintermediation. And its a get-away, a privacy. My husband comes home from work and spends his "me" time playing NFL madden or Call of Duty, to escape interaction and just be in his own world for a few minutes, or hours.  :)

We are so fortunate to have something that really can fulfill many desires, but they are not always in our best interest. We are eliminating the association with people around us. Just like Ullman mentioned, with the Sonic game and the womens' first experience with internet, there were really two different experiences. Each person saw things a little bit differently, and its difficult to explain the idea when someone else is thinking of something different, even though they spent a lot of time doing nearly the exact same thing. So it was interesting to hear her argument that the internet is not only a relief from politics, but also from our culture. She used the commercial example of the apocalyptic world and then the house with the computer, and how the media idolized the features of being home with a computer than out in the world. Its sad that the world was represented in such a harsh way. Its where we make friends, can actually live-making mistakes and experiencing all that is out there. But instead, it was seen as "dead," and "dangerous."

My final thoughts on the article are simply that she makes a very good argument. With everything so specialized to us in one object, how are we supposed to learn to get along with one another, making compromises. Our government functions with compromises, businesses compromise, and even between our relationships we must learn to "give a little to get a little." If we are so used to getting everything we want, why would we ever want to discuss or share our experiences? The internet allows us the privacy and satisfaction of getting what each of us wants. But how far can, or will it go? Our society will eventually collapse, and we have begun to see the signs.