雖然蘇利文是以一個作者的角度在寫東西，但是他在寫報道和雜志方面有著獨特的經驗，他稱這經驗為傳統寫作。因此他將傳統寫作與寫博客以更深層次的角度，作者的角度，更以旁人的角度（讀者的角度）分別進行了對比。蘇利文指出寫博客是一種自我出版的方式，并列舉了一些博客的特點。對于蘇利文之前對其遠見和博客的特點的描述，我發現：蘇利文的看法與我之前想象的完全不同；此外，蘇利文是一個經驗豐富的作家，他對寫作的熱愛也在結尾處體現出來了，令人印象深刻。

安德魯蘇利文認為博客是一種寫作形式，是作者創造個性，也是讀者學習的地方。他對博客之間現有的新型良好關系進行了描述，并概述了它們對博客圈的重要性。此外，蘇利文還認為“一個好的博客就是你自己的私有維基百科”(第501頁)。然而，無論博客有多少優點與好處，作者認為博客不能也不應該取代傳統寫作。蘇利文指出，博客和博客圈實際上已經創造了新聞業的黃金時代，而博客“暴露了在電視統治的時代，對于傳統寫作的需求逐漸衰弱”（第504頁）。

since it was written from a journalist’s point of view. Sullivan had unique experience of writing to newspapers and magazines, the traditional writing, as he called it. He therefore had the possibility to compare the features of traditional writing and blogging, compare from the inner side, from the writer’s point of view, and from the outer side (reader’s side). Sullivan states that blogs are a form of self-publishing, and lists the distinctive features of blogs. For me, Sullivan’s vision and the peculiarities of blogging that he described were in many cases a discovery: Sullivan’s perception is quite different from mine picture of blogging; moreover, Sullivan is an experienced writer and his attachment to writing also added to his unique conclusions and the impression created by these conclusions.

Andrew Sullivan considers that blog is a form of writing where the writer’s personality creates the environment, and where readers form and supplement this environment. He describes the new kind of friendship existing between bloggers, and outlines the importance of their contribution to the blogosphere. Moreover, Sullivan even concludes that “A good blog is your own private Wikipedia” (p. 501). However, despite all the advantage of the blog, the author thinks that blogging cannot and should not replace traditional writing. Sullivan states that blogs and blogosphere have in fact created the golden era for journalism, and that blogs “exposed hunger and need for traditional writing that, in the age of television’s domination had seemed on the wane” (p. 504).

Sullivan’s reasoning is ambiguous for me. On one hand, he listed several opinions that literally opened my eyes, and granted a new vision of blogging. This can be referred to perception of blog as of own Wikipedia – the knowledge database that could be personally empowered and that might bring people similar to author together. I reformulate this thought for myself in the following way: Internet created a world wide web for us, and we can create own web by blogging and sharing thoughts in a free and profound manner. Another vivid thought was that blogging is rather similar to broadcasting or radio shows than to newspaper columns, articles and reviews. Again, this thought can be developed a little: in my opinion, blogosphere presents something that stands in between television and printed media, and can be flavored with the writer’s personality, world outlook and emotions. There were two more thoughts that seemed revolutionary to me - that blogging is about sensitivity, and that it is a win-win game compared to traditional media competition arranged in a win-lose manner. Indeed, the more blogosphere grows, the larger its connectivity and knowledge base becomes.#p#分頁標題#e#

However, I would disagree with Sullivan on the depth of blogging difference from keeping diary, and that blogosphere is the golden era for journalism. For many people who did not deal with journalism before and did not practice “traditional” writing, the difference between blog and diary is not very significant, and the research value of a diary is negligible. Since Sullivan had outstanding journalist skills before blogging appeared, he could easily use his blog as another way to express his journalistic talent. But he did not start with blogging, did not grow up with this form of communication. In my opinion, those people who are used to writing short emotional blog messages from the very childhood are much less likely to practice deep reflection, select near formulations for thoughts and create more organized and meaningful texts. I believe that blogging drives the majority away from deep and long thinking processes, as well as Internet increases short-term perception and decision-making, but hinders the strategic part of human brain. For some people, blogging might indeed be a blessing, especially for those already having upscale skills of information management; for others, blogging could be equal to a diary or be another waste of time in attempt to replace ordinary living by simple virtual imitation of it. In my opinion, blogging is the environment that allows gathering people with similar tastes and interests, and developing extensive communications among these people. Thus, the “usefulness” of blogging totally depends on the inner world, on intellectual and emotional richness of a person.

虛擬區———The Virtual Barrio

Modern technologies, and especially, the Web, have affected the lives of virtually all human beings on the planet. On one hand, it might seem that people extensively using computers are those who reside in most technically developed countries, have “technical” way of thinking. Commonly, it is believed that nationalities and cultures with more down-to-earth upbringing, traditions and the need for personal, intimate communications are far from technology and will be among the least to master it. However, the essay of Guillermo Gomez-Pena provides a vision from a different side of the frontier; the author, using very figurative and picturesque language shows that the world has turned into a virtual nation, where the barriers are very relative and vague. Gomez-Pena shows a very fascinating outlook: how a nationality (Mexicans, in his case) could enter the Web without losing own identity, but instead adding their personal flavor to the online community and creating their own ways of applying technology: “what we want is to ‘politicize’ the debate, to ‘brownify’ virtual space’, to ‘infect’ the lingua franca, to exchange a different sort of information – mythical, poetical, political, performative, imagistic” (p. 561).

As for me, Guillermo Gomez-Pena has risen a very important question – the question of not crossing the frontier but keeping up to the frontier and own identity in the newly created virtual space. I can strongly agree with him: nowadays, it can be witnessed that nations mostly represented in the Web also implicitly impose the “rules of game”, the communication style, the approach to the web itself, etc. Representatives of other nationalities lose their identity while entering this virtual space. As a result, the Web is not half as much colorful as the real world is. Moreover, representatives of most countries are to a certain extent bound by stereotypes of what they are capable of in virtual space; Guillermo Gomez-Pena called this “mythology” (p. 559).#p#分頁標題#e#

The author sets examples disproving these myths concerning Mexicans. I believe that almost every nation has similar “mythology” surrounding people in the Net: still, although internet gave us possibilities which could not be imagined before, humans remain humans, they can be driven by stereotypes, prejudice, common behaviour etc. I would agree with Guillermo Gomez-Pena on the idea of preserving national features and customs online, and would like to add that even in virtual space it is worth to integrate the Web into your life, and not yourself into the Web.

數字接近你———Digitally Close to You

The avalanche-like growth of social networks and other means of socializing like Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and other social services has been noticed by everyone as a very peculiar phenomenon. Who would think that posting the news about oneself would become so appealing for people! The essay by Clive Thompson has raised many questions that appeared in my thoughts, as well. The phenomenon of “ambient awareness” (p. 546) as a result of social networking and the idea of parasocial relationships (p. 550) are quite important things for consideration. Moreover, Dunbar number (p. 548) is something that I have always suspected to exist, but never had the time to check. What is notable, it’s the unprejudiced tone of the essay and consideration of the effects of web socializing from different points of view. On one hand, Clive Thompson figures out that the increased number of social “weak ties” might destroy the depth of existing close relationships, that social networking actually breaks privacy and that growing social activity can only deepen existing social isolation (or at least diminish the wish to see real friends in person). On the other hand, he mentions positive effects of socializing: ability to stay in touch and “feel” many people, possibilities of “outsourcing life” (p. 550), i.e. finding help or advice any time when it’s necessary, and the calming effect of socializing, or even its introspective influence.

The reasoning behind both lines of arguments, ups and downs of digital society, is strong: I would agree with most of the statements and explanations. However, I believe that in general, extensive socializing is worsening people’s long-term thinking processes and distract the focus from their inner self to their web self, which is mistakenly identified with the former.

Continuing Dunbar’s ideas, it is possible to suggest that there is limited amount of information that a person can digest during a given period of time (or during lifetime). Most likely, this amount can be limited in depth of thoughts rather than in gigabytes of information consumed. Socializing does not only weaken emotional ties with close people; it also has some negative consequences. One of them is the illusion of free choice and abundance of friends. Nowadays, people easier give up friendship and break up with their dates or spouses: it’s not surprising as the virtual society offers so many chances for finding “better” alternatives. In truth, it often happens that people who are very close friends over the net, cannot be even half so close when meeting in reality. The web granted the illusion that choice is endless: however, life is finite and energy is finite, and instead of living a real life and experiencing it in all its beauty people choose to stay in “active search” for something better, without realizing that their life became reduced to that search process.#p#分頁標題#e#

The same can be stated about information: the volumes of information that people are usually consuming today, is most likely inversely related to depth of understanding it (again, continuing Dunbar thoughts). Socializing increases the volumes of news and updates, and there is no room for deep thinking and reflection anymore. To a certain extent, the arguments of Clive Thompson for socializing are also true: it helps to step out of the problem and discuss it with friends, it can be calming in stressful situations, it can be used for outsourcing solutions of certain problems etc. However, I believe that there is a measure crossing which a person becomes too deeply integrated into social networking and these benefits turn into potentially dangerous phenomena. Thus, a small dose of digital connections can be quite useful, but it should only be used on purpose, in my opinion.

是谷歌讓我們變笨？———Is Google Making Us Stupid?

The essay of Nicholas Carr touched the problem the roots of which I’ve witnessed among my contemporaries and could trace in my thinking as well. Carr suggests that the specifics of reading and writing online does not only change our access to information, but also reprograms the way we are actually thinking. His arguments are properly and scientifically reasoned: the flexibility of human brain and the speed of adjustment to new conditions, as well as appropriate examples, are the proof of Carr’s ideas. The author suggests that currently it’s becoming more difficult for people to deal with long books and articles, to engage in reading for a long time and to dwell in deep consideration. He is making the readers aware of the superficiality the Web is imposing on everyone. The examples with the newspapers creating a second page with abstracts of texts and TV programs with blinking ads were quite impressive and show the pattern how the new medium of the Web shapes the offline reality. Carr does not only express his worries but provides many examples when philosophers could easily forecast the disadvantages of new discoveries like writing, printing, mechanical clock etc. but were unable to foresee the endless advantages of these discoveries. However, Carr expressed the alarm that connecting us to the artificial intelligence like the one that Google is willing to provide would not benefit each of us but would rather make human thinking resemble artificial one.

I can strongly agree with the author on the changes of thinking that he has noticed, and on the far-going consequences of the informational medium that is currently surrounding us everywhere. Moreover, Foreman’s term “pancake” people mentioned by Carr in the essay perfectly described my feelings concerning the quality of thinking of many people today. Indeed, we get access to an abyss of information, and as a result almost all people know many ideas, things and facts, but all this is quite superficial. Currently it is easy to study any area of knowledge online, using textbooks and video lessons available, but this would hardly make someone a professional. In my opinion (which coincides with Carr’s one), we are only in the middle of transformation, and it is most likely that in two or three generations thinking would be greatly reshaped. It is hard to decide whether it would be for good or for bad, but there is one worrisome thing – people are being too dependent on civilization and its products. I believe that reducing the dependence on the achievements of progress should become one of the priorities for the mankind because it greatly reduces the probability of survival in case of catastrophe or cataclysms.#p#分頁標題#e#