The Great Seduction Response

https://oc.okstate.edu/content/enforced/627074-J_ENGL1113TH_111_116/keen.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=c9dq8AyJllkXVEJE14j8aKw2wQA
              Andrew Keen, a British author wrote a book called "The Great Seduction". He starts off the book by talking about his supports of the internet and how he thought it was a very useful tool. Andrew said that in 2004, after two days in a camp called FOO, he had totally changed his standpoint on the matter. At the camp he was introduced to the idea, Web 2.0. Tim O'reily, one of the heads of the camp, said that it was going to change everything.  After the camp Andrew decided not to participate in the new and improved internet, but he was just going to take a back seat and watch. After two years of watching what Web 2.0 was doing, Keen said that he was appalled at what he had seen. Keen addressed in his book that one of the new goals of the web was to "democratrize". Democratizing to Andrew was basically the web's undermining of truth, and belittling expertise, experience, and talent. Which in turn would threaten the very future of our cultural institutions. Keen said that Web 2.0 was shattering the world into 1 billion personalized truths. Keen argues that the more the web grows, the less and less revenue is made from it all. The mass quantities that all this information and entertainment are being produced make it seem harder to get more people to watch and read it all.
             In this chapter of Keen's book I feel that he is making a cause and effect argument. He is saying that because of all the different facets of the web, it is making it easier for people to make up their own truths by piecing together a hundred of other peoples pieced together opinions. Also he is making a subtle proposal argument, that if we continue to use and abuse the internet like we do it is creating less culture, less reliable news, and a chaos of useless information.