Given the huge progress in technological development , I can’t help but feel that some of Goldmith’s arguments are cynically skewed. While posting to the internet certainly retains something’s existence, not posting something should not mean something doesn’t exist. Philosophically speaking, I would argue that something can exist with just an acknowledgement of it rather than it’s content. For example, a musical album can be known to exist without any access to the music, yet through advertising and mention of name, fans could know of it’s existence and pre-order. Goldsmith would probably argue that the fact that users would can access to this knowledge through the internet, and thus it is the internet which brought it into existence, but this still seems somewhat faulty.
What is the intended purpose for this reading?
How would Goldsmith respond to the notion that, if we truly were to post everything to the internet, without regulation, couldn’t it be argued that we would ultimately become more existent online than in our real “lives”? We are already so dependent on the internet that our generation’s brains development is entirely different that older generations. While this comes with benefits, we are beginning to lack the “hands-on” state of mind that many believe to be essential to a well-rounded lifestyle. We are exposed to so much information as is, and already most of our social interaction exists through the internet.