Yi 1

Eddie Yi

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC13100

September 30, 2010

Rhetorical Analysis

The movement of the new Internet phenomenon stormed and shocked the world. With the

implementation of these web sites, the controversy over its benefits created a schism in society.

“Web 2.0” by Andrew Keen attacks the new and “improved” revolution of the Internet. Keen

utilizes an informal dialect, pathos, ethos and irony as his main tools to persuade his audience

into believing that the new generation of the web is detrimental to society. Lawrence Lessig, who

has a contrasting viewpoint, presents “In Defense of Piracy” employing formal dialogue, logos,

ethos, and mainly pathos to convince his audience that amateur creativity is the essence of

American Democracy. While both Keen and Lessig effectively use logos, pathos and ethos as

well as styles, tones and moods, Lessig’s portrayal of technology as a constantly changing and

evolving substance is more persuasive than Keen’s depiction of the detrimental effects of

becoming engulfed by technology.

The bold headline of “Web 2.0” emphatically reveals Andrew Keen’s stance on the new

Internet generation. His intent is clear as he presents his case to his readers: the “common”

people. His informal dialogue and usage of personal words like “we” and “my” are generally

used to take this article to a personal level. This allows Keen to relate himself with the same

people who are reading his article.

A key connotation utilized to define the new web is the repetition of the word

“seductive.” This word is constantly exploited to nurture a negative recognition and feel for the
 Yi 2

web movement within the audience. Thereby, Keen effectively employs pathos in this situation,

as most citizens would not relate the word “seductive” as being a good thing. This exemplifies

Keen’s use of language and his ability to “bond with readers,” and makes the audience feel as if

Keen is one of them.

On the contrary, Lawrence Lessig conjures a formal argument in “In Defense of Piracy.”

His argument is directed towards an audience composed of the older generation as he persuades

in a more organized and professional level. The lack of personal pronouns and use of denotative

language in the article appeals toward an older and higher-minded generation. The constant use

of denotative language—liability, counter-notice, and blanket license—confirms that Lessig’s

viewers are well-educated and the very elitists Keen detests. Lessig uses formal writing to

convince his audience comprised of intellectuals and lawmakers, and to point out the absurdities

of the copyright law.

Andrew Keen demonstrates a unique way of using ethos, logos, and pathos in reference

to his audience. Keen clearly scorns the new web movement, yet, his knowledge and credibility

is remarkable: he himself is an Internet veteran having been an “elitist” at Silicon Valley, the

headquarters of the web movement. He uses his ethos and reputation to garner support. Lessig’s

ethos is apparent from his specific use of law terms and states that he is a professor of law at

Stanford Law School.

Keen also utilizes a subjective tone. By doing this he appeals to pathos by comparing the

web movement to Marxism. The idea of communism disgusts our minds, and by doing so, makes

the new web movement seem as contagious and destructive as communism. Additionally, in the

introductory example of Stephanie Lenz, Lessig suggests Lenz’s character to be that of an

exemplary citizen of the United States. Considering her to be no danger to society, Lessig
 Yi 3

portrays her as an innocent victim of a tyrant known as Universal Music Group. Already Lessig

persuades his audience using pathos to believe that the music industry is composed of greedy

persecutors trying to victimize society. The fact that the music was barely audible logically

argues that Universal went too far and is discouraging personal creativity.

Lessig’s most persuasive argument lies when he utilizes pathos to convince parents that

the music industry is labeling their kids to be “terrorists”. The use of words like “terrorists”,

“criminals”, and “stealing” in association to kids disgruntles parents. This appeal to pathos

effectively stirs parents’ emotions into rejecting the music industry after deeming their kids to be

convicts of the law.

Finally, Lessig employs logos by ridiculing Web 2.0, stating that creativity with freedom

is an oxymoron. He also uses sarcasm by quoting words like “empower” and “democratizes” as

simple ignorance from people who actually believe these attributes actually characterize the Web

2.0’s “creativity.” Lessig defends this creativity as being one that defines a person and

encourages this imagination in a well-structured argument using ethos, logos, and pathos to

justify his cause.

The style and tone of Keen’s argument is based on false hope and irony. The use of

humor allows the article to take on a lighter atmosphere, which plays into the irony of the

commentary. The analysis that Web 2.0 is like Socrates’ nightmare presents an exaggeration and

humorous tone. However, the greatest factor in Keen’s persuasive critique of Web 2.0 is the use

of irony where he meets with his friend, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, who explains the

problems with the new and “improved” web.

Lessig, on the other hand, uses a serious and direct style and tone. Rather than moving

around the subject in favor of lighter tones, he favors the availability of empirical evidence and
 Yi 4

analysis like Lenz and the copyright laws. Lessig injects reasoning and morality into his

persuasive argument that the web defines a person’s creativity.

Andrew Keen is able to muster a well-written account of how the new web movement is

becoming an epidemic that must be cut off from the beginning. He speaks informally to all

citizens in the United States elaborating his arguments with pathos, ethos, and logos. He

effectively employs pathos when considering the negative influences of the web movement.

However, his ethos creates an unsettling image on his stance of the web movement. Being a web

specialist and having his own website business, and yet stating that the web is detrimental to

society hurts his argument against the web movement. Furthermore, he is essentially treated in

the manner of a vacation when he is invited to Silicon Valley. Additionally, Keen is unable to

muster up empirical evidence or any real historical context that disproves the influences of the

web.

Lessig, on the other hand, does narrow down his audience by using formal and

specialized vocabulary in his dialect. Lessig then provides an anecdote of an unfortunate victim

of an oppressive media hegemon. His strong emphasis on values and morality become the

essential part of his argument. He also strongly emphasizes pathos, but rather than comparing it

to an obscure outdated term he generalizes as it being compared to terrorism. The reality is that

today’s society perceives terrorism as being more harmful and more derogative of a term than

communism. Lessig is also able to bring about a solution to the problem he claims is detrimental

to society. He effectively persuades the audience to believe that copyright laws must be changed

to implement his solutions. This is a much better argument than the one Lessig portrays.

Technology is dynamic. It takes part in our daily functions and everyday routines.

Considering technology detrimental society has become the same as rejecting our culture’s
 Yi 5

customs. Keen presents in “Web 2.0” the detrimental effects of becoming engulfed by the

technology culture. Lessig portrays technology as a fluid, amorphous substance, constantly

changing under different settings and evolving alongside the population. Lessig presents a more

persuasive argument through the use of pathos, style and tone, and introduction of empirical

evidence.
 Yi 6

Works Cited:

Keen, Andrew. “Web 2.0.” Weekly Standard.com. The Weekly Standard LLC. 15 Feb.

2006.Web. 22 Sep. 2010.

Lessig, Lawrence. “In Defense of Piracy.” The Wall Street Journal.com. Dow Jones &

Company. 16 Aug. 2008. Web. 22 Sep. 2010.