Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Eddie Yi
FYC13100
Rhetorical Analysis
“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
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 audience is, according to his definition, of the proletarian class, which is evident
through the examples of ill will towards “elitists.” 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
web movement within the audience. Thereby, Keen effectively employs pathos in this situation,
Yi 2
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
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
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
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
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
exemplary citizen of the United States. Considering her to be no danger to society, Lessig
portrays her as an innocent victim of a tyrant known as Universal Music Group. Already Lessig
Yi 3
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Lessig, Lawrence. “In Defense of Piracy.” The Wall Street Journal.com. Dow Jones &