“It may be impossible (or at least very difficult) to move from analog to digital with no loss of information; what you really need to ask is the cost of representing the original as closely as possible. In other words, not only does digitization mean a loss (albeit in some cases a very modest one), it also incurs a cost.”

These two sentences are the two that stood out to me the most in this entire chapter from Cohen’s “Digital History.” Every year, it seems that more and more information, history, and society is being digitized. Whether it be files, recordings, or social media, the way the world is beginning to function seems to be done mostly through a computer. However, is this actually an advancement? Yes, technology may have the appearance of being newer, sleeker, and faster but is that shiny new look worth the risk of losing information and quality?

Growing up in the time period where there is an apparent switch between books and computers makes it difficult to judge whether or not the internet and digitization is actually beneficial. Research done through text and written recordings is now being considered archaic and yet, in my opinion, still yields better results. The information that you can find not digitally seems to always be more reliable. The internet is constantly changing, and with so many people having access to its inner workings, some times the information on there is not reliable, which makes research much more difficult. Not too mention the amount of money that is being poured into the digitization of information. In my opinion, digitization if all flash, but no sustenance. It runs fast, and allows you to find what you are looking for, but through the process of digitization, information is being lost and deleted. I would much rather stick to books and written documents.