The Death of the Web

Is the internet dead? Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff’s article The Web is Dead. Long Live The Internet. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1 says the web as we knew it is. Both explain how the sleeker face of the web (apps, smart phones, IPads) are steering the web towards capitalistic use and further opportunity for profit. Our post-modern condition seems to be primarily concerned with material matters, validation and maximum efficiency. Portable web devices allow for all of these things: we can buy online with various apps created by food, clothing and service companies at the touch of an icon, we can update our thoughts, locations and actions on-the-go and we can do all of this while at work, school and just about anywhere else in a matter of seconds (maximum efficiency.) Gone are the days where we need to sit down and take time to access what the web has to offer…we carry it around everywhere with us. Anderson describes the “new web” as such:

‘It’s driven primarily by the rise of the iPhone model of mobile computing, and it’s a world Google can’t crawl, one where HTML doesn’t rule. And it’s the world that consumers are increasingly choosing, not because they’re rejecting the idea of the Web but because these dedicated platforms often just work better or fit better into their lives (the screen comes to them, they don’t have to go to the screen). The fact that it’s easier for companies to make money on these platforms only cements the trend. Producers and consumers agree: The Web is not the culmination of the digital revolution.’

As technology evolves, it seems the focus is marketing to an ever-growing crowd of multi-taskers who want a service brought to them-in their own environment. The article goes on to explain that the new web has no room for Google or Wikipedia where open-source reigns. When we look at advertising of a product, we realise there is a “buyer beware;” when we read online we need to realise there is now a “reader beware” with information we come across. Although there is so much more information available to us, it allows for more false information to become available. When something is published in an academic journal or a textbook, or an accredited book, it goes through so many hands to assure accuracy. One less level would be news websites and newspapers and magazines, these are usually accurate but we need to take with a grain of salt. Websites however, need to be taken with lots of salt.   What makes open source web so phenomenal is also what is detrimental to it. Non-discriminating, no restrictions, free distribution; these allow the democratization of enterprise and distribution but it could also threaten to kill free information and knowledge in the good sense of those words if we continue to let people with money change the information to their benefit. I don’t think the open-source model is dying, I think the dynamics are changing. New interfaces allows for more corporate participation-and the facilitation of buying online pushes us to think of the new web in a business sense rather than its other qualities.

There should be walls put up preventing this from happening, but it is also our role as consumers to be aware that these things are going on, and understand that information is not necessarily truth, especially on the web. A website should be a base, like Wikipedia is used as a base, for information and further research. Things like check book journalism (paying money to obtain the most accurate information or quote) or paying money to change information online are not morally right-but we know they are done. Because of the advent of open-source, everyone can be a journalist, a historian, a political critic and so on which is great but the web doesn't discriminate against good or bad and truthful or untruthful information: anything goes. It is said that due to this, “truth becomes a commodity.” It is a service we can pay for, or pay to make untruthful to a benefit or detriment to an someone or something . This puts a price on information, which is quite the opposite of what open source web is supposed to be all about: free flow of information. Is this where Web 2.0 is headed? Does the “new” web operate solely by a commercial and promotional agenda? It only appears that way.

The Tao of Pirates

In the second chapter of Matt Mason’s book The Pirate’s Dilemma “The Tao of Pirates”, he examines the question: What is a pirate? With conflicting opinions about the benefits and harms of piracy (or as some like to call it, stealing) we must ask ourselves: how do we determine what is good piracy and what is bad piracy? Mason takes a clear standpoint in his novel, arguing that piracy will drive free culture, push towards innovation and democratize enterprise. We tend to think of piracy only in entertainment- but it has very clear benefits in many areas outside of this niche. A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted to an inventor for an assigned period of time which allows them to claim monetary gain from all uses of their product. Patency is useful in the sense that it protects intellectual property and makes sure that the right person gains from their hard work. I am going to focus on a certain problem that patents pose and some of the negative effects of piracy. Mason mentions a particular niche in which piracy is clearly important

“Medicine is an industry where the social benefits of piracy are clear, and the social costs of putting profit and intellectual property rights before people are horrifying.” (65)

This is true in the sense that Western drug companies are selling pharmaceuticals at such an inflamed price that it is impossible for people in developing countries to afford them, costing millions of lives. When the ingredients of drugs are available and slightly changed to create the same effect, scientists have been able to get around patent laws, creating generic drugs and selling them at a significantly lowered price, saving millions of lives. Registered drugs made from companies can be granted patents for up to twenty years; but what about non-registered medication in developing countries?  MAL, a pharmaceutical company, is only one amongst many that have placed a patent on nature, stealing from indigenous knowledge to create medication. Members of MAL visited a tribe in Peru, used indigenous ingredients and knowledge to develop pharmaceuticals and then later sued the tribe for violating the patent. This is classified under the term biopiracy. This is clearly wrong, but where is the line drawn?  We need to take an ethical perspective: this behaviour is clearly unethical according to several ethical perspectives except for one, moral legalism. It is legal and therefore it is moral. This seems to be the ethical perspective that large companies operate by when doing business. Clearly our laws need to be changed to prevent this type of stealing. But, it is difficult to determine what is stealing and what is not. I thought the best way to think about it is from a utilitarian point of view. But upon reconsidering this, I realized that by that rationale, it would probably be okay for MAL to steal from this small tribe since the medication probably did more good for people, and was only detrimental to the small tribe and the indigenous people it may have helped around the area. Biopiracy is being opposed by worldwide groups against corporations putting patents on seeds, genes, animals and humans. They are essentially stealing from farmers and indigenous people, creating what seems to be a global food and health crisis. However, piracy can be viewed in a different light of course. It is a great thing when scientists in India have been able to make generic drugs from the recipes found in western drugs made by pharmaceutical corporations and sell them at affordable costs, saving the lives of millions. This way, we avoid millions of unnecessary deaths.  There is a difference between biopiracy and finding indigenous ingredients in nature to create medicine without stealing the knowledge of locals and natives for profitable gain. Patents were designed to protect intellectual property, but loose laws allow for the patency of things that are not intellectual property-but global resources. Patenting is useful in the sense that it protects vital information from being used in detrimental ways. Piracy allows for anyone to take information and innovate. There needs to be policies put into place about how people can use information, what parts of the information and for what ends. Just like we essentially give government and corporate parties permission to “spy” on us by showing them that we condone the behaviour, the same thing is happening with piracy. Companies are fighting back. Some forms of piracy create innovation, creativity and democratize the flow of resources while other forms are globally detrimental. The Pirate’s dilemma is a moral one, and a very difficult one. Piracy can be justified from different perspectives-but this is because we are generalizing. We need to take the time to look at specifics and understand what their benefits and harms are, what their potential is in terms of finding ways to use other’s intellectual property for the greater good and what is used for the greater bad.
We need to find a way for individuals and corporate conglomerates to share knowledge that is useful to one another (for the GOOD) while making sure the right people are accurately compensated and/or recognized for their work. This is probably a difficult task, but we have no shortage of resources.

Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance

In Anders Albrechtslund’s article Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance,found here online: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949,

 he examines the rise in surveillance, lack of privacy online and outside and who is to be held accountable. Surveillance on the internet seems to be actively participated in and surveillance on the streets appears to be approved because of the notion that it is only there for our safety; to protect us. The cause and effect and this “creeper” culture can be traced back to our own behaviour and frequent failure to read “the fine print.” Albrechtslund explains the extent of what is available to us to see

“This entails an interesting new relation between cyberspace and physical places, which adds to the already extended information infrastructure of Web 2.0. Online social networking sites already give insights into users’ thoughts (blogging software), their likes (social bookmarking services), what music they are listening to (e.g., Last.fm), and the practice of geotagging means sharing information about the whereabouts of the user and, in some cases, the people in the vicinity of the user.”

Despite being an obvious threat, upon deeper analisys, online surveillance cannot be thought of as a larger threat than surveillance "in the real world."  Firstly because they can be thought of so much as 2 separate things-the online world and the "real" world are the same in this circumstance, especially when considering our personal profiles and activity. Secondly because online we do it knowingly: we are participators in the surveillance of others and being under surveillance-and we know it. There is a certain expectance that we have a right to some privacy in our lives. Placing cameras in public spaces might not always be solely in the interest of catching criminals but to keep tabs on what is going on within an area. Just like online, the captured images from these street cameras can be incriminating. The mere fact that we accept being photographed and filmed while going about our everyday activities (online OR outside) makes it seem like we do not value privacy and this is worrisome because where does it stop? Where is an acceptable place to put a camera and where is not? Right now there seems to be no clear rules. There is an idea that surveillance has positive social benefits; we see this in commercials telling us that cameras on the streets will help fight crime.  This constant knowledge of what the other is thinking or doing creates a sort of weird relationship between the cyber world and the physical world.

“When you operate under this watchful eye, your entire life becomes meaningless.”

In John Berger’s novel Ways of Seeing , which can be read online here: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DuEOAAAAQAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA107&dq=how+we+look+at+ones+we+love&ots=XbOAKGHLYT&sig=vpO1vFFxy6I2fo51uKb8RN9SUC0#v=onepage&q&f=false

he explains that “women act, men appear.” What he means by this, and he was writing about past historical periods, was that traditionally men were the dominant viewers, and women acted as they would like to be seen in their eyes. He went on to explain that while men act, women are constantly thinking of how they appear when they act. He uses the example of a weeping woman at her father’s funeral. While she sincerely feels grief for her deceased father, she is thinking about what her weeping looks like to the men she knows are watching her. The way in which we are living now, under this watchful eye, people are no longer acting, they are appearing. Always.

“In public opinion and academia, many people have voiced concern and amazement about the openness, or perhaps thoughtlessness, expressed in the behavior of social networking site’s users. As Jon Callas, chief security officer at the encryption software maker, PGP, puts it: “I am continually shocked and appalled at the details people voluntarily post online about themselves” (quoted in Marks, 2006).”

I’m going to draw on a personal experience. I spent 2 years travelling and one thing I observed in so many people was that when they were at a historical site, a museum, beautiful landscape scenery or out at a party, they were seldom experiencing the moment. People were snapping photos constantly without stopping to look at anything. They were continuously thinking about their Facebook albums and missing the experience, making it meaningless. As soon as I would go into the hostel, I would see everyone lining up for the three computers and immediately uploading their day’s worth of activities for everyone to view and comment on. At the time I found it completely ludicrous but when I returned I observed that this is the norm in our society. People seem to have a need for validation. We are no longer passive lookers. We actively participate in others lives and at the same time give them permission to participate in ours.

We express our concern about being “lurked” and “creeped” but we condone it at the same time. We get what we encourage. There are many complaints about “infotainment” news taking up most of our magazines and newspapers but this is what sells; which means this is what we encourage. This surveillance epidemic cannot fully be blamed on companies and governments but also on us because we show them that it’s ok, we encourage this behaviour.  This raises another issue: accountability. We are now accountable for things we would never be accountable for in the past. There used to be a separation between people’s social, work, education and love life but now these lines are blurred. This allows for disciplinary action for activities happening outside the previous boundaries of these formerly separate entities. Soon it will not only be our university, spouses or bosses punishing us but the government and the law. This is something that should be thought through before submitting any personal information to the web and we should always know what we are getting into i.e. reading the fine print and re-reading the fine-print when the terms of use change (because they frequently do.)

Search 2.0

In Michael Zimmer’s article The Externalities of Search 2.0: The Emerging Privacy Threat when the Drive for the Perfect Search Engine meets Web 2.0, available online here: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2136/1944,

 he explores the search for “the perfect search engine”, one that will organize our results to tailor to the individual performing the search. Although its utility makes a lot of sense, the means of getting this information to create this “perfect search engine” are troubling. By capturing the information that flows across the platforms of Web 2.0, search engines, primarily Google, are able to create personalized, tailored and ideal results when we make a search query online. That said, look how far the search engine has come. I remember when no matter what you tried to search, it could be something as straightforward as “cat breeders”, somehow the search engine would come up with a list of pornography as a result…which was only relevant for a select few people. This will never happen when the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0-we will always get results applicable to us. But kind of like those days, we will now be given our results up front in the way they would like them to be presented, wrapped up with a bow, telling us this is the result we wanted.  Zimmer describes what Web 2.0 is primarily built upon, and how this encourages us to allow our personal information to become public.

“Much of Web 2.0 is based upon – indeed built upon – increased personal information flows online. Inherent in Web 2.0 evangelism is an overall faith in the logic of the networked masses to be vehicle to provide meaning to your otherwise solitary existence – to give up your information to the Web, and allow various services, APIs, and communities capture, process, and mashup your information flows to make them more useful, more social, and more meaningful."

This monitoring of online social and intellectual activities poses a serious threat to our privacy. It reminds me of that saying “there’s no free lunch;” we may get the results we want faster but we’re giving up a lot in return. Zimmer divides his article into three parts: the perfect search, the perfect reach and the perfect recall. He explains that in order for the perfect search engine to function ideally it must have “perfect reach” and “perfect recall.”

“The result is Search 2.0, a powerful Web search information infrastructure that promises to provide more extensive and relevant search results and information management services to users. But not without a price. Inherent in the Search 2.0 infrastructure are two key externalities: one, the deterioration of what I call “privacy via obscurity” of one’s personal information online; and two, the concentrated surveillance, capture, and aggregation of one’s online intellectual and social activities by a single provider.”

This somewhat compromises our freedom. When we are given the results that a search engine presumes we want, we will be more inclined to click on these results rather than do some further research and stumble upon some potentially interesting information in the process of finding our own perfect result. As a result, our intellectual searches and queries become the intellectual searches and queries of the companies and corporations putting certain links forward, furthering the dynamic of us getting all of our information fed to us through the filter of certain groups and individuals. Yes, we benefit from faster, better, tailored results that fit what our likes and interests are-but they benefit from gathering our personal information, and once again, making a profit off of it. With the perfect reach, they will be able to better place the ads of their sponsoring companies so that they are viewed by the best possible market audience, increasing both the company’s sales as well as their revenue from them. With this service, we also get lazy. It encourages us to search incoherently and make decisions based on the results. If we look at this from an ethical perspective with a utilitarian point of view-its utility is not beneficial to the greatest amount of people and therefore this practice is immoral. This is also not for the greater good of society, as it is presented. We may be more inclined to accept all the information we are given since it has been presented to us as the most useful, relevant information available. This is troubling as well since we should always be sceptical of images and information found on the web because of the technology available to alter and change those things-potentially altering and changing our perspective on the world. The things we read and see are powerful-I’m not sure we want someone dictating what we will be seeing and reading.  

Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation

Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation, found here online: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2141/1948, an article written by Soren Mark Peterson, highlights the ways in which corporations can “piggyback” on our labour as well as how they use us as a means to an end in order to sell.  In the introduction of the article, Peterson explains the topics he will be covering.

“The examples in this paper outline two different strategies within the architecture of exploitation that capitalism can benefit from:

1.      Through a distributed architecture of participation, companies can piggyback on user generated content by archiving it and making interfaces, or using other strategies such as Google’s AdSense program.

2.      Designing platforms for user generated content, such as Youtube, Flickr, Myspace and Facebook.”

A valid example of this is in Clay Shirky's video, found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu7ZpWecIS8  he refers to two different platforms (Lolcats and Ushahidi) that were very effective in demonstrating the extremes of what our potential is with "cognitive surplus." He described people as "rational self-maximizing actors"; which probably means that we are largely using our time to add to these platforms in ways that will enhance and add pleasure to our own lives, for our own entertainment and for the entertainment of those viewing and using the same platform. Not to say that this is a bad thing, but the web space could be enhanced by adding more of a different type of value. He emphasized twice in his speech that there is 1 trillion hours a year of participatory value to be added to these platforms and that that time and the participators will only grow. Using this time to put the cognitive surplus into projects with civic value, such as Ushahidi and many other projects that are going on could completely change the way in which we see and talk about the web. Imagine if we could turn the focus from online ads from companies to ads for causes, civic action, political and social awareness....If more of the web's space was taken up by these projects, it would be inevitable that we would see them and read them just as it is inevitable that we read and see product and service advertisements now. This could mean for example that more people would be informed about their government and therefore more inclined to vote, which is huge considering our generation has the lowest number of voters ever.

“The demography of the people I interviewed places them on the left side of the political spectrum; they are at times directly anti–corporate/capitalist in the pictures they upload and their comments. Nonetheless, most of them do not see a problem in having such close ties with a particular company. This can only be explained with reference to the immense joy and pleasure they get out of sharing photos online. The huge amount of work that goes into each personal site is paid back in an affective currency: the joy and significance these sites bring to their users.”

Numerous blogs, for example, are dedicated to anti-establishment causes; but operating on the platforms of the establishment they may just be up against. In our effort to have our voice heard and put out ideas of our own, we essentially pay companies (by generating revenue through advertising and hits to their sites) to submit the fruits of our labour out into the world-and it doesn’t seem to bother the majority of people using these platforms. There is something about interactive sites that ground us to them and make it harder and harder to walk away: the content. If we cannot take all of our hard work with us elsewhere, why would we leave? Even though we’ve put so much in, because we’ve submitted it to this website that is not completely open-source because it does not allow us to take our material, we accept that essentially they own our work and will continue to own our work until we are ready to walk away from it, letting them keep it.

“It is when the technological infrastructure and design of these sites is combined with capitalism that the architecture begins to oscillate between exploitation and participation.”

The commercial face that has been put onto these websites allows us to continue to participate, but threatens exploitation of our work. When I was thinking about Chapter 5 of Vincent Mosco’s book ‘When Old Myths Were New: The Never Ending Story’, I wrote that the myths surrounding web 2.0 are not entirely false, they just highlight the best aspects. This is reinforced in Petersen’s point-the potential we have with the current freedoms we are given allow for change. We literally have the power to inform people enough for them to want to change their vote when deciding what kind of government will run their country. Yet, is this what is going to happen? Although we are aware of these possibilities it seems many of us prefer to spend our time creating our own version of music videos. Not that this isn’t a valid creative outlet; it’s actually quite amazing… but it’s not the limit.

The Pirate’s Dilemna-Ch.3

The 3^rd chapter of Matt Mason’s book The Pirate’s Dilemma covers the history of the remix. Mason raises the question “Is youth reinventing capitalism?” and looks at how appropriation has evolved over time by looking at the remixing of music, film and fashion. He mentions that the music industry, though it generally sees remixing as an infringement of copyright, is in a way being forced to accept it. Is our “cut and paste” culture propelling industries forward or hurting them? By looking back a few years at political movements and messages propelled by music, film and images created by the people, it is clear the remix is not only enhancing the fashion, music, film and art industries but creating a fusion of cultures with common interests that allows these groups that would formerly operate individually to create mass messages and movements collectively. Mason uses the format Star Wars and uses it to write the chapter in order to show us what remixing and reinventing is; which is effective in demonstrating that remixing is not just evident in music. It is the act of taking an idea or concept and building on it to change the message/content. 

For a capitalist society to function ideally, it allows for only a certain number of individuals “make it”. It is these affluent and influent minority groups that have the power to decide what we see, hear and wear (among other things.) The remix is slowly shifting this power between the “powers that be” and the mass population; and therefore may be reinventing a new form of capitalism in our society. Mason quotes Preston Nevins speaking about the abundance of creative outlets we have with today’s technology.

“Being a professional used to be the only way to go. Now that’s just one nice option you can choose. That’s a huge difference that I think is going to inevitably modify the way society structures itself.”

To create music that would reach people beyond your basement or garage was formerly reserved for mainstream record companies and the elite. Now anyone can do it. There are debates about whether using other people’s work is stealing and unoriginal. This again raises the question “who is the author” and really, is there ever just one?

“The past is now public property for us to do with as we see fit. It has been said that ‘history is written by the winners’-but these days, we can all have a shot.” (71)

I stand by the view that no idea is “original” today, in the true sense of that word. Each new idea has evolved from someone else’s, and that is inevitable in art and everything else. For art to evolve it needs a past, present and future and all of its history and development influences each other.

As copyright laws are becoming more lax, and corporate giants are getting lashed back at for punishing remixed art; we need to consider the political and social platforms and implications of our newfound power as citizens.

Personal Connections in the Digital Age-Ch.2

In the second chapter of Nancy Baym’s book Personal Connections in the Digital Age, she introduces the different views people have historically had towards technology which lead to either a utopian or dystopian prediction for our culture. There are four different views she has brought up: technological determinism (technology is the one and only influence on us and society), social construction of technology (it is only us, humans, who shape society and technology), social shaping of technology (we influence each other) and domestication of technology (we get used to it; it becomes banal and gets taken for granted.) If technological determinism is completely valid, then we are not free beings. It's a bit of a depressing thought I think. This would mean that technology determines our every move. Just as people believe in scientific determinism (every cause has an effect) or religious determinism (God knows all, and has a plan for all of us); technological determinism would mean that we have no choice in our actions and that they are completely determined by the effect of technology on us. I do think we have made a free choice in the use of the medium and therefore we have an effect on technology just as much as it has an effect on us.  It is evident that something between social shaping theory and determinism theory is most applicable in our society. Our culture is heavily influenced by technology but we still have the power to choose in which direction it takes. We have taken the materials available to us and appropriated them to fit our needs.This is evident because technology is not used in the same way nor has the same degree of influence in every culture. Technology does not have a universal influence.

We live in a culture that is predominantly driven by technology which means it is incorporated into each of our daily activities, speech, writing and thinking. It is important not to think of it as a separate driver, but as a part of our culture. Still, we are drivers of it just as much as it drives us.   Baym uses the example of people blaming their relationship failures on the internet and concludes with this:

“The social concerns we voice with technology are concerns we would have even if there was no technology around. They are questions of what it means to be truly yourself, to have meaningful relationships with others and to be situated in a world of others who are very different than the people by whom we were raised.” (48)

Can we blame a rise in divorce solely on the facilitation of cheating by the internet? No. Someone who cheats via or as a result of the internet would have cheated regardless of its invention. I guess if we think about what we use to describe and differentiate between different cultures we would talk about language, alphabet, clothing and tools which are all technology; but we would also think about non technology oriented drivers such as religion, ideologies, signs and symbols, ways of thinking, rituals, traditions and so on which are still important influencers as well. I do feel overwhelmed by the boom of technology at every turn and it is right now the biggest influencer of our culture but those other factors of our culture influence it as well; which enforces the idea of technology as “soft determinism.” Influence on our culture flows in both directions from us and technology in the sense that we live in a society that takes what we are given and make it our own. If we only think of technology as the sole driver of our society we are in a sense throwing up our hands and handing over our freedom to corporations, government and the machines they generate. Is that something you want to do? 

T.M.I (Too Much Information)

It seems as though new forms of communication, especially social media and portable communication devices, force us to re-evaluate what a friend is. Traditionally a friend was someone to confide in, someone who will listen to your problems and offer advice, someone you would want to hang out with one-on-one without any other distractions and someone that would do the same for you, among other things. Social dynamics seem to have changed, such that now, people are literally posting their problems online, open for discussion and feedback from any of their 500 Facebook friends. People are writing down personal experiences and posting them online for the world to see, interpret and comment on. They are posting photos of events (no matter how boring, traumatic or embarrassing) that in the past may have only been shared with very VERY close friends for a laugh, cringe or cry. These are now on display for judgement or comment (hopefully a laugh or a compliment!)

“Digital media are becoming increasingly mobile as the internet and mobile phone converge into single devices, meaning that these technologies make communication possible in places where it wasn’t before, but also that they can intrude into face to face conversations where they never could before.” (Baym, Nancy. Personal Connections in the Digital Age, p. 12.)

People talking on their cell phones in public areas are laughing, crying and screaming out loud for all those within ear shot and are still somewhat under the illusion that the conversation is ‘private’ because they are talking into a device that is connected to one other person. As if we can’t all hear you...I have actually seen Facebook statuses asking ‘Has anyone tried ecstasy? Should I do it tonight?’ or ‘don’t know if I should have sex with this new guy or not...such a dilemma!!’ A 2009 study shows our desire as humans to communicate. Given the opportunity, we will talk. Or write. Or Tweet.

“Electronic messages are frequently portrayed as vacuous. A 2009 study by market research firm Pear Analytics, for instance, created a category called ‘pointless babble’ into which they placed 40 percent of Twitter messages, echoing oft-heard complaints that mobile phones lead to empty conversation, sustained for the sake of interacting even when we have nothing to say.” (Baym, Nancy. Personal Connections in the Digital Age, p. 30.)

Does the mobility of communication prompt us to share a constant stream of every thought? People are raising discussions on Facebook over what meds they have been prescribed from their shrinks and what kinds of guys or girls they like to have sex with. Wasn’t this the kind of stuff we used to talk about with close friends?  In private? It seems that there has been a lowering of standards for what it takes to be considered a friend worthy of knowing everything going on in your life. Tweets become reiterations of people’s days; from their morning shower to the exciting act of brushing their teeth at night. I’m not sure whether it’s the use of mobile communication devices that causes this or if it is simply something we do as humans beings and there is just additional outlets for it now, causing us to blame it for our self-obsession. Maybe we just have a drive to communicate and will use anything available to us to do so. 

Personal Connections in the Digital Age-Ch.1

Nancy Baym’s book Personal Connections in the Digital Age discusses the effects of the different aspects of communication technology on our lives. The first chapter gives an overview of the main arguments presented in the book such as: who uses the internet, what is its effect on us and what are the specific capabilities of particular forms of communication and how these change the way we connect with people.

 So...we now have multifaceted personalities. Is this ‘online persona’ we all assume just breeding an entire society with Dissociative Identity Disorder? It seems all these means of communication can confuse our perception and understanding of ourselves. These questions are raised in the chapter in a broader sense: What does it mean to be me anymore?

“How can we be present yet also absent? What is a self if it is not in a body? How can we have so much control yet lose so much freedom?” (3)

Can we really think of our online selves and our ‘real selves’ as different people? I say no. They are essentially the same and will undoubtedly have consequences on each other. Evolving forms of communications are changing the way in which we relate to others in the sense that we almost have no choice in communicating as people can communicate with us without us even knowing (voicemail, email, writing on our Facebook wall...). Your real self will eventually have to respond to all the communicating your online self has been a part of. Times have changed. We used to be able to shut out the world when we were alone, and now we can never really shut off anymore. We can...but we don’t seem to want to. We are now held accountable for things that we couldn’t possibly be held accountable for in the past. As Baym mentions in her book, when people use asynchronous communication through technology (emails, voicemail...) they are held accountable if they do not respond because it is something permanent, unlike face-to-face communication. If someone leaves you a voicemail about a work emergency you will be held accountable when you do not return it. In the past, one could just make themselves ‘unreachable’ and therefore unaccountable.  The invention of portable communication technology has changed the way we relate to others because it makes us constantly available to relate. However, although we are able to take all of our hundred of ‘friends’ around in our pockets, along with all our music, games and videos, I am not sure we can blame internet for procrastination or lack of attention. As Baym mentions in the conclusion of the book, there are factors that can affect how much someone will gain from internet usage such as socio-economic status, geographical location, education, age and gender.

“As adapters or non-adapters, throughout history, we come to media with social agendas, social commitments, and deeply ingrained social practices that are largely replicated and enacted through new technologies.” (153)

Maybe it is true that the next generations will have a different kind of intelligence, but procrastination has always existed in many forms and if people are not interested in something, they will always find a way to distract themselves. Saying that people having a different kind of intelligence is a negative thing makes no sense. Of course humans today have a different kind of intelligence than the philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome, but that makes neither of us stupider than the other.  People have always been looking for a short cut or the easiest and fastest way to do something. Portable technology just makes certain tasks that much more efficient. It is this efficiency, profit and ability to promote ourselves (look how great I am) that may be stopping us from being able to step back from it all, if only momentarily to self-reflect and understand what are the boundaries and capabilities of new media and how they affect our relationships. Young people’s tendency to favour technology to reality is criticized because when used for social use, people are neglecting academia in favour for what they think is relevant to them today. It seems as though books, research, reading and academic pursuit will no longer be relevant in the future and that intelligence will be replaced by short attention spans and minds filled with images, advertisements and celebrity gossip only. I don’t think this is our fate. As Baym puts it “the people have the power.” 

You can find the entire text online in PDF form here: http://www.tvo.org/theagenda/resources/pdf/2010-04-26_BAYMexcerpt.pdf

Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On

After reading the article Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194, I can say that I have a better understanding of what the term Web 2.0 means as well as a basic idea as to where it is predicted to go in the future. The way in which the article was written, by explaining how it came about, where it is now and where it is going was very useful in introducing me, or I should say re-introducing me, formally, to the concept of Web 2.0, a term created by the authors of this article in order to explain today’s Web capabilities.

            The Web has become a regular household member, a friend, a colleague, a business partner that enables us to enhance almost everything we are mentally capable of doing as human beings. Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle describe Web 2.0 as a newborn baby learning how to use its senses. From this analogy, we can understand that the Web has not nearly hit its full potential but is just beginning to grow up. I am critical of this notion that the Web seems to be growing up without us and ‘could leave us behind’ and would rather say that to actively participate in our society, a technological culture moving forward, we do have to at least understand its current applications and foresee where the Web is going. We have to recognize its power, appreciate what it can do for us but beware of the implications and costs.

We are no longer describing it as a service that is available to us, but as O’Reilly and Battelle put it, a platform that we contribute to, help grow and share with other people.

“Chief among our insights was that "the network as platform" means far more than just offering old applications via the network ("software as a service"); it means building applications that literally get better the more people use them, harnessing network effects not only to acquire users, but also to learn from them and build on their contributions”

There has seemingly never been a better platform to practice our right of freedom of speech (as always, with limitations.) It gives us as ‘audiences’ as we were previously considered, the power to put our own advertisements out there, create art that people can appreciate on a large scale and even start political movements. Media giants, governments and massive companies are not the only mass communicators anymore...

Web 2.0 goes hand in hand with Roland Barthes’ Death of the Author http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm in which he wrote that meaning is only what the reader makes it. Regardless of the author’s intentions, a text will be interpreted in so many different ways depending on the socio-economic, historical, cultural background of who is interpreting it. Today, we are seeing and reading content on the web, but we as the readers and viewers become the authors as we interpret what we see, comment on it and even rewrite is as our own interpretation of its meaning.

On the other hand, I wonder, are these applications creating a generation that is perhaps a bit full of themselves? Are we taking this freedom to express our ideas a little bit too far; where it is no longer knowledge and ideas that we share but meaningless jabber about our personal lives...and where does it stop?