Where to go Next?

After all this discussion of web 2.0 we have finally come to the question of, is the web dead? This would seem like an odd question after contemplating so many issues surrounding Web 2.0. Yet after reading the article, "The Web is dead. Long Live the Internet" by Chris Anderson, and Michael Wolff, it is the perfect question. I like this article because it gives two sides of the story, one blaming us for why the web is dead, and one blaming them.

"HTML data delivered via the http protocol on port 80 — accounts for less than a quarter of the traffic on the Internet … and it’s shrinking." I found this quote stunning. With all the talk of Web 2.0, when you see this it’s very interesting. People using the web only account for a quarter of the people in total. This means that many more people are only using the internet as a way of transportation and not for the browser itself. Many people are in closed gardens.  "A technology is invented, it spreads, and a thousand flowers bloom, and then someone finds a way to own it, locking out others. It happens every time." This quote is also very interesting because it describes any new technology at its beginnings. This does not exclude Web 2.0. It then questions web 2.0 itself. The way people use the internet is always changing, so will web 2.0 changes to try to capture these closed garden areas.

"We stare at the spinning buffering disks on our YouTube videos rather than accept the Faustian bargain of some Comcast/Google QoS bandwidth deal that we would invariably end up paying more for." It all comes back to Capitalism. This quote is perfect. We would much rather save money and wait half an hour to watch a five minute video than pay for a browser service that is fast and reliable. We try to save money, they try to make money. This is of course human preference. This may be changing though. It seems now like we want service over a free web. The web is not dead; we just need to see the difference between the web and the net. Every time you use an app, you are voting for quality instead of something that is free.

Piracy is Good!

The case of piracy comes alive once again, through the readings of Matt Mason. Chapter 2 and the outro of the pirates Dilemma make it all clear. Matt Mason makes the point that Piracy is a good thing rather than a bad thing. He gives the example of an offshore World War Two platform that was turned into a country. It was pirated. What I found interesting is that America is thought of as a founding country of Piracy. "The Founding Fathers pursued a policy of counterfeiting European inventions, ignoring global patents, and stealing intellectual property wholesale." (Mason 36) This is interesting to me because the United States is now one of the countries that fully try to remove piracy in all forms. The question I would like to ask here is does the United States of America truly know where they come from? I ask this because to know where you’re going you have to know where you came from.

Through these readings I have begun to fully understand why Piracy is so important. It’s a circle that is created when the system of capitalism creates things, and tries to protect them, and then these efforts to protect these things are fully undermined by Pirates. When these pirates do this it creates new markets. "Traditionally society has cut these pirates some slack and accepted that they were adding value to our lives, compromises were reached and enshrined in law, and as a result new industry boomed." (Mason 37). Pirates are always creating new markets because of the "red tape" that otherwise stops them.

We cannot forget though that Piracy has not always been an easy task. "Thanks to advances in technology, people everywhere are running rings around censors and regulators." (Mason 38). I have quoted Mason because before only a select few people could be pirates, but now with the help of web 2.0 is has opened vast amounts of people to the world of piracy. Since we have web 2.0 helping us tremendously with becoming pirates this brings me to a question. If Piracy is a good thing because it opens up new markets and completes the circle, and is as Mason describes "The backbone of public domain" doesn't that mean that Web 2.0 is needed for the advancement of our markets?

The main point made by Mason in these readings is that Piracy completes a vital circle in our economy. It creates new markets that would otherwise be unavailable because of restrictions. Radio, television, and music have all been housing for piracy. It makes the industry stronger because it is always coming up with new ways to get around the pirates, and avoid piracy. In conclusion, Piracy is good!

Privacy Lost

"Unintended consequence of the increased flow of personal information across Web 2.0 infrastructures" (Zimmer) Web 2.0 is big, we know that. It's not only big, but it's smart. I have read the article entitled The Externalities of Search 2.0: The Emerging Privacy Threats When the Drive for the Perfect Search Engine Meets Web 2.0 by Michael Zimmer. It shed some light on what we all fear but may not know we fear on the internet. One of the most used internet sites to date is of course, Google. The huge mega structure search engine of the internet. Google is at the top because Google has the perfect reach and the perfect recall, making it the perfect search engine. The problem that lies within is the reach. The reach is "the desire of search engine providers to obtain perfect recall of each individual searcher, allowing the personalization of both services and advertising."(Zimmer). This is scary because everything you ever search on Google will be held as a sort of evidence or record to what you have searched. It just doesn't stop there though, these records are then freely used to get advertising, or if the government asks for them, they can be given. "The primary means for search engines to obtain perfect recall is to monitor and track users’ search habits and history." (Zimmer). This is very scary to me. You don't get a say in whether they track your searches or not, they just do. They are collecting personal information about you whether you like it or not. They can use it anywhere they like. As you log on and contribute to Facebook and Twitter, you also contribute to your personal information flow which is then circulated around the web.

"The notion of “Googling” someone has become common practice." (Zimmer). This quote proves my point. There is so much personalized information flow on the web that "Googling" someone’s name is very common. Basically this influx of information causes one to lose his or hers own privacy, and they can now be tracked and watched. No longer does someone just drift away. You leave a trail, and it's no one's fault but yours. You did it! This invasion can be looked at as a positive sharing, but when do we draw the line? An article by Anders Alberchtslund describes it perfectly, "Online social networking can have a touch of private communication to it due to its situational and mundane character, but mediated publics are obviously not private."(Alberchtslund).

Piggybacking Web 2.0

Nobody wants to be used. It just something that shouldn't happen in this world we live in today, yet it does. We want to be recognized for the work we do, and the time we take to do it. This work can be just for laughs, or for a friend to look at or for whatever reason, but if this work is wanted elsewhere, and is wanted to be used for profit, we would like to be recognized. The problem with Web 2.0 today is that it creates a free world of commerce. A world where it "has become evident how this same infrastructure also enables companies easily to piggyback on user generated content." (Peterson). This quote is from an article written by Peterson in an online journal called First Monday. Peterson states that "It also becomes evident that the design and programming languages used within Web 2.0 software enables a kind of use practice where content is moved across different platforms and Web sites. This is the main reason for always approaching Web 2.0 as a relational technology, so we do not blindfold ourselves from the positive and negative effects these technologies can have."(Peterson). What this means is that by looking at Web 2.0 as relations between two or more people or companies or whatever it may be, we can try to avoid companies piggybacking us and exploiting us for our user generated content. Web 2.0 is very big, and by looking at it this way, we can see if we are being used or not. Peterson describes the Web 2.0 movement as "liberating and democratic" (Peterson). I think that’s why there is so much user generated content on the web. It's because Web 2.0 seems like such a free and wonderful place to do fun things. What we don't notice is that there is always capitalism waiting in the bushes.

I would also like to discuss a perfect example of user generated content being used now for profit. Google took over part of Usenet. Usenet was a sort of Wikipedia of information, all put there freely by users of Web 2.0. Once Google bought part of Usenet, all that information was now being used by a company for profit. There was no return for the users from Google. I don't think this is right at all. It's interesting that with all the rules on copyright that the people who do all this work have no protection from companies like Google.

The biggest internet scam that any of us have seen up to this date would be the use of Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. We all do 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."(Peterson). These sites are disguised with a very nice and user friendly interface that attracts users, and once the user is on, it is uses user generated content to make profit. It's like a lobster trap, once you're in, there is no of way getting out. Then we are brought to the surface and sold at a fancy dining spot for high profit. The system is simple, yet we still fail to realize.

Capitalism Beyond View

I have read an article by a man named Trebol Sholzs. This article is titled “Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0”. "Authority in the Web 2.0 world is introduced through property and the availability of the means of production."(Sholzs). This quote really picks at my brain. It bothers me because many people praise Web 2.0 as being a place of freedom. Somewhere you can escape capitalism and indulge in a sort of free world. As I have come to learn in life, nothing is free. You pay no matter what. Free is just a word without meaning. I say this because web 2.0 is used as a platform. The more people contribute the better it gets. The thing is it’s used mainly for capitalism. It seems free, but really it's “...using the masses of Internet gift–givers as a global pool of cut–rate labour.”(Referenced from Sholz). What the capitalist want to do is make it seem like it’s free so it doesn't make people feel bad, but really it’s making money.

"Many of the changes described under the umbrella of Web 2.0 have been incremental, not sudden."(Referenced from Sholzs). This quote takes us back again to the idea of the myths of new technology. We see at the time and would like to think that this new technology is going to revolutionize things, but when looked at in foresight we realize that the changes were just incremental. It takes time for these things to take hold. Just like electricity, the phone, and the telegraph.

"Web technologies that deserve to be celebrated, the Web 2.0 concept itself merely boxes current phenomena to launch them as a brand." (Referenced from Sholz). This is exactly how web 2.0 fits perfectly into the capitalist formula. It takes the technologies of Web 2.0, and brands them, allowing web 2.0 to make money, while making no actual changes to the technology itself. It simply puts a name on the technologies.

In conclusion, the web is capitalism, and capitalism in now the web. Capitalism has taken over the web. It uses us for free labour while making money of us. It makes us oblivious to the fact that the web is not a free land. The way it's put together is made for us to see it that way. What one may come to see is that Capitalism is always hiding around the next corner. Always one step ahead.

Summarizing Thus Far

I have learned a lot about Web 2.0 and its powers and consequences. It's amazing what we have created and how we have incorporated it right into our everyday lives. It seems like we have become totally blind to the power behind web 2.0, and how we are becoming more and more dependent on it. Leaving any data about you leaves this information shadow. We do it every day by signing up for accounts either on Facebook or twitter or somewhere else on the web. This information is no longer private. It is sent anywhere. It's almost like you lose apart of yourself to the web.

I am really starting to agree with the theory of "The machine is us and we are the machine". I find that there is a lot of power in this statement. We have the power to change web 2.0 if we don't like the direction or path it's taking. There is another side to the equation though. The web can change us, and it has. Very few people in this generation read. Almost anything you need to know, you could find it with a simple search on the web. It's all there. Everything is given to us. I believe this does dumb us down. It's not all bad though. Web 2.0 has broken boundaries that have never been broken before. The reach of Web 2.0 is amazing. No other invention in its time has done this. We can reach anyone instantaneously with the touch of a button. It's blurring boundaries.

Web 2.0 has given so much. The remix culture has been expanded beyond imagination. It has given us power that we could have never dreamed of with things like the telephone. Through reading Nancy Baym's book and Matt Mason’s book, you begin to better understand our relation with this machine that we have nursed into something far more powerful than maybe we would like it to be. Only time will tell what we will do with this machine, and what ways we will use it in the future.

The Remix and Beyond

The remix is really something. It’s described as "historical concepts mashed up and served as something new." (Mason 71). This is interesting because some may not call this original work, and there have been many a lawsuit over this matter, especially in music. After reading, I have come to really love the story behind the remix, as it’s very musical. I'm very musical, so it's very easy for me to relate.

The remix has a lot of issues surrounding it. Many people do not believe it’s original. The way I see it is everything is a remix. All original ideas are remixing’s in some way or another. It may not be very noticeable but there is an idea somewhere that is taken from another. I can relate to this because, I do play music, and when I'm looking to come up with a new bass line, I look for something that is inspiring, and maybe take that idea and change it for myself into something that is mine, and works for me. The idea still comes from that original one. I would call that a remix. It happens all the time in music. People take original scores, and play them backwards, translate the notes up an octave and so on. I would consider this a remix also.

What’s also very interesting is how Web 2.0 offers this massive connection and toolbox to be able to remix. With Web 2.0 anything is available for remix. I think this is a good thing. I believe this because it opens our creativity to a whole new spectrum of things. Not only can we remix music, but now we can remix video, photos, film, and the list goes on. We no longer need a system that was only available in studios. We can do this right from the comfort of home.

Technological Determinism

After reading through chapter two of Nancy Baym's Personal Connections in the Digital Age, there are two things she discusses. One is the technological deterministic view of the internet, and the social construction of technology theory. The deterministic view is decribed as "...especially when technologies are new, to view them as casual agents, enetering societies as active forces of change that humans have little power to resists." (Baym 24). The social construction theory is described as " people are the primary source of change in both thechnology and society" (Baym 24). I don't know if I agree so much with the deterministic view, because going back to the theory that we are the machine, and the machine is us, we obviously have the power to change both us and our technology.


I came across a very interesting quote, "Sodoku also stretched the working memory, as did keeping up with friends on Facebook, but the "instant" nature of texting, Twitter, and Youtube, was not healthy for the working memory."(Tracy Alloway). I found this interesting because I view Twitter and Facebook as basically doing the same thing, and providing the same service for us. It's a way to connect to friends and family, so I'm not really sure how Facebook can be good for your mind, and Twitter can't. They are both very instant, so this raises a question in my mind. Something that struck me was that Socrates "decried that the invention of the alphabet and writing was a threat to the oral tradition of Greece"(Baym 25) He made the point that no one will really be using their minds. They will just be reading and not having to remeber what they need to remeber. I think the same thing may be happening to us. We have become so dependant on learning things and looking at things on the internet that maybe we have forgotten how to learn and read, and have to work through some things before we get that instant gratification.


If technology really is so powerful that we have very little control over what it does to us, is there any way to stop that? There is a quote in the Baym reading, "If negative outcomes can be traced to technological causes, then they can be eliminated with better technology." (Baym 27). I think what this quote means is that if the theory of social determinism is true, we have to change our technology with more technology. Right now the only way to avoid the influence of technology is to avoid technoogy all together. How is that possible in such a technology heavy, and dependant world? It isn't. What we have to do is come up with technology that helps yes, yet doesn't hurt us.

The Boundaries and Beyond

It's amazing what boundaries are broken in terms of the new technology we use to interact with one another, such as Web 2.0. Even as I type this blog now and post it, it is already breaking boundaries that could have never been broken before. The "reach" of my audience, which is one of the 7 key concepts mentioned in the Baym reading, could have never been as big before. I read through some interesting readings, Chapter 1 of Personal Connection in the digital age and an article in the New York Times, called Growing up Digitally, Wired for Distraction. Both of these readings talk about the boundaries and effects of new technology just like Web 2.0.

I came across a question in the Baym reading, "If someone is nurturing face to face, aggressive in an online forum, and needy in another online forum, which is real? Is there such a thing as a true self anymore? Was there ever?"(Baym 3) I would like to answer this, and give my opinion. I believe that there is a true self. With these new mediums of connection I just believe it comes out differently. We do not just have one emotion, we are not programmed to feel and show just one emotion. So I think it is perfectly normal for someone to be aggressive somewhere, and be needy somewhere else. It's on a new medium so it’s harder to read. There was always a true self, and there still is. What is interesting is that this new form of communication blurs so many boundaries. Baym talks about this, "Asynchronous email may be sent and received so rapidly that it functions as a synchronous mode of communication." Web 2.0 totally erases the boundaries of time and space. The telephone did the same thing, but it has always been synchronous. Web 2.0 had both but is now blurring the lines between them. What’s also interesting is that asynchronous communications are no longer slowed by the time messages are sent in transit, but by the time it takes for a person to read and respond.

Web 2.0 blurs boundaries again because unlike any form of communication before it "Many forms of digital communication can be seen by any internet users or can be sent and thanks to storage and replicability, resent to enormous audiences." (Baym 10) Voicemail just doesn't have those capabilities. What else amazes me is how fast these boundaries are blurred. The 1990's were when the internet was just becoming public, and now look how far we have come. In the Baym reading it also shows that the internet hasn't spread everywhere and in places like Africa it is much more useful to send texts on a mobile phone. This I found interesting because we need to remember that the internet is not the same everywhere, and does not have the same effects.

While reading the New York Times article I came across something. "Social butterflies tend to be heavy texters and Facebook users. Students who are less social might escape into games, while drifters or those prone to procrastination, like Vishal, might surf the Web or watch videos." This is interesting because just as we have niches offline, we again fit into niches online. This is just another example of how web 2.0 has moulded perfectly into our lives without us even knowing.

The Myths Before and Beyond Web 2.0

The telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the television, they are all forms of communication. What are very interesting are the myths that surround these mediums. After reading through both, Digital sublime: myth, power and cyberspace-When old myths were new by Mosco, V. and the conclusion to Personal Connection in the Digital Age by Nancy Baym, I have come to better understand what Web 2.0 is and how it works.

There were a few things that I found interesting in these articles. First off in the Digital sublime article, it talks about how all these previous technologies have had the myths about how they will "end all". After reading this, a question arose in my head. When we look at Web 2.0, it encompasses all of the former mediums listed above. You can achieve telephone communications, radio, and television all on this one medium. Does that mean that all these former myths that were attached to these technologies arise again? So could Web 2.0 really end it all? I stumbled upon a quote in the Mosco V. article that is interesting, "Put simply, we want to believe that our era is unique in transforming the world, as we have known it." (Mosco V.) I think Web 2.0 truly has transformed our world. I believe this mainly because no other medium has encompassed all the other mediums that have come before it. Web 2.0 has accomplished this. It changes everything. It's all right there in one form, access to all sorts of communication technologies.

I found something very interesting in the Nancy Baym reading. "By being conscientious and aware of what media offer, what choices we make with them, and what consequences those choices have for us, we can intervene in and influence the process of norm development in our own relationships, our peer and familial groups, and our cultures"(Nancy Baym, Pg. 155). What I get from this quote is that even though Web 2.0 is sometimes looked upon as an evil creature or a machine, it has its positive points. It is said that Web 2.0 is the machine, and Web 2.0 is us, so we are the machine. This is interesting because after reading this quote and if you accept that we are the machine, it would seem to me that Web 2.0 is only a learning tool. Something we can use to help learn about ourselves. Through using the web we learn about how we can make our culture, families, our own relationships, better than they were before.

Grappling Web 2.0

What I'm doing right now is contributing to Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is described by Tim O'Rielly and John Battelle as "an aura of data which, when captured and processed intelligently, offers extraordinary opportunity and mind bending implications." After reading these two articles I have come to believe is that web 2.0 is a child, but unlike a regular child where it would have one or two parents, this child has millions of parents, all contributing to its growth and learning. The smarter we get, the smarter the web gets. There is a belief that Web 2.0 is growing faster and becoming smarter than us. I do not believe this. I think Web 2.0 will grow faster than us because it has so many "parents" feeding it knowledge, but I think Web 2.0 is dependent on us. Without us, Web 2.0 does not receive data or gateways to connect information, thus it does not grow. On the other hand, as the years go by, I am a firm believer that we are becoming more dependent on the web. Crowdsourcing, which is described by John Battelle and Tim O'Rielly as "a large group of people that can create a collective work whose value far exceeds that provided by any of the individual participants." makes the internet so much easier to look up the information and acquire the things we need, that we become dependent on it. Wikipedia or eBay are perfect examples of this.

Everyone leaves a bit of information on the web, which is called an "information shadow". This is one of the ways how Web 2.0 grows. I think this is scary since the web is so global. You must read between the lines to actually realize what you’re sacrificing when uploading information to Facebook or Twitter. I think that's scary. I think you give away a bit of your soul and identity when using these sites. Nothing is free in this world.

The article by John Battelle and Tim O'Rielly seems to take a more positive spin on the idea of Web 2.0 saying that’s it’s a platform that people should use and are already using to create a "better world". It seems like they want us to embrace Web 2.0 and use it to our fullest advantage. In the article by Zimmer, he addresses Web 2.0 in a negative way. He wants us to view the consequences of leaving information on the web, and wants us to remember that our identities can be lost on the web because of "a blurring of the boundaries between Web users and producers, consumption and participation, authority and amateurism, play and work, data and the network, reality and vitality." My personal view according to web 2.0 is a minimalist view. I agree with the Zimmer article, and believe that the consequences are very real, and dangerous to us. I think we should get back to basics and start discovering things for ourselves.