my responses to a linkedin q and ongoing correspondence
I answered a very thought-provoking question regarding the way social networking/web 2.0 impacts our communication and even identities. I thought I'd post it on LJ and see what you guys think.
First response-
I've always had an issue with the term web 2.0, since it's not as much about the web changing as the way we use it is changing. The recent explosion of social networking online is just another instance of communication media influencing and being influenced by communication.
The Internet has, since its inception, allowed networks to form in the ether of cyberspace, across boundaries political, ethnic, sexual, and otherwise. The concept of the "other" is a very prevalent one in anthropological thought as it governs a large part of identity on the personal level as well as essentially all perceived community membership (family, ethnicity, nationality, soccer club following, whatnot).
The limited (and varying) aspect of anonymity provided by the internet mitigates a lot of these attributes in some cases and completely removes them in others. For example, the concept of racism is a touchy one, but studies have shown subconscious ethnic prejudice in many people (google "subconscious racism" in their scholarly search feature). By removing geography and prejudice we establish a "melting pot" of communication/ideas that is arguably more so than the traditional usage of the term.
"Social media" at its core amounts to another gimmick in the grand scheme of electronic communication. This is not to disparage it or deny its myriad benefits, but it serves essentially as a facilitator of communication on the same kind of technology that's been around since the late 70's, when computer enthusiasts dialed into "bulletin board systems" (BBS). When AOL first started up as an internet service provider, nobody had any conception of instant messaging, but now internet abbreviations such as ROFL (rolling on floor laughing) are making their way into advertisements for big-name firms.
My apologies if this seems a bit disjointed, but there is way more to say on this than the medium of LinkedIn allows. Excellent question, and I look forward to reading the other responses.
Second response (to the original asker's reply to my first response)-
I think that the cyberspace frontier is going to display characteristics of many previous frontiers, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find parallels to the advent of cinema, telephone, television, telegraph, or even the Western US during the 19th century. For example, the landscape is remarkably different in many ways, such as regulation. 15 years ago there were no laws against preventing children under 13 from signing up for sites, and there was essentially nothing preventing child pornography from spreading, whereas now there is a large amount of legislation (in the US at least) in place to help protect children on the Web and lock up the bad guys.
On the other side, there is a much larger propensity for criminal and/or unethical forces to violate privacy, either through enabling/participating in identity theft or forming invasive profiles of online activity/spending habits.
The remarkable thing though is that the net is a continuously revitalizing frontier. Filesharing services such as Napster turned the RIAA and the music business on its head (and later the MPAA and movies) years after online denizenship became popular. In 2004 and our most recent election, we've seen the internet as tool for political action explode as well.
I think the most important thing is that everyone currently connected (which seems to be the vast majority of the developed world) constantly evaluates their relationship to the various media that affect them and allow them to contribute to the world. If we lose sight of that, we lose sight of ourselves. One example is, in fact, the hype around social networking. A lot of it is incredibly overblown because we look at this capability and see what we want it to be (i.e. a powerful tool that will get us in contact with all the people we want to talk to regarding a job/business deal/etc). In this, people often overlook the practical limitations as well as the ethical/moral ones. I'll leave it at that or I'll never get home tonight! I hope this has helped. Be sure to choose a best answer when you're ready to close the question. Again, thanks for asking it, this is a topic I feel very passionate about.
-TWB
First response-
I've always had an issue with the term web 2.0, since it's not as much about the web changing as the way we use it is changing. The recent explosion of social networking online is just another instance of communication media influencing and being influenced by communication.
The Internet has, since its inception, allowed networks to form in the ether of cyberspace, across boundaries political, ethnic, sexual, and otherwise. The concept of the "other" is a very prevalent one in anthropological thought as it governs a large part of identity on the personal level as well as essentially all perceived community membership (family, ethnicity, nationality, soccer club following, whatnot).
The limited (and varying) aspect of anonymity provided by the internet mitigates a lot of these attributes in some cases and completely removes them in others. For example, the concept of racism is a touchy one, but studies have shown subconscious ethnic prejudice in many people (google "subconscious racism" in their scholarly search feature). By removing geography and prejudice we establish a "melting pot" of communication/ideas that is arguably more so than the traditional usage of the term.
"Social media" at its core amounts to another gimmick in the grand scheme of electronic communication. This is not to disparage it or deny its myriad benefits, but it serves essentially as a facilitator of communication on the same kind of technology that's been around since the late 70's, when computer enthusiasts dialed into "bulletin board systems" (BBS). When AOL first started up as an internet service provider, nobody had any conception of instant messaging, but now internet abbreviations such as ROFL (rolling on floor laughing) are making their way into advertisements for big-name firms.
My apologies if this seems a bit disjointed, but there is way more to say on this than the medium of LinkedIn allows. Excellent question, and I look forward to reading the other responses.
Second response (to the original asker's reply to my first response)-
I think that the cyberspace frontier is going to display characteristics of many previous frontiers, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find parallels to the advent of cinema, telephone, television, telegraph, or even the Western US during the 19th century. For example, the landscape is remarkably different in many ways, such as regulation. 15 years ago there were no laws against preventing children under 13 from signing up for sites, and there was essentially nothing preventing child pornography from spreading, whereas now there is a large amount of legislation (in the US at least) in place to help protect children on the Web and lock up the bad guys.
On the other side, there is a much larger propensity for criminal and/or unethical forces to violate privacy, either through enabling/participating in identity theft or forming invasive profiles of online activity/spending habits.
The remarkable thing though is that the net is a continuously revitalizing frontier. Filesharing services such as Napster turned the RIAA and the music business on its head (and later the MPAA and movies) years after online denizenship became popular. In 2004 and our most recent election, we've seen the internet as tool for political action explode as well.
I think the most important thing is that everyone currently connected (which seems to be the vast majority of the developed world) constantly evaluates their relationship to the various media that affect them and allow them to contribute to the world. If we lose sight of that, we lose sight of ourselves. One example is, in fact, the hype around social networking. A lot of it is incredibly overblown because we look at this capability and see what we want it to be (i.e. a powerful tool that will get us in contact with all the people we want to talk to regarding a job/business deal/etc). In this, people often overlook the practical limitations as well as the ethical/moral ones. I'll leave it at that or I'll never get home tonight! I hope this has helped. Be sure to choose a best answer when you're ready to close the question. Again, thanks for asking it, this is a topic I feel very passionate about.
-TWB