2.0 on 2.0

In this video, Charlie, a Youtube vlog-star, demonstrates some examples of Web 2.0. He shows content that his fans have posted elsewhere on the Internet and expresses his concern about some of the unnerving content. As a contributer to the Web 2.0 phenomena himself, he admits that it is partly his fault that some of the content even exists on the Internet. 

Let's Share!

A reflection on Matt Mason’s chapter “Boundaries” in The Pirate’s Dilemma (2008)

Since we were very young, we’ve always been taught that sharing plays an important role in life. Whether it helps to make friends in kindergarten or contributes to a greater cause, sharing has become very natural to a great deal of people. Throughout this blog, I have discussed Web 2.0 ideas like remixing, social networking, pirating and user-generated content that all involve a component of sharing over the Web. Another opportunity to share online that has not yet been covered is open-source software.

In The Pirate’s Dilemma Matt Mason gives a really clear explanation of what open source software entails: "The idea behind open-source software is to let others copy, share, change, and redistribute your software, as long as they agree to do the same with the new software they create in the process" (147). Open-source software is essentially the rebel action against proprietary software, which is only available to people if they pay, and even then, they may only use the software and cannot copy and change it.

Based on my previous entries dealing with young people sharing personal information online, it can be said that this generation in itself is extremely open. Various media, including blogging sites like this one, have been introduced in the last twenty years that allow people with ideas to express themselves openly over the Web. The same frame of mind is behind our open-source future. “Open-source systems work like the youth cultures that dreamed them up, open environments that can infect people with the passion of those who built them and become self-perpetuating, growing sustainably and often substantially” (167).

A great deal of independent learning is involved for those who choose to explore the open-source data. Often, people who experiment with the software on their own time soon become both creators and collaborators in the field. This involvement not only benefits the individual, but also the software and essentially, the massive community of users. Due to its major role in shaping the Web 2.0 phenomena, open-source has allowed the boundaries between users and producers to dissolve significantly.

For major corporations like Microsoft and Apple, open-source software is a competitor and a threat to their proprietary enterprises. However, Mason argues that “open-source isn’t going to end free enterprise on a global scale, it’s going to make it fair (170). Is that not what Web 2.0 is supposed to be about?

Many people, including Mason, believe that the open-source mentality will dominate all types of industries. As a matter of fact, with more and more people supporting remix culture, the media is already heading in this direction. Moreover, software companies could look to the world of fashion to see successes made completely from the open-source, copyright-free industry. Like clothing, software is a utilitarian product, and it is only a matter of time before open-source is demanded by the public. Until then, innovators will continue to share, improve and redistribute open-source to draw people away from using the proprietary opponents. 

Pirates of the Internet: Curse of the Free World

A reflection on Matt Mason’s chapter “The Tao of Pirates” in his book The Pirate’s Dilemma (2008)

“A pirate is essentially anyone who broadcasts or copies someone else’s creative property without paying for it or obtaining permission” (Mason 36). From Matt Mason’s definition, it is clear that modern piracy has to do with distribution of information rather than the pillaging of drunken ne’er do wells out at sea. Although, at one time, the disc jockeys behind pirate radio took to the sea for refuge of government and corporate control, the World Wide Web drives today’s media piracy.

Before reading Matt Mason’s chapter “The Tao of Pirates”, I had never really associated the ideas of web piracy today with the ideas behind pirate radio. Mason explains pirate radio as “the result of Europe’s failure to catch onto the potential of commercial radio” (41). A great deal of the European public caught onto this idea once their airwaves were taken over by rogue disk jockeys stationed on ships outside the control of the government. To better illustrate the 1960s’ phenomena, watch the following trailer for the 2009 film Pirate Radio.

Though the film may seem a bit sensationalized, I have the testimony from my father who grew up in Britain in the 1960s and who recalls the film’s accuracy. Though he was still young, he remembers gathering around his cousin’s radio, listening to pirate radio stations such as “Radio Caroline”, despite his parents’ disapproval. Pirate radio “revolutionized radio and European society, helping to bring rock ‘n’ roll, the top 40 charts, and the very idea of pop music to the people” (43). In reminiscing about the “good old days”, my father explains that all he really wanted from pirate radio was the rock ‘n’ roll, and that is exactly what he received.

At the time, I imagine that the musical artists being pirated did not have a problem with it. In fact, in Britain, pirate radio was one of the only ways their music would be played for the mass audiences. As Mason explains, “piracy is tolerated by the radio industry because pirate stations make our music better” (45). Pirate radio helped the distribution of revolutionary music to a generation of hip and innovative listeners.

However, it was not the artists that these radio pirates had to worry about offending. As Bill Nighy’s character says in the Pirate Radio trailer: “governments loathe people being free”. Whether the government did not like the idea of corrupting youth with rock ‘n’ roll music or whether they saw pirate radio as a threat to their ruling power, the government was four-square against this rebellion.

Today, pirate radio still exists, but instead of being a threat to the government, it is more so a counterargument to mass corporations distributing popular music. Instead of embracing the ideas behind “top 40” radio, these pirate radio stations also offer what a large majority of the people want: “new genres and scenes in faraway places… For some it’s a way to promote musical freedom of choice not offered by commercial, playlist-driven radio. For others it’s a way to promote freedom period” (45-46).

The big picture of media piracy has to do with freedom and innovation. With the interconnected Web being today’s highly acclaimed innovator in distribution of information and content, it seems only natural for media pirates to claim their domain online. This massive domain covers file sharing of everything from music to film to literature and more. Though some artists stand behind the benefits of piracy, others have expressed concern of their material being stolen. Mason shows this argument in his book when he writes: “pirates can add value to society, but in doing so take value from companies or individuals” (235).

It seems that, along with freedom and innovation, a great deal of piracy deals with a demand for value in the system. Not only does piracy demand quality from pirate entrepreneurs, it forces companies to produce content with a higher value. Pirates are “changing the way distribution works and forcing companies to be more competitive and innovative” (38). Competition leads to a higher quality and with piracy being carried out over the Web, more and more competition is forcing its way into the market.

According to Mason, “pirates create positive social and economic changes and understanding piracy today is more important than ever, because now that we can copy and broadcast whatever we want; we can all become pirates” (35). Mason seems to be saying that, with today’s technology, understanding piracy is the same as committing piracy. I do not necessarily agree with him on this one.

Though I agree that piracy has its benefits toward freedom, innovation and value, I do not consider myself an active pirate. My entire music and movie libraries have been legally obtained and paid for. My decision to be a consumer of “the real thing” has not been deliberately counteractive to the positive ideas behind piracy. I simply find that there is a sense of accomplishment associated with a genuine collection. Though I may not participate in a pirate’s distribution methods, I understand the implications of piracy and agree that, without the initiative pirates have taken toward change in the system, our ways of sharing media would be much more restrictive and narrow.

A Tale of Surveillance Part II

An examination of “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” by Anders Albrechtslund

Imagine yourself as Belle, observing your loved ones in the reflection of a mirror that was given to you by an aggressive beast. You are not sure why you trust this beast; nonetheless you utilize his services to monitor the lives of whomever you please. Think of yourself as the evil queen gazing into Snow White’s magic mirror. You demand to see your desired reflection in order to gain a reputation worthy of flaunting to others.

The symbolism of mirrors is often used to portray vanity. However, mirrors can also be used in ways that allow people to observe those around them. Whether these kinds of mirrors are used in cars or interrogation rooms, they represent participatory surveillance in the physical world. Online, however, participatory surveillance describes the monitoring of one another’s cyber profiles and activities. For a generation raised on Web 2.0, this kind of surveillance is most recognizable on social networking sites and referred to as “creeping”.

On one end of the spectrum, “surveillance is associated with snooping, spying and privacy invasion, and it is a prevalent view that everything related to it should be avoided if possible” (Albrechtslund). However, on the other end, social networking defines the “social and playful aspects of surveillance” (Albrechtslund). In other words, some people believe that participatory surveillance is quite harmless and essential for being considered social. Regardless, online participatory surveillance presents a mutual relationship between users who post and users who monitor. These users are defined by their exhibitionistic and voyeuristic tendencies. 

Exhibitionism

Exhibitionism can be defined as finding pleasure in being looked at. On social networking sites, people post certain photos and information to their profiles with the purpose to be seen by others and to make an impression. Once other users stop paying attention, more content must be posted to keep people interested in looking.

An online profile is like a mirror reflection of how a person would like to be seen. Since social networking sites give users a blank canvas, they can easily manipulate their own identity to become more interesting, more beautiful, more intelligent, more popular, more confident and so on. It is clear that many people wish to be under peer surveillance to be a part of a social community. I find that many people long to feel as if they are celebrities and crave the attention of online paparazzi.

Voyeurism

         Voyeurism is finding pleasure in looking without being seen. In today’s technological society, this desire has never been easier to fulfill. One can simply hide behind a computer screen and revel in the content others willingly post.

         Unlike peering into someone’s bedroom window, online voyeuristic surveillance is almost considered acceptable. Many people admit to “creeping” others on social networking profiles, yet this notion does not seem as worrisome as physically spying on someone.

         However, I do not think that those who practice voyeurism on the Web are wholly at fault for invading privacy. “Many people are puzzled and appear to be almost offended by the frankness in communication and, perhaps, carelessness that some people, especially youngsters, display with regard to their personal privacy” (Albrechtslund). I believe that this acceptance of participatory surveillance is brought on by the exhibitionism of users. If people do not post so much of their lives online, there would be nothing to spy on.

  

The invasion of personal privacy is a growing issue on the Web due to the lack of boundary control that users have. Due to participatory surveillance being a mutual act, it will take a mutual effort from all kinds of users to regain personal privacy on the Web. The question then boils down to: do people really want their privacy back or are too many exhibitionists out there who refuse to keep their lives private?

A Tale of Surveillance Part I

An examination of “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

Imagine yourself as Alice, falling down the rabbit hole and curiously getting lost in an alternate dimension. You see and discover many new things that have been created by the imagination of yourself and others. Now imagine yourself as Hansel and Gretel, cautiously finding your way, leaving a trail of breadcrumbs behind you. Though you trust these breadcrumbs to lead you home, they are gobbled up just as soon as you turn your back.

One can say that our new lives online are similar to those of fairy tale characters. A large contribution to our virtual lives is the ability to search on the Web. The concept of Search 2.0 encompasses a rabbit hole of knowledge and our personal trails of breadcrumbs. In other words, Search 2.0 strives to deliver the most relevant results possible by accumulating a vast database of content and using a collective of the user’s information to personalize the search. Michael Zimmer describes these tactics as perfect reach and perfect recall that compose the perfect search.

Though it may seem immoral for the Web to collect and store our information from other “Web 2.0 applications” (Zimmer) and search history, without having information about the user, the search engine would not perform as effectively. For example, knowing the proximity of the user is important for finding results relevant to the user’s area of interest.

After reading Zimmer’s article, I was inspired to “Google” myself. In doing so, I discovered my trail of breadcrumbs on the first ten pages of the search results and the first three pages of the image search. I uncovered everything from the artists I am linked to on my Reverbnation page to the promotions for a theatrical production I was involved in over three years ago. Based on my previous searches and the engine’s recognition of my location, the search engine found me, or rather my online identity. However, if I were to travel to China and use a computer there, the results that appear after searching the same two names would not likely find a student from Guelph, Ontario to be quite as relevant.

However, there is still something uneasy about losing touch with your personal information and knowing that somewhere down the rabbit hole, there is a cyber community working to organize and distribute your information as needed. “The prevalence of open flows of personal information on and across Web 2.0 platforms have prompted both general concerns over user privacy, as well as explorations into whether expectations of privacy online are shifting towards acceptance – or at least ambivalence – to the sharing of personal information in these contexts, especially among younger users” (Zimmer). Does Search 2.0 invade our right to search in private? Perhaps, by being conscious of the monitoring of online activity, one may hesitate to search an embarrassing question or guilty pleasure for the sake of his or her virtual reputation.

It seems that upholding one’s reputation is more important that the actual issue of diminishing online privacy. Most social networking users are not concerned about privacy when uploading their personal information. Quite contrarily, by selectively choosing what is displayed, the public view is the main concern.

This is where the idea of participatory surveillance comes into the picture.

The Factory of the Mind

 A reflection on Søren Mørk Petersen’s article “Loser-Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation” and Clay Shirky’s video “How Cognitive Surplus Will Change the World”

Generally, people do not like to work when they are not getting paid to do so. Generally, people simply will not work if there is not a juicy paycheck at the end of it all. However, when it comes to the hours and hours spent surfing the Internet, not many people seem to notice or mind that they are performing unpaid labour.

When talking about user or “loser-generated content” (Peterson), one is referring to the text, photos, information, comments, videos and links that Internet users share with one another. The more effort a user puts forth in contributing to the Web, the more money corporations make. The potential problem is: users do not consider their time spent on the Web as labour. Generating content for the Web, however, could easily be a full time job. Many people do not sit down at their computers, open up Facebook and think of it as something they could, or should, be paid for. Perhaps this is because the labour is not physically demanding or perhaps this is because the Web offers something in return. “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” (Peterson).

Though most people are not paid to surf the net, there is still a utopian promise at the end of the day. People do not often expect their favourite websites to disappear over night. However, if people stopped contributing their content to the Web, perhaps one day, the Web would disappear.


         Then what? 


         Since people have stopped contributing, there is nothing for them in return. It all boils down to a system of favours. The users create the content and are reimbersed with services as a part of the bargain.

On the other hand, consider how the Internet is helping the people. For some, the Internet is responsible for fame and fortune. For others, the Internet is a means of gathering awareness and money for a cause. Though only a select few labourers receive these bonus cheques for their time spent online, it is undeniable that the Internet is generous in this respect.

Perhaps the Internet is not the only generous partaker in the bargain. As Clay Shirky explains in the video below, users of the Internet are able to spread their generosity, not only by working to create content for free, but because of the causes they stand for.

Our free time online has become a shared global resource that Shirky describes as cognitive surplus: “the ability of the world’s population to volunteer and to contribute and collaborate on large, sometimes global projects.” Whether it is a conscious effort or not, we are all contributing to this cause. Our efforts may be trivial, much like "LOL cats" or instrumental, like Ushahidi, but each contribution is necessary to maintain the cognitive surplus- somewhere between participation and exploitation of labour.

To conclude, we are doing favours for the Internet and the Internet provides us the means to do so. We feed the abyss of the Web because we want to, whether it is for attention, to make someone smile, or to promote a cause for humanity. In the end, the back and forth interaction between the user and the Web will include exploitation to some degree, but I feel that the user can just as easily utilize the Web’s power for the better. 

With a rebel sell, she cried “MORE, MORE, MORE!”

A discussion of “The Rebel Sell” video with Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter and Trebor Scholz’s article "Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0".

In consumer capitalism, there is no escape from the outstretched hand of the minimum-wage-earning employee behind the retail counter. Even when an individual feels that he or she is a part of an anti-conformist rebellion against the system, the system reaps the benefits of this said “rebellion”. To a consumer society, rebellion equals profit just as much as conformity does.  Rebellion is trendy. Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter explain this relationship in their video “The Rebel Sell”. I have put together my own video illustrating this relationship even further.

Music: "Curiouser and Curiouser" by Nick Johnston

Essentially, the issue at hand here is similar to how the concept of Web 2.0 is being marketed. In the same way that advertisers sell products because they are trendy, there is an obvious novelty factor within the selling of Web 2.0. In his article, "Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0”, Trebor Scholz makes note that there is even “novelty suggested by the phrase.”

Scholz identifies that many of the new ideas behind Web 2.0 have nothing new about them. In fact, the only idea that Scholz gives 2.0 credit for is the “podcasting phenomenon and the term folksonomy, which became popular in 2004.” Other than that, he relates Wikis back to origins in 1994, user-submitted content back to Amazon.com’s launch in 1995, and in the same year, social networking sites like Classmates.com and SixDegrees.com had their start.

In 2004, by lumping these past advancements together and packaging them as something brand new, Tim O'Reilly took on the role of a trend-setter: similar to that of a fashion expert taking the DIY concept of the punk rebellion and turning it mainstream. For example, take a look at how trendy Billy Idol's look has become. At one time, to some people, his brand of music and style would have been considered rebellious and countercultural. I would not be surprised if Billy Idol's vest in the "Rebel Yell" video was featured on the high-fashion runway.

Web 2.0 is a consumer brand. Currently, the novelty and glamour of its selling point is hot on the market. Corporations like Apple have created trends that are shaping the way we view technology and competition in the market. With its sleek appearance and user-friendly applications, Apple is considered to be far "cooler" than  any PC brands. However, based on the cycle outlined in the video I made, there should only be a matter of time before some changes in the distinction. 

Though users may not realize it, all of their activity on the Web is valuable to the media corporations involved. Once this moneymaking phenomena is realized by a large number of Web-savvy rebels, the trend cycle will ensue, providing more options for the consumers and more profit for the producers. In consumer-capitalism, it is all about obtaining more, more, more.