The Individualist Society

29/04/2010 Michelle A 31 comments

Introduction

Web 2.0 technologies are the most utilised participatory form of mass speech yet developed on the Internet today. This paper examines the dynamics behind this phenomenal popularity rise by specifically focussing on the individuals generating content for Web 2.0 services and breaks down the social processes at work on an individual as they relate to the Internet and Web 2.0. It shows how contemporary forms of the process of individualisation in our society cannot be understood as solitary and egoistic self isolation (Singly, 2003) and that one of the main characteristics of Web 2.0 services is that when an individual makes a personal production public, it creates a new articulation between individualism and solidarity.

This research has been conducted to point out that, “not only does the environment shape the interaction, but the interaction shapes the environment” (Fjeld et al., 2002). It focuses more on the human to computer interaction, which in itself is a new creative arrangement and is written in respect to social interaction and developmental processes. The aim of this paper is to understand the social behaviour of internet users in a Web 2.0 context, to propose a broader interpretation of the individualism paradigm. It shows how community and networks have adapted to Web 2.0 technologies and how Web 2.0 has adapted to the community and networks.

Social Structures Of Individualism

Individualism is a person’s moral status, political philosophy, ideology and social outlook, these views emphasise the moral worth and quality of being, of that individual and are associated with that person’s interests, lifestyle, goals and desires. Factors internally and externally motivate and influence of that person, affecting the decisions made on; individual choice, unique behaviour and collective efforts (Kittinger, 2007). There has been a shift within the social structures of individualism, one that has been building for the last 20 years, due to changes in the standards of living like the flexibility of labour, the expansion of ‘lifelong learning’, the multiplication and mobilisation of social relations and the decline of forms of social organisation (Palmer, 2003). What began with the technological innovation of computerisation of homes also started a shift within the individual, as their cognitive surplus could now be spent in the virtual world, rather than in front of the TV.

The internet opened the doors to the world and enabled new possibilities of ‘working from home’ this blurred the lines between production and consumption, and again shifted the individual towards a ‘want to participate’. Now Web 2.0 interactive media has ‘left the gate open’ and let the individual run free, by offloading all the work to the individuals in exchange for a degree of control over the production process. “Once the computer is in place in the study or bedroom, its use fully integrates the user with a world of work in both the sense of consuming and creating value” (Wasser, 2001).

Through the individual’s incorporation of Web 2.0’s networks and flows of information into their daily lives, the world’s societies have accepted this pattern of behaviour and expanded their social structures to include Web 2.0’s innovative, flexible and unpredictable applications and services. Web 2.0 has influenced the individual to extend and expand his/her individualism by offering freedom of expression. The individual has now had to take on a more flexible personality, one that allows them to manage and fulfil the new functions by the changing roles and situations, flows and codes that they are faced with everyday (Palmer, 2003).

Main Characteristics of Web 2.0

By using the already established ‘network’ as a platform, Web 2.0 delivers and receives applications via a web browser using Application Programming Interface. Web 2.0 is a complex and growing technology that includes server software, content-syndication, messaging-protocols, standard-based browsers with plug-ins and extensions and various client-applications (India, 2007). All these differ in functions and approaches, but provide all the necessary requirements for a rich, interactive, user-friendly interface, based on a participatory architecture in which the user can add or edit value to the application through their manipulation and control of the data on that site. Web 2.0 has given a new definition to the web in which the individual and machine both participate in the successful operation of a relational web.

The main characteristics of Web 2.0 are; a rich user experience which is obtained by a combination of Graphical User Interfaces such as XHTML, CSS and XML and the multimedia content of JavaScript, these Semantic Mark-up Language technologies facilitates consistency across the web through a standardisation of web languages and uses, visually and functionally (Stiles, 2005); user participation and satisfaction are the most important features for the developmental success of Web 2.0 systems, especially during the early stages of maturity; dynamic content pages are the windows through which the user views their content, one page being a virtual ‘bottomless pit’ of information (Goldstone, 2010), possible by the delivery of content through a database rather than static HTML pages; metadata is electronically archived data, which provides information about distinct items such as means of creation, purpose of data, time/date and author details, where the data was created and what standards were used, most search engines use this data when adding pages to their search index (Wikipedia, 2010); web standards are formal standards and other technical specifications that define and describe aspects of the Web; and scalability which is an online transaction processing system that can be upgraded by adding new processors, devices and storage transparently without having to shut down.

Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client-server software, content syndication and the use of network protocols to provide users with information storage, creation and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment now known as Web 1.0. Further characteristics and essential attributes of the Web 2.0 include openness (socially, commercially and technically driving a culture of collaboration), freedom (of expression) and collective intelligence (a filter for value, resulting from a critical mass of participation) these are achieved by way of user participation and production (Wikipedia, 2010).

The Production Phase

The individual has become the main point of reference in the shaping of Web 2.0’s digital realm, which in turn has shaped new social structures that affect society as a whole. Self-realization (an awakening from an illusory self identifying image, the ego), individual development (self improvement) and personal happiness have become the main foundation of an individual’s actions. Individual autonomy (the right to self-determination) and self-fulfillment (fulfillment of one’s aspirations, hopes, etc through one’s own efforts) are given priority to; this is reflected in the production of content by users. Or what is essentially, a translation of their cultural surroundings into a virtual environment, each one differing greatly as all users have very individualistic motivations and goals when they begin their own internet publication.

Bloggers want to publish their own production, YouTube users want to store their pictures and videos, Wikipedian’s begin to write an article about their personal concerns, people in social networks design their visibility in order to get contacts or to build their reputation etc (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). This production exposes the shift in social structures due to Web 2.0 services, as it is now that the individualisation of the user’s goals meets the opportunity of sharing personal expression in a public sphere, in other words technology has shifted focus to the individual, the individual now feels empowered to be that individual, and of course wants to share that individualism with the world.

This expressive freedom has blurred the boundaries between user and producer, as publishing personal thoughts, pictures, comments on public events, cultural tastes etc., has become the normal way to build individual identity. It cannot be said that the contemporary forms of process of individualisation in society are solitary and egotistic; as it is through relational experimentation and recognition in the eyes of others that an individual builds an amalgamation of the flexible social roles they now manage (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). This experimentation occurs through the exchange of individual productions expressing various aspects of the individual’s qualities, competencies or activities, sometimes mixing mass culture products with their own production. As a result the individual develops interpersonal relations or forms weak friendships with other like-minded users, in which their identities are expressed through their production, this characterises the rise in popularity of Web 2.0 services and shows that personalisation is highly relational (Aguiton, Christophe, Cardon, & Dominique, 2009).

Rise of Weak Friendships

As more and more individuals become associated online, these virtual communities expand the user’s social networks, what attracts people the most is other people. An individual’s strong ties are based on structure, emotional support, services, social distance, duration, intensity and intimacy (Karahalios, 2010); these are the friends and/or family that the individual would turn to in times of crisis. Other ‘friends’ being not the same as “friends” in the everyday sense are weak ties, these ‘friends’ provide context by offering users as imagined audience to guide behavioural norms (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Yet despite having hundreds of friends, most people on Facebook only interact regularly with 4 to 7 people, and for 90% of Facebook users, 20% of their friends account for 70% of all interactions. We also see this with phone usage. We have hundreds of people in our phone contacts, yet 80% of phone calls are made to the same 4 people. We know dozens of people who use Skype, yet 80% of Skype calls are made to 2 people. Even when people play computer games online, they mostly play with people they know offline.

This unwritten, unspoken social contract, the virtual handshake, is a blend of strong (deeply care about), weak (loosely connected, friends of friends) and temporary (people the individual does not know) relationships among people who have a mixture of motives, it requires the individual to give something and enables the individual to receive something back. Strong ties are often small in numbers, but exert the most influence over the individual’s decisions, they are the individuals ‘circle of trust’. Weak ties are people the individual knows, but care less about, ‘friends of friends’, these people are a powerful source of information and advice, it is these kinds of connections that can help the individual find a new job or advice on specific topic, as weak ties are more knowledgeable about something the individual is interested in. Temporary ties are more common online than offline, they are the people that the individual has no recognized relationship with, but temporarily interact with for a specific reason (usually monetary, like EBay), once the task has been completed, temporary ties are unlikely to interact again (Adams, 2009).

The strength in the weak friendship arises out of the individuals need for information, as people needing information seek people with knowledge of the answer. This cooperation is possible in a specific context where it is probable to attract a very large number of participants, allowing them to make very small contributions with a granularity effect (Benkler, 2005). Social network sites are a good example of how the strength of the weak cooperation between individuals arises from making public their individual production, “as it is the weak tie that is more likely to activate a request or disseminate information than someone closer” (Heaton, 2007). Web 2.0 technologies have influenced society to socially change the way they connect with their networks, to become more flexible within their social roles, by a new articulation between individualism and solidarity, handing over the power of control on all information, this is where society now globally influences technology, never before have the ‘people had the power’.

The Shift Of Power To The Edge

Usually influenced to buy certain products, the individual consumer now has the power to control companies from production to distribution to cost factors, including web technologies, such as Web 2.0. As the individual has incorporated the virtual community into their lives, they have become the user and the producer of shared knowledge or content. This collaboration of content is continuously building and extending in the pursuit of further improvement or knowledge. The technological innovations of Web 2.0 have provided a different approach to an individual’s online collaboration; but despite their global popularity there is still an ever-increasing challenge for these sites to maintain their users and not become yesterday’s fashion trend (Peck, 2009). With more and more data being produced online and an endless supply of blogs, the need has arisen for the transformation of basic data into knowledge and wisdom, distinguishing relevant material from the unrelated.

“This is the reason collective intelligence is the heart of Web 2.0 technologies, as they harness the network effect to build applications that get better the more people use them” (O’Reilly, 2008). Enterprises are now starting to understand that Web 2.0 is about turning themselves inside out, shifting the power from the middle to the edge and opening themselves up to the world in new ways. Web 2.0 is a collection of ground breaking applications that can harness the collective intelligence of a multitude of users and are not the self indulgent time wasters as they have been criticised of in the past (Havenstein, 2008).

Conclusion

Society is now beginning to emerge from its sitcom induced stupor to see its cognitive surplus as an asset rather than a crisis. As a result, people are turning to Web 2.0 technologies as an outlet for that brain power surplus. That every page edit, every line of code, everything that makes up Wikipedia today, represents the culmination of 100 million hours of human thought. Given that Americans watch 200 billion hours of television every year, if that cognitive surplus were converted to Wikipedia work; it would mean thousands of new Wikipedia projects a year (Shirky, 2008). Five years ago the thought of the collective goodwill of individuals to create a resource was unheard of, Web 2.0 practices have transformed the ‘blackboard’ structure of consumer based sites, into a relational community, where people enjoy electronic interaction through their own production. The dynamics of Web 2.0 are based on self production and individual relations between users, and even though this link with others is weak, the density of exchanges and the number of connections is greater than ever expected (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). For individuals there is a social and community value in sharing personal information or insights publicly.

Society’s social structures, globally, have now incorporated new contemporary forms of the process of individualisation. Web 2.0 technologies have revolutionised the use of cognitive surplus brain power and allowed individual freedom to a world wanting information, not wanting greedily, but wanting to learn to share among their communities for respect and reputation and to gain knowledge and improve. Web 2.0 technological innovations have influenced the world socially to expand and increase the use of this revolution, by handing over the power to the individual, the individual in turn is now teaching technologies how and where to improve themselves, globally.

References

Adams, P. (2009). Strong, Weak and Temporary Ties: Designing for Social Interaction, available from; http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/designing-for-social

Aguiton, C. & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, available from; http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4581/1/MPRA_paper_4581.pdf

Aguiton, C., Christophe, Cardon, D., & Dominique. (2009) The strength of weak cooperation: the Web2.0 as a tool to design our visibility in order to expand our network of weak ties. In: Proceedings of the WebSci’09: Society On-Line, 18-20 March 2009, Athens, Greece. (In Press); available from; http://journal.webscience.org/198/

Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, Boston, Yale University Press; taken from; Aguiton, C. & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, available from; http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4581/1/MPRA_paper_4581.pdf

boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, available from; http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Goldstone, G. (2010). Characteristics of simple Web 2.0 Website: What is Dynamic Content?, available from; http://www.nexco.com/01tr/about.html

Havenstein, H. (2008). ‘Revolutionary’ collective intelligence of users touted at Web 2.0 Expo: Computerworld, available from; http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9080038/_Revolutionary_collective_intelligence_of_users_touted_at_Web_2.0_Expo_

Heaton, G. (2007). The Strength of Social Media’s Weak Ties: Servant of Chaos, available from;

http://servantofchaos.typepad.com/soc/2007/10/the-strength-of.html

India, R. (2007). Characteristics of Web 2.0: RoseIndia.net, available from; http://www.roseindia.net/Technology-revolution/web2.0/Web%202.0%20Characteristics.shtml

Karaholios, K. (2010). Strong and Weak Ties in Social Media: Compuware, available from; http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:S9LJJfO-umcJ:web2.sys-con.com/node/1305436+An+individual%E2%80%99s+strong+ties+are+based+on+structure,+emotional+support,+services,+social+distance,+duration,+intensity+and+intimacy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a

Kittinger, R. (2007). Social Behaviour of Internet Users: Web 2.0, available from; http://www.auburnmedia.com/pdf/kittinger_web_2.0.pdf

Morten, Fjeld; Lauche, Kristina; Bichsel, Martin; Voorhorst, Fred; Krueger, Helmut; Rauterberg, Matthias (2002). Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, Physical and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory Applied to the Design of Groupware, quotation available from; Kittenger, R. (2007). Social Behaviour of Internet Users: Web 2.0, available from; http://www.auburnmedia.com/pdf/kittinger_web_2.0.pdf

O’Reilly, T. (2008). Network Effects in Data: O’Reilly Radar, available from; http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/10/network-effects-in-data.html

Palmer, D. (2003). The Paradox of User Control, University of Melbourne, available from; http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/dac/papers/Palmer.pdf

Peck, J. (2009). Prousage; user and producer: Jona’s Blog, Just Another Wordpress.com, available from; http://jonathanpeck.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/produsage-user-and-producer/

Shirky, C. (2008) Gin, Television and Social Surplus, available from;

http://www.shirky.com/herecomeseverybody/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html

Singly, F. (2003). Les uns avec les autres. Quand l’individualisme crée du lien, Paris, Armand Colin.

Stiles, T. (2005). “The Meta-Meme or The Present-Future of the Web”: Web 2.0, available from; http://www.tstiles.com/dms/web20/richuser.html

Wasser, F. (2001). ‘Media Is Driving Work’ M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 4.5, available from; http://www.media-culture.org.au/0111/Wasser.xml

Wikipedia sites;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Communities and Web 2.0 individual, individualism, influence, Social, strong, surplus, technological, weak, web 2.0

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by Anna Hardter about 2 months ago. Reply

I’ll gear this review to 2 kinds of individuals: present Zune proprietors who will be considering an upgrade, and people today seeking to make a decision amongst a Zune and an iPod. (You can find other gamers price thinking of available, just like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this offers you enough info to create an informed conclusion of the Zune vs players aside from the iPod line at the same time.)
Written by heennygogeome about 3 months ago. Reply

Hi gents,

I’ve been on the lookout for a handyman in Poland (I’ve been living as well as working in this country for three years now) and was wondering if u can suggest something. Two days ago I stumbled upon a company known as Hydraulik-Lodz.pl that is a Lodz based business (one of the most important Polish metropolitan areas). Have you heard of them? You can check them out here: hydraulik lodz

The problem I am dealing with with is a cracked water line beneath the sink.

What is your opinion about these lads?

Regards
Written by erroguequardy about 3 months ago. Reply

hosting
Hosting – to użyczanie przez dostawcę usługi internetowej zapasów serwerowni. Jeszcze prościej mówiąc polega to na “zarezerwowaniu” daniu do użytkowania określonej objętości dysku twardego, na której wolno składować pliki tworzące tekst stron WWW i bądź udzielenie powierzchni dysku jako miejsca dla plików “leżących” w skrzynce mailowej. Inna kategoria hostingu to udzielenie dużych obszarów dysku, a nawet pełnego serwera czy też kilku – w charakterze namacalnego nośnika dla dużego serwisu internetowego, portalu, grupy dyskusyjnej i innych. W każdej z nich chodzi o udostępnienie fizycznego miejsca (dysku lub dysków twardych) dla zmieszczenia wielorakich postaci danych osiągalnych przez Internet.Wiele usług hosting jest płatnych. Więc dlatego nie mamy na celu Cię oszukiwać. Nasze usługi hostingtakże są płatne, z z jedną różnicą, nasze usługi hosting są jednymi z najtańszych w sieci. Dajemy w ofercie hosting na najlepszym poziomie, po najniższej możliwej cenie. Przekonaj się sam i przetestuj naszą jakość! Inwitujemy na stronę internetową. Nie mamy na celu Ci wmawiać, iż otrzymasz od nas nieodpłatne usługi hosting. Jednakże możemy zapewnić Ci jedną sprawę. Nasze usługi hosting są przypuszczalnie najtańszymi domenami, jakie możesz odnaleźć w sieci globalnej. Aczkolwiek pomimo małych cen za usługi hosting, proponujemynajwiększą możliwą jakość naszych domen. Nie wierzysz? Zobacz Jeżeli tak to już teraz zajrzyjwstąp na naszą witrynę i nabierz przekonania o słuszności tej wiadomości. Nasze usługi hosting oferują najlepszą jakość w najmniejszej cenie. Nie będziesz zmuszony przeznaczać ogromnych kwot za usługi hosting. Jak wejdziesz pierwszy raz na naszą witrynę, odpowiemy Ci na wszystkie pytania. W naszym zbiorze ofert odszukasz ogrom korzystnych rabatów dla świeżych klientów. Jeżeli tymczasem jesteś naszym stałym kontrahentem, bądź pewien, iż będziesz miał sposobność skorzystać z wyjątkowych okazji. Wejdź już teraz na naszą stronę. Sprawdź ile jesteś w stanie oszczędzić z nami.
Written by Nogappodo about 3 months ago. Reply

hosting
Hosting – to użyczanie przez dostawcę usług internetowych zapasów serwerowni. Jeszcze precyzyjniej mówiąc polega to na “zarezerwowaniu” daniu do dyspozycji danej objętości dysku twardego, na której jest dozwolone zachowywać pliki tworzące tekst stron internetowych i lub udzielenie przestrzeni dysku jako położenia dla plików “leżących” w skrzynce mailowej. Inna wersja hostingu to udostępnienie znacznych obrębów dysku, a nawet skończonego serwera bądź kilku – jako materialnego nośnika na rzecz dużego serwisu internetowego, portalu, grupy dyskusyjnej i innych. W każdej z nich chodzi o udzielenie fizycznego położenia (dysku lub dysków twardych) dla ulokowania przeróżnych odmian informacji dostępnych przez Net.Masa usług hosting jest płatnych. Więc dlatego nie chcemy Cię kłamać. Nasze usługi hostingtakże są płatne, z jedną tylko różnicą, nasze usługi hosting są jednymi z najtańszych w sieci. Dajemy w ofercie hosting na najlepszym poziomie, po najmniejszejdopuszczalnej cenie. Przekonaj się sam i przetestuj naszą jakość! Zapraszamy na portal internetowy. Nie będziemy Ci mówić, że otrzymasz od nas bezpłatne usługi hosting. Jednak mamy możliwość zapewnić Ci jedno. Nasze usługi hosting są przypuszczalnie najbardziej opłacalnymi domenami, które możesz odszukać w sieci globalnej. Aczkolwiek pomimo niewysokich ksztów za usługi hosting, proponujemynajwiększą możliwą jakość naszych domen. Nie dowierzasz? Przekonaj się Jak tak to bezzwłocznie zajrzyjwstąp na nasz portal i przekonaj się o słuszności tego tekstu Nasze usługi hosting oferują najlepszą jakość w najniższej cenie. Nie będziesz zmuszony płacić dużych pieniędzy za usługi hosting. Proponujemy dużo upustów i okazji wyjątkowo dla wiernych, ale i też dla nieznanych jeszcze odbiorcó. Wpadnij już teraz na naszą stronę. Sprawdź ile masz możliwość oszczędzić z nami.
Written by dewDierield about 3 months ago. Reply

hosting
O ile poszukujesz taniej i rzetelnej firmy zajmującej się hostingiem to mam dla Ciebie zniewalającą wiadomość. Właśnie teraz powstał zawodowy i niedrogi serwer dla ludzi, którzy lubią niezawodność i szybkość wykonywania zlecenia. Jednakże nawiążmy do tego czym jest hosting. To usługa polegająca na udostępnianiu przez dostawców Internetu miejsca na własnych serwerach dla wielorakich usług np. serwisy WWW, konta pocztowe, radia internetowe itp. W większości wypadków spotkany jest hosting odpłatny, w którym koszt należności comiesięcznej zależy od kilku czynników. Jako przedsiębiorstwo gwarantujemy hosting na najlepszym poziomie, dając przy tym prawdopodobnie najmniejsze ceny. Przekonaj się sam! Nasze usługi hosting też są niedarmowe, z jednym wyjątkiem, nasze usługi hosting są jednymi z najtańszych w Internecie Nie możesz w to uwierzyć, czy negujesz jeszcze słuszność tego, co tu jest napisane? Jak tak to już teraz wejdź na nasz portal i przekonaj się o przwdzie tego wpisu Nasze usługi hosting oferują najwyższą jakość w najmniejszej cenie. Nie będziesz zmuszony płacić wielkich kwot za usługi hosting. Oferujemy wiele rabatów i promocji wyjątkowo dla stałych, ale i także dla nieznanych jeszcze kontrahentów. Zajrzyj już teraz na nasz serwis. Sprawdź ile możesz zaoszczędzić z nami.
Written by Incasubseboon about 3 months ago. Reply

hosting
Name-based

Name-based effective hosts utilize consume multiple host names in the service of the unvarying webserver IP address.

With entanglement browsers that succour HTTP/1.1 (as less all contemporary do), upon connecting to a webserver, the browsers send the hostname from the address that the consumer typed into their browser’s deliver taproom along with the requested resource itself to the webserver. The server can turn to account the Host header mead to adjudge which web location (or practical legion), as spectacularly as episode, to entertainment the user. The browser specifies the give a speech to by setting the Drove HTTP header with the host specified past the user. The Hotelman header is required in all HTTP/1.1 requests.

Because exemplar, a server could be receiving requests after two domains, http://www.example.com and http://www.example.net, both of which figure out to the unmodified IP address. For http://www.example.com, the server would send the HTML rank from the directory /var/www/user/Joe/site/, while requests on the side of http://www.example.net would produce the server do duty as pages from /var/www/user/Mary/site/.

Sample: A blog server can be hosted using Call stem hosting. blog1.example.com and blog2.example.com
Cons

If the Bailiwick Name Scheme (DNS) is not properly functioning, it becomes much harder to access a virtually-hosted website. The user could hear to fall back to misuse the IP accost to contact the pattern, as in http://10.23.45.67/. The net browser doesn’t be aware which hostname to use when this happens; in addition, since the web server relies on the entanglement browser client striking it what server identify (vhost) to consume, the server commitment empathize with with a fail website—time after time not the site the user expects.

A workaround in this casing is to add the IP location and hostname to the patient system’s hosts file. Accessing the server with the discipline name should trade again. Users should be vigilant when doing this, anyway, as any changes to the dependable mapping between hostname and IP give a speech to will be overridden not later than the local setting. This workaround is not really useful in behalf of an ordinarily cobweb drug, but may be of some use to a locality administrator while fixing DNS records.

Another issuance with essential hosting is the ineptness to manager multiple anchored websites ceaseless Come by Sockets Layer or SSL. Because the SSL handshake takes district beforehand the expected hostname is sent to the server, the server doesn’t recollect which certificate to bonus when the family is made. Anecdote workaround is to run multiple cobweb server programs, each listening to a unlike new seaport, which still allows the set to objective use a single IP address. If uninterrupted multiple net server programs is considered clumsy, a more unwasteful conclusion is to hand-pick TLS (TLS 1.1 or later, which enables name-based accepted hosting as of June 2003, documented in RFC3546, and updated in RFC4366). Another privilege is to do IP aliasing, where a individual network interface listens on more than sole IP address.
IP-based

When IP-based virtual hosting is used, each plat (either a DNS hostname or a group of DNS hostnames that sketch the unmodified) points to a unsurpassed IP address. The webserver is configured with multiple physical network interfaces, accepted network interfaces on the same actual interface or multiple IP addresses on whole interface.

The snare server can exist the speak the TCP coherence was intended as a service to using a standard API and services this to make up one’s mind which website to serve. The shopper is not complex in this course of action and consequence (incompatible with with name based practical hosting) there are no compatibility issues.
Cons

The server needs a bizarre IP give a speech to as a service to every spider’s web site which means increased costs fitting for spider’s web position hosting and contribution to IPv4 lecture exhaustion.
Port-based

The delinquency seaport total as a replacement for HTTP is 80. However, most webservers can be configured to work on almost any port slew, provided the refuge total is not in misuse beside any other program on the server.

Due to the fact that example, a server may announcer the website http://www.example.com. No matter what, if the p wishes to perform a second situate, and does not take access to the property honour configuration seeing that their domain name, and/or owns no other IP addresses which could be used to call the site from, they could in preference to speak another port number, in spite of illustration, http://www.example.com:81 because port 81, http://www.example.com:8000 an eye to harbour 8000, or http://www.example.com:8080 throughout harbour 8080.
Cons

Most internet users are not familiar with using non-standard harbour numbers, and more involved haven numbers may be more profound to remember. Most network crawlers take on oneself mooring 80 (default) when visiting a situation and so may miss the non-standard mooring number. Using non-standard seaport numbers may also be seen as lax and unattractive to users. In addition, some firewalls obstruct all but the most unexceptional ports, causing a placement hosted on a non-standard harbour to emerge unavailable to some users.
Uses

Practical web hosting is again tolerant of on at liberty surmount in companies whose area sitter is to provide indecent sell for website hosting also in behalf of customers. The indeterminate best part of web hosting handling person websites worldwide are hosted on shared servers, using practical hosting technology.

Divers businesses utilize practical servers as a service to internal purposes, where there is a technological or administrative common sense to operate a sprinkling fall websites, such as a guy extranet website, wage-earner extranet, internal intranet, and intranets someone is concerned distinct departments. If there are not shelter concerns in the website architectures, they can be merged into a singular server using essential hosting technology, which reduces management and administrative up above and the figure up of individual servers required to prop up the business.
Written by Lee-Ann Khoh about 2 years ago. Reply

“Yet despite having hundreds of friends, most people on Facebook only interact regularly with 4 to 7 people, and for 90% of Facebook users, 20% of their friends account for 70% of all interactions. We also see this with phone usage. We have hundreds of people in our phone contacts, yet 80% of phone calls are made to the same 4 people. We know dozens of people who use Skype, yet 80% of Skype calls are made to 2 people. Even when people play computer games online, they mostly play with people they know offline.”

With that in mind, how many people do actually take advantage of the power they potentially have through Web 2.0? I think many people, even in developed countries, are yet to fully comprehend or embrace a culture of user participation and creation. But that said, I still believe times are a-changin’, so to speak, and companies that realise this are the ones that will prosper in the future.

“The internet opened the doors to the world and enabled new possibilities of ‘working from home’ this blurred the lines between production and consumption, and again shifted the individual towards a ‘want to participate’.”

I know from personal experience that the internet has given many writers, both fiction and non-fiction, great opportunities to hone their craft (through feedback from online networks and communities), discover new outlets and audiences (blogging, online magazines), and make money (Adsense, PayPal, etc).
Written by 14379286 about 2 years ago. Reply

I find one of your statements quite riveting, “not only does the environment shape the interaction but the interaction set the environment.” This statement is indeed clarity to th increase of individualism on today’s societies thus the internet has shaped people to spent more time on their computers at the expense of society’ activities.

I believe that another cause of individualism the nature of the Internet, on virtual communities users experiences many different freedoms which are incompatible in real life, thus the most important among others is identity deception. The users enjoy getting away with identity deception and it draws them to spent most of their time on monitors at the expense of the physical environment. On my paper (IDENTITY DECEPTION IN VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES AND NETWORKS AND ITS RÉQUISITOIRES) there is an example of a teenager from Texas who on virtual community presented her self as a 67 year old Zimbabwean. This is indeed clarity of online deception as a freedom people enjoy doing for many various reasons and it is pivotal to note that it also draws people to these virtual communities thereby intensifying individualism because people are bound to be spent more time on their computers.

(14379286) Tafadzwa
Written by KayeE about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Michelle – a very interesting and well thought out paper.

I had never really thought about the idea of ‘collective intelligence’ – although I probably benefit and contribute to it many times during the week! It will be interesting to see where we go from here. It seems that the evolution of the Internet is continuing and is becoming as Aaron Weiss says “a truly democratic network, where producers and consumers are one and the same……….a self-organizing platform”. I think that interesting and exciting days lay ahead!

Weiss, A. (2005). The power of collective intelligence. netWorker. Vol 9(3), 16-23.
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks Kaye,
  
  Harnessing the collective intelligence is the touchstone of the Web 2.0 revolution, the capacity of a human community to evolve toward higher order complexity thought, problem-solving and integration through collaboration and innovation (Por, 2009). I agree with you, I never realized just how much I too contribute and benefit from sharing information, emotions and advice with others.
  
  Pierre Lévy, Canada Research Chair on CI at the University of Ottawa, wrote, “Intelligence refers to the main cognitive powers: perception, action planning and coordination, memory, imagination and hypothesis generation, inquisitiveness and learning abilities. The expression ‘collective intelligence’ designates the cognitive powers of a group.”
  
  Reference:
  
  Por, G. (2009). Connecting Our Conversations: Becoming Wiser Together. Retrieved 18th May, 2010, available from;
  http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo/backissue/s2008/connecting-our-conversations.shtml
Written by Victoria about 2 years ago. Reply

I found your paper to be very informative and eye opening. The comparison of using surplus cognitive brain power in the relm of Web 2.0 as oppose to in front of the television is an interesting observation, that with the evolution of technology we are actually empowering ourselves more and using our intelligence for the good to create business and strenghthen social ties instead of being lost in the sitcom world. Young people are becoming millionaires due to the invention of sites like facebook and the ‘craigslist, a popular classified site in the USA. The internet open doors like never before which I think outweighs all of the controversy and fear in the media. I also found your language and presentation of your argument very profesional.Really thought provoking.
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thank you Victoria,
  
  I found that society never really knows what to do with surplus at first, the television sitcom became a ready-made response to the crisis of ‘free time’, so interesting. For the first time ever in history, the younger generation are watching less TV than their parents, as they choose to spend free time with media that allows them to be active and social in their participation, not just passive and individual consumption.
  
  Clay Shirky believes that when individuals pool their cognitive surplus, it creates value that does not exist when individuals operate in isolation. The displacement of the television has happened because individuals want to make things and do things, sometimes alone and sometimes together and to share those things with others (Brockman, 2008).
  
  As Tim O’Reilly stated: “You wouldn’t describe ebay or Craigslist or Wikipedia as social software either, yet each of them is the product of a passionate community, without which none of those sites would exist, and from which they draw their strength, like Antaeus touching mother earth. Photo sharing site Flickr or bookmark sharing site del.icio.us (both now owned by Yahoo!) also exploit the power of an internet community to build a collective work that is more valuable than could be provided by an individual contributor. But again, the social aspect is implicit — harnessed and applied, but never the featured act.”
  
  References:
  
  Brockman, J. (2008). Introduction: Gin, Television, and Cognitive Surplus. Retrieved 17th May, 2010, available from;
  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/shirky08/shirky08_index.html
  
  O’Reilly, T. (2008). I was skeptical of the term ’social software’ ….: Edge, The Third Culture. Retrieved 17th May, 2010, available from;
  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/shirky08/shirky08_index.html
Written by Nat about 2 years ago. Reply

Michelle, An interesting paper, I smiled at the use of ‘circle of trust’ taking me back to the ‘Meet the Parents’ movie with Ben Stiller. Hans paper ‘Size is important’ used the term Core ties to explain the same thing. Retrospectively what I have found while reading through papers in this conference is that papers that hint at something of personal interest or a memory are the ones I tend to place a comment on.

Your paper argued well although I was personally lost in the “the shift of power to the edge” section, I think this was because your focus changed from “me” to “commercial aspects”. In continuation with the discussions PaulaB raised an concerning point about “empowering criminal thoughts” this is true, in the past I worked with Consumer Protection and it is amazing how many email and popup style scam complaints we received from people unaware and fell for it. More recently in WA is the card skimmers fiasco, the media claimed the money went directly overseas the internet has certainly widen the community. I believe there has always been some individualist element within each of us however in Australia when disaster strikes we pitch-in. A jointly commissioned survey by Volunteering Australia and National Australia Bank (NAB) supports this “However, while Australia has quite a high number of volunteers, this report shows that the services provided by Australia’s community organisations are in greater demand than ever before and this requires more volunteers.” I do sincerely hope that the internet and its evolution does not change our Australian helpfulness in times of need.

Further on your paper “The internet opened the doors to the world and enabled new possibilities of ‘working from home’ this blurred the lines between production and consumption, and again shifted the individual towards a ‘want to participate’.” This is true although limited as some work can not simply be done at home. However Web 2.0 might just be the start in changing old ways of working with the focus on individuals’ lifestyle management rather than focusing on ‘company’ needs.

Ref:
Rielley, K. (2010, May 11). Report highlights the need for more volunteers with demand for community organisation services higher than ever before. [press release]. NAB. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/html/s02_article/article_view.asp?article_id=4101&nav_cat_id=-1&nav_top_id=-1
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks Nat,
  
  I do not think the internet will cause the traditional Australian’s support for the ‘underdog’ to change . Web 2.0 though has changed companies attitudes from a business or product focus to a customer focus, their companies being driven by the demands of the customers. Customers require accurate information to help them make the best decisions about purchases and most customers only care about how well the business supports their needs and/wants (Penhearow, 2009).
  
  Reference:
  
  Penhearow, N. (2009). Increase Business – Make Your Organisation Customer Focused: Operations Director. Retrieved 15th May, 2010, from;
  http://www.operations-director.com/customer_focus.html
Written by PaulaB about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Michelle,

Very good paper, enjoyed reading it. I have one comment if you don’t mind:

you wrote:

“Web 2.0 technological innovations have influenced the world socially to expand and increase the use of this revolution, by handing over the power to the individual, the individual in turn is now teaching technologies how and where to improve themselves, globally”.

I agree the technology empowered individuals, it gave them new identity (new voice) to express themselves where they feel comfortable. It gave them certain freedom in communication locally or across the world within short time. Unfortunatelly, technology empowered also those who initiate malicious activities using technology – empowering criminal thoughts. We have global issues, political ones for example, some countries’ internet and its technology is controlled by government and can be shut down at anytime. Our social life has been influenced by technology for the past 10 years or so. We have choice how we want to socialise on-line or offlline. We have choice what kind of friends we wish to have or create. I’ve heard that touch brings people together, I am looking forward when technology will enable for ‘touch’ through cyberspace. I hope I won’t be too old with heavy dementia to experience a such new technology. What do you think, would there be a such technology for touch and smell through cybespace/internet?

cheers and good luck with Assign 2 and final 3.
PaulaB
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks Paula,
  
  Interesting comment on governmental censorship control, as Australia has now joined those countries (such as Bahrain, Belarus, Eritrea, Malaysia, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates) in legislating the ban on certain websites. When describing Australia, the Reporters Without Borders report says that ”Under the guise of fighting child pornography, the government wants to set up a filtering system never before seen a democracy” (Jacobs, 2010). Lets hope this legislation and censorship issues are all sorted before Web 3.5 and future technologies are here.
  
  Reference:
  
  Jacobs, C. (2010). Oz Internet Censorship gets noticed in China: Electronic Frontiers Australia. Retrieved 14th May, 2010, available from;
  http://www.efa.org.au/2010/03/11/oz-internet-censorship-noticed-in-china/
  or http://openinternet.com.au/2010/03/11/oz-internet-censorship-gets-noticed-in-china/
Written by Belindam about 2 years ago. Reply

Excellent paper, well done.

Its interesting you should talk about the ways Web 2.0 has changed our lives.
As a graphic designer, such technologies have been the single biggest influence on the industry. It has changed the way much of our work is performed. Instead of sending films and bromides by courier, we can simply email them or send them via FTP or electronic transfer.
Tasks that used to take days now happen in minutes, at virtually no cost.

As TV and press declines, the advertising and marketing industry is turning to Social Media to reach audiences.

I was also intrigued by your idea of ‘temporary ties’ however, I do wonder if they are really more common online than off. I feel, we make temporary ties each day. Temporary ties can be found in the way the lunch bar remembers how I like my sandwich, or the coffee shop staff know I don’t like foam on my coffee, or the way staff at Planet Video used to remember my name and membership number every time I went in, or in the way the hairdresser knows I don’t like small talk.
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thank you Belinda,
  
  I have friends who work in the graphic designer industry and have mainly dealt with them (dealing with graphics, as they are also musicians) over the internet, I have never thought of your industry pre-internet days, it is another way of looking at the convenience and cost effectiveness that the internet has brought to our lives.
  
  Temporary ties are more common online than offline, they are the people that the individual has no recognized relationship with, but temporarily interact with for a specific reason (usually monetary, like EBay), once the task has been completed, temporary ties are unlikely to interact again (Adams, 2009). This comment of course depends on the individuals use of the internet to buy or enquire (looking for interaction) though in an area they are unlikely to return to or deal with same person again, to make any form of relationship with them. For instance, your example of temporary ties, I would call more weak ties, as obviously you return and deal with them more than once, hence they know your tastes and likes/dislikes.
  - Written by Belindam about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    You make an interesting point about temporary vs week ties, and I feel you may be correct regarding my examples.
    I do feel temporary ties are just as prevalent offline as on. Most people, I believe, prefer to do business with ‘people’ they know and will return to same sites over and again. Most shopping cart sites require people to register for an account, implying a relationship between the user and the company. ie Amazon, Ebay, iTunes.
    
    On Ebay you are required to register before you can bid. Buyers and sellers build trust through feedback. I would therefore, identify it as a community rather than a ‘temporary’ tie. This is similar to Bittorrent, where users build relationships and communicate with the community through feedback and comments left on torrent.
Written by Sheila M about 2 years ago. Reply

I found your paper very interesting and well written Michelle. As I read it, I thought of how a lot of what you said relates to my paper (http://bit.ly/b8fexG). I discussed how web 2.0 technologies have influenced health care and support. I realise that your paper is not written about health communities as such; however, a lot of what you wrote about can certainly be applied to what is happening in online health communities.

There was line in particular that struck me “…a new articulation between individualism and solidarity, handing over the power of control on all information, this is where society now globally influences technology, never before have the ‘people had the power’ Health is one area now where ‘people have the power’. The internet, and particular, web 2.0 technologies have provided the tools for individuals to become more knowledgeable about their health, it has empowered the individual.

I agree that web 2.0 technological innovations have “handed over the power to the individual”. Becoming educated about one’s health is powerful. The whole concept of participatory health care is that the individual is involved more directly in their health care, they are in fact seen as a partner in their health care. (Eytan, 2008). This is a far cry from the pre-internet days when there was a definite “us and them” culture that existed between the medical hierarchy and patients.

You mention “With more and more data being produced online and an endless supply of blogs, the need has arisen for the transformation of basic data into knowledge and wisdom, distinguishing relevant material from the unrelated.” This brought to mind an article I read whilst researching my paper (Health 2.0: Patients as Partners). The article highlighted how on the PatientsLikeMe website “members were charting their medical histories in minute detail, sharing their most private information with one another and the world at large, often with photos and real names attached”. (Arnst, 2008) The company that runs the website then sells the information they collate from site participants (stripped of identifiers) and “sells the information to drug, device, and insurance companies, all with the consent of its patient-members. The buyers can mine a rich vein of data on a variety of chronic illnesses that is simply not available anywhere else.” This struck me as being an example of how “basic data” is transformed into “knowledge and wisdom”

Sheila

References

Arnst, C (2008) Health 2.0: Patients as Partners. Bloomberg Business Week. Retrieved 1st April, 2010 from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_50/b4112058194219.htm

Eytan, T (2008) The Health 2.0 Definition : Not just the Latest, The Greatest! [blog] Retrieved 28th March, 2009 from http://www.tedeytan.com/2008/06/13/1089
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks Sheila,
  
  Healthcare definately has changed because of the individuals freedom of educating themselves now with the services of Health 2.0. I’ve noticed the changes myself with my own family Doctors over the years, healthcare services are way more aware of the internet and computer uses, as my own Doctor (who may be a bit slow using the computer, which kills me to watch ) has directed me to look for more information on the internet, even given me sites to look up.
  
  Technology has supplied us with Health 2.0 services, such as the PatientsLikeMe website, where individuals can share and explore their medical histories. By joining sites like this and sharing their private information and remedies that have worked or not (side effects etc.), the individual now has the power to influence the health and insurance companies with the most up to date information on global ailments etc. The individual power of information aids the company in the supply and demand of products.
Written by Keith Law about 2 years ago. Reply

You say: “This expressive freedom has blurred the boundaries between user and producer, as publishing personal thoughts, pictures, comments on public events, cultural tastes etc., has become the normal way to build individual identity.”

Expressive freedom still comes with responsibility. The individual is responsible for what they produce not the platform provider. An article by Paul Quinn published by Business Spectator (Quinn, 2010) included these anecdotes:
“In one case, $30,000 in damages was awarded in response to defamatory comments by a man using various pseudonyms on a stock market forum. We have also seen an Indonesian man currently face jail time for insulting his music mentor on Facebook.”
“An Australian online legal rumour site made completely unsubstantiated and slanderous claims about an individual working in the law. Despite the site’s authors hiding behind anonymity, and using off-shore servers, they were successfully pursued and a settlement put in place resulting in a retraction of the comments and an online apology.”
“A New York court recently ruled the identity of an anonymous blogger who made defamatory claims against a model should also be revealed.”
He concludes with:” With free speech comes responsibility and just because comments are online or anonymous does not necessarily afford anyone the right to say what they want without consequence.”

I really liked the comment and concept: “Web 2.0 technologies have revolutionised the use of cognitive surplus brain power and allowed individual freedom……….” This is absolutely true. I use the Internet for business, commerce and education and it has given me the freedom to live in my chosen environment and still maintain an active and productive lifestyle. Web 2.0 is much more than social networks it is a way of maintaining a meaningful existence free from wasted hours travelling to and from work or education.
A very well thought out and presented argument.
WORKS CITED
Quinn, P. (2010, March 3). Throwing the book at Facebook. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from Business Spectator: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Putting-a-face-to-Facebook-pd20100301-35229?OpenDocument&src=blb
- Written by Nat about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Keith you raised a few cases regarding individuals held responsible for using anonymity as an opportunity for slander. It must be due to the ‘cognitive surplus brain power’ we now have. Nonetheless I agree with the Judge? individual responsibility and ‘facing consequences’ for our choices should never be deminished.
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thank you Keith,
  
  I agree with you on the fact that the individual is responsible for the content that they publish, “While freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights, this is not at the expense of the rights of people, while using the Internet, to be treated with equality, dignity and respect,” Mr McClelland (Attorney General) told The Sunday Age (Jacobs, 2010). Platform providers cannot regulate all content produced or react until informed.
  
  “Applying this distinction to an Australian context leaves ISPs in an uncertain position. By monitoring or screening content, ISPs risk losing their “subordinate distributor” status. If they do not monitor, but have “grounds for supposing” that some of their services contain defamatory material, they will fail the “innocent disseminator” test (Morgan, 2010).” (Eisenberg, Julie, “Safely Out of Sight: The Impact of the New Online Content Legislation on Defamation Law) available from;
  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2000/7.html
  
  References:
  
  Jacobs, C. (2010). Crackdown on Internet racism ill-thought out: Electronic Frontiers Australia. Retrieved 10th May, 2010, available from;
  http://www.efa.org.au/2010/02/22/crackdown-on-internet-racism-ill-thought-out/
  
  Morgan, I. (2010). User generated content and ISP liability: Cyberworld Australia. Retrieved 12th May, 2010, available from;
  http://cyberlaw.org.au/2010/03/21/user-generated-content-and-isp-liability/
Written by atleeit about 2 years ago. Reply

Your paper is well written upon this topic but where you say freedom within this platform of web 2.0 i would not actually of said that and a great example is freedom on Facebook no it will never happen every user when they signup to Facebook accepts their EULA agreements which allows them full access of whatever you post and on-sell to other companies, Where is the power of web 2.0 in the individual or does companies still have power over the individual? I can understand the individual becoming the user but not the producer, you may have control over a few things using web 2.0 tools for interaction and communication but this all boils down to the web 2.0 platform that is being used, not all platforms let you be both the user and producer who is in control. Here is more information a read up about coming from (Paul, I. 2010)

When you log in to a Website using your Facebook account that site can access the following pieces of information from your Facebook profile: your name, profile picture, gender, current city, networks, friend list, likes and interests, and your fan pages (according to recent revisions to Facebook’s privacy policy your fan pages, likes and interests, current city, networks and friend list are now lumped into one category called ‘connections’).

Relating this back to my paper however you have a game like a MMORPG and you have so many tools that give you power but as a user all games have user agreements and basically have game laws just like our law and if you break them the producer can have power over the individual which they call admins but as web technologies get better the power for the user and the producer also becomes bigger but there will always be some sort of policing.

References:
Paul, I. (2010). Facebook’s New Features and Your Privacy: What You Need To Know. Pcworld.com. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www.pcworld.com/article/194866/facebooks_new_features_and_your_privacy_what_you_need_to_know.html
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Web 2.0 has influenced the individual to extend and expand his/her individualism by offering freedom of expression.
  
  The term ‘freedom of expression’ through this paper was written in the terms of how Web 2.0 has given the individual a place to express themselves freely, within the terms and conditions that apply to that application or service , these being ‘behavioral guidelines’ or ‘virtual etiquette’. This agreement between the system designer and end-user designer, is a cooperation between Web 2.0 system designers (who are responsible for producing the high-level application framework and authoring tools), otherwise they become ‘yesterdays fashion trend’, and the user or individual designer (who then uses those tools created by the system designers to produce a new creative work with the system).
  
  The creation of a social community site may require the collective work of many users or individuals, although both the system designers and the user designer contribute to the production of site content, this collective work is generally uncoordinated (both participants share a common goal but act towards different objectives). In other words the system designers may focus on the development of the overall application (to keep the user using its application or service), whereas the user designers focus on using the system to express themselves more freely on the internet, (within guidelines) and interact with others (Kane, 2007).
  
  The individual not having so much expressive freedom before, in the sense that Web 1.0 was very limited in interaction, whereas Web 2.0 applications and services are based or designed around (continuously) the individuals who use them, as it is in the system designers best interest to keep individuals using their services for as long as possible, as the longer the site runs, the more information the individual supplies (like product, entertainment, retail preferences) and the more use this information is to companies and corporations (which is a revenue for the site), as well as the Web 2.0 site, as it is through the collective postings and comments of the individual user that these sites gather the necessary information on what adjustments or innovations to make, to keep the users happy, which in turn keeps them using that particular application or service.
  
  The power the individual has is the control over the information that they supply. It is the individual’s choice to put information ‘out there’ and just how much to put out there, when agreeing to use these services or applications, the individual gives the site the right to use their collective information for the use in research, production and innovation. Really you can look at Web 2.0 applications and services as a fun way to fill in the information on a survey or poll only this poll never ends as the individual adjusts so does the technology, and as the technology adjusts so does the individual.
  
  This expressive freedom has blurred the boundaries between user and producer, as publishing personal thoughts, pictures, comments on public events, cultural tastes etc., has become the normal way to build individual identity.
  
  Anytime an individual publishes something on the web whether it be a comment, a thought or feeling, a profile, an informative paper, blog or wiki; a picture or video, a character in a game and/or a map or location, through a Web 2.0 application or service; they become a producer and produce user-generated content. All this content, no matter what form it may be presented, contains informative data, that can be used to improve and enhance the individuals online and offline experience.
  
  In relation to your paper I agree with you on policies, copyright and ownership will be a huge topic of conversation and/or debate until new laws are in place and everyone knows exactly where they stand and who owns what and what they can do with what they own. The ‘power of the people’ in relation to a Web 2.0 game application, would be the influences the users have over any future adjustments, additions or extensions, graphics and sound, etc. This is not to say that any of these innovations are based just on the users influences alone, going back to the agreement when joining a Web 2.0 environment, some improvements and/or changes may come from the games system designers as well. Either way the focus is on the enjoyment of the individual user (and to keep the user playing the game), when the user has chosen his or her character (based on whatever individualistic motivations inspire that user at that time, amended when the user feels differently) and is given a profile or identity based on characteristics that reflect the individual’s individualism, this is the production phase of content or in this case a character. As soon as the individual starts to play their online game and publishes their character online or joins the game, he or she has produced content thereby becoming a producer while being a user.
  
  The collective intelligence or the information that the games system designers gather while the individuals plays the game or comments on the games website can be used to enhance the users experience, to incorporate new gaming strategies or ideas, to strengthen bonds between users and/or system designers, by corporations to influence manufacturing of retail products, entertainment industries, future technological innovations, etc. This is the power or reward the individual agrees to receive when participating in Web 2.0 applications or services, is the fact that the individual now gets to have a say in just about everything, this is where the individual gets to express themselves freely online. On another note on reading your paper I had flashes of the movies “Surrogates” starring Bruce Willis, which is set in a futuristic world where humans live in isolation and interact through surrogate robots, a cop (Willis) is forced to leave his home for the first time in years in order to investigate the murders of others’ surrogates and “Gamer” starring Gerard Butler, this movie is set in a future-world where humans can control other humans in mass-scale, multi-player online gaming environments…, scary but both really interesting (and entertaining) visions of the future integration of virtual and reality or online and offline worlds.
  Thanks very much for your comments and thoughts
  
  References:
  Kane, S. (2007). Everyday inclusive Web design: an activity perspective; in particular the chapter on Design activity in social Web applications, available at; http://informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper309.html
Written by Joel Morange about 2 years ago. Reply

I do agree with Michael. Your paper, Michelle, is really well structured and argued, with valuable links and supportive arguments.

I’m also happy to here find a deepening of some points (especially in the part describing Web 2.0’s characteristics and the production phase chapter) I also talked about in my own work. And I do particularly join you on that point:

“Web 2.0 has given a new definition to the web in which the individual and machine both participate in the successful operation of a relational web.”

Web 2.0 is indeed the basis of the individual’s development, bloom and fulfill on the World Wide Web.

“Web 2.0 delivers and receives applications via a web browser using Application Programming Interface” I would add to that statement that Aguidon and Cardon (2007) emphasise the importance of open API. And I think it is important to mention that the Web 2.0 has grown so fast and spread so publicly thanks to this ideaology of the “open” and “freeware”.
If people (creators, programmers, users) that have helped to “build” the Web 2.0 had not think in terms of sharing and involving others to participate; if they had kept their works and softwares private and paying, the Web would certainly had evolve anyway, but maybe not in the direction it has today.

Nowadays, almost everyone that has the will to do so, can be involve in Web 2.0 applications development projects. And this is made possible only because the ones whom create all the tools we are using today, have opened the doors for others to get involve in the evolution of the Web.

When I first read Aguidon and Cardon, I was quite skeptic about their vision. But in the end, it appears clear that what they affirm is true. The individualism is the basis to our everyday system: whether it is in real life, or on-line (Michael is talking about it better and in more details than I do though). And because the individuals are the center of attention, the question is about how to be the most visible. This idea has helped a lot to build today’s web. Still, we have to remember the great will of sharing, without expecting anything in return, that has helped to shape Web2.0 as well (example with Wikipedia or the above API argument…).

Your chapter on “Weak friendship” is interesting. And mostly true.
However, I think it is relative to one another. I personnaly know people who build most of their strong tie relationships through Web2.0 applications, such as forums or blogs. It is moreover possible to build strong friendships, or even find “the true love” on-line. Even though it consists of exceptions, it is still true. And on-line dating sites do play on that aspect. In time of crisis, some individuals would maybe prefer to talk to random people, outside their “normal and physical” sphere.
The only factors that come in mind, to me, are time and interest. Even if we can not talk to everyone in our contacts database, that is for sure, it is possible to create strong links with random people if we have common interests and if the relationship last in time, as well.
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks Joel,
  
  I agree with your thoughts on how individuals did communicate to each other on Web 1.0 and because of API’s, content that is now created in one place can be dynamically posted and/or updated in multiple locations with Web 2.0. Which is one of the main attractions for individuals, the ease of use of Web 2.0 applications and services, as well as the ability to mix data from multiple sources, I think it goes along with the whole aspect of individualism and ‘freedom of expression’, as you said in ‘making yourself more visible’.
  
  I really like your idea that if people kept their works ‘private and paying’, the web still would have evolved, but in a totally different way (could this technology be on the forefront of ‘world peace’ through global communication?).
  
  Strong ties are based on the fact that we meet them frequently (frequency of interaction) and that psychic distance is low, weak ties are people rarely seen and are perhaps based on less emotional factors (Wylick, 2008). Strong ties will lock the individual into a clique and prevent ideas from spreading, so I can understand why some people turn to their weak ties for advice and understanding, as the weak tie bond does develop a weak sense of intimacy, whilst also maintaining some level of privacy from that person.
  
  Reference:
  Wylick, V. (2008), Networking: Weak Ties, strong ties and their implications, Tech It Easy; available from, http://www.techiteasy.org/2008/08/23/networking-weak-ties-strong-ties-and-their-implications/
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply

An outstanding well written and argued paper that really does sum up much of current on and offline life. I think that in one way it is unfortunite our lives are simply interactions with many. On the other hand weak ties can pay off and have for many in getting work, a partner or anything. I particularly like the way you described the Web 2.0 technologies. Perhaps in the past we had the same type of relationships anyway, it is just that with the web we can go further.

However, this has caused overload; how many of us are Twittering anyone or emailing and not getting any replies? The expectations of weak ties need to be retaught. More and more people are not replying to posts and messages for many reasons but certainly many of us now have more people to deal with on and off line. Individualism has brought benefits, as you write self-realisation is liberation from self limitations but it has also been responsible for the individualist culture that puts self first in almost everything as a right. Maybe we cannot be heard as well and Web 2.0 has helped us to be heard even if people do not read any of the content we post.

It is going to be interesting to see how Web 3.0 is defined and what it offers. Perhaps society may have changed again and start to strenghten weak ties when it is realised they are mostly empty using relationships. Very well written paper.
- Written by Michelle A about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thank you Michael,
  
  When it comes down to it, our lives are simply interactions with many, the network effect of Web 2.0 (service gets better as more people join) explains why the quality improves but not why we all want to be a part of it. The main reason Web 2.0 has taken off and shifted structures within individualism is because of the interaction, really because of the individuals want to interact.
  
  I think the initial fad of Web 2.0 is almost over, now the individual has gotten what it wants in the ability to interact through content, sure its dynamic but the individuals nature of interaction will evolve (if it is not already) again and keep evolving, wanting a more richer experience everytime. I believe this is just the awakening, settling in period (legally as well as socially global) of what is about to come in Web technologies.
  
  “In general we are seeking to get a real human experience and to be very selective with whom we share that experience.” (van den Bel, 2008). Web 3.0 being more of a personal assistant (finely tuned to the individuals individualism), Web 3.5 will see individuals start to interact with each other through avatars (with the ability to use other senses such as touch or 3D experiences), Web 4.0 will bring a switch from avatars to holograms for personal presentation (with the use of web 3.5 3D techniques), Web 4.5 will be the environment where the individual can interact with the holograms (using our senses) and Web 5.0 is the environment where every aspect is holographic, including senses.
  
  In Web 5.0 individuals are supposed to be able to interact using special suits, meeting up with other holograms in a virtual but very real world!!!!! Which brings me to mention the movie “Surrogates” again as it is based directly on what we all have to look forward to. Maybe everyone should take a look at the movie? (And the movie “The Gamer” too, for all those role playing gamers)
  
  I agree with your views on the importance of the weak ties, as these new technologies become available, the focus on the individual will become so personal that it will compress the individual into smaller and smaller sub cultures, those individuals with only a few weak ties will be deprived of information and ideas, as it is the weak tie that extends beyond the intimate circle of friends and establishes the intergroup connections (Granovetter, 1983).
  
  References:
  Granovetter, M. (1983), The Strength Of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisted; available from: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.128…
  
  van den Bel, R. (2008), Web 1.0 – Web 2.0 Social Networking declining, moving towards Web 3.0; available from: http://www.opennetworkers.info/forum/topic/show?id=644203%3ATopic%3A60849&xgs=1
  - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    I’m wondering at this point in time if Web 4 to 5 is really that desirable, but maybe that is me getting older, it will happen in some way. Evolution will happen.

Comment Pages:

Online Conference on Networks and Communities

The Individualist Society

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories

Pages

Tags

Latest comments

Meta