The collaborative nature of web 2.0 technology has resulted in individuals engaging with each other in a transactional manner in online communities. Web 2.0, known as the development of the World Wide Web to have collaborative platforms, is a shift in technology that has allowed for engagement amongst individuals and for communities to grow (McAfee, 2006). These organised digital spaces that allow for voluntary participation from users are the foundation on which rich online communities can grow (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). The ability to create an individual profile also means that users can create their own unique presence within a community online to interact with others. However, constructing a unique presence can lead to users creating a distorted or altered version of themselves online to represent themselves (boyd, 2007).  Through online platforms, individuals can share appreciation for each other through acts of engagement with individuals profiles or their content. These acts of engagement, such as commenting, “liking” or sharing content or profiles can be seen as the exchange of gifts, as the act itself does have value, although it is not financial, and is expected to be reciprocated at some point (Currah, 2007). It is the interactive nature of these online spaces that has allowed for new economies and currencies to be created to better suit how exchanged of value are made online. These include the attention economy, which defines human attention as a scarce but quantifiable commodity on which social capital is built (Crogan & Kinsley, 2012). The gift economy, fuelled by sharing knowledge, content and engagement as gifts in the traditional sense, has also further developed as our frequency of engaging with one another online has (Veale, 2005) . With attention and engagement being present as currencies in both of these online economies, we can see new forms of non financial transactions that have value in online communities. All of these factors play into the way that individuals now engage with others online in communities on web 2.0 platforms, making their behaviour more transactional.

The shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 is essentially the movement from “read only” to read-write” content, making a more collaborative space and allowing for engagement between peers to take place online. The development of a rich user experience, which is a dynamic and interactive experience on which communities are built, is one of three main properties which differs web 2.0 from 1.0 (McAfee, 2006.). It is the element of user participation that greatly differentiates web 2.0 from its previous form. Although users were previously able to create their own web pages that they could publish to the World Wide Web (WWW) if they were proficient in HTML, now they can shape the nature of the WWW through collaboration, due to a range of platforms and applications, such as Wikis and Blogs (Best, 2006.). These advancements in technology are responsible for users being able to actively engage with each other in the form of different online acts, such as comments, likes and follows. Each of these acts, are a type of exchange between two people or groups. If the internet were to have stayed in the web 1.0 phase, users would not have been able to make the actions that best reflect their feelings towards one another online, which has developed into the transactional type of engagement we are now seeing in online communities.

The creation and participation in a successful community should be both voluntary and organised, which web 2.0 platforms allow. Communities in the physical world hold both of those key elements, and they have been successfully transferred to online platforms, making strong communities for individuals to participate in. Users are able to choose to express themselves in a setting that is well arranged for a great experiencer, which has lead online communities to flourish (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). The platforms themselves act as a central meeting ground, regardless of previous factors that would have deterred a community from developing such as geographical location, which is what allows for the community to be organised. Web 2.0 technology allows for users to commit voluntary acts of engagement with other members of the community, much like they would in the physical world. This includes actions such as commenting, sharing or liking content. Once this act has been conducted, content consumers then become a part of a community and begin to build a relationship with the content maker (Hellekson, 2009)This has made the web space ideal for a community setting.

People are able to build their own individualised profiles as users, creating a unique presence for themselves within the community with which they will conduct social transactions. Users generally will build their identity online with a focus on the continuous search for recognition and acceptance of others within or outside of their community. This identity may or may not reflect how they are presented in the physical world. This is the reason why these contemporary online forms of the creation of an individualised identity in our society cannot be seen as solitary and egoistic self-isolation, but rather as a way of building the unique personal part of the community, which is one’s own personality in relation to others, in correspondence  to different social roles (boyd, 2007). The attention received due to engagements with an individual’s profile are perceived as currency, with individuals even feeling anxious about the possibility of diminishing attention online (Crogan & Kinsley, 2012). Whether they be constructed ideals of one’s identity or what the user believes to be a “true” depiction of their personality as it is in the physical world, online identities are created to play a role within communities on behalf of the individual that best suit the attention economy online.

Engagement with content online now has a high social value, due to the role it plays in the attention economy. When a user engages with content, it’s their way of endorsing either the message or the individual that generated it and acknowledging that it has gained their attention and is worth their time. This is because engagement requires an element of self-selection, as it is essentially a decision making process (Mochon et al., 2017). Engagement refers to actions such as clicking, reading, commenting, sharing or liking content and is done so that a person can have a presence within a community (Hellekson, 2009). The reason this is so valuable is because attention, and therefore engagement, has become a currency in itself. Attention is one of the currencies that also assists in building social capital, which is why users will construct their profile in a way that gain the most attention.

The remuneration for the act of engagement in regards to content sharing on social networking sites and content sharing platforms is often referred to as “gifts”, which has resulted in mass participation in the gift economy and transactional behaviour. Traditionally, predominantly in the physical world, gift giving is generally associated with acts of kindness. Whether this is in the form of charity, volunteering, inheritance or present-giving, economic transactions made in our society are increasingly revolving around the notion of giving (Elder-Vass, 2015). Although technological advancements have changed the nature of gift giving on online platforms, it is still understood that these exchanges operate on the basis of reciprocity and trust (Currah, 2007). Due to the internet’s low financial cost of engagement and the ability to distribute information and products on a mass scale with ease, it is now easy to facilitate the act of gift giving for little or no financial cost (Veale, 2005). While initially using gift as a way of labeling interacting and communicating with others in the online community may seem odd, due to the selflessness and giving nature that is generally associated with the act, the definitions of gift discussed still assumes that there will be some reciprocacy, linking it to a form of social exchange. The ease of transaction due to the internet means that it is quite simple for peers to maintain relationships through the act of gift exchange through engagement. As gift giving has become a preferable chosen form of transaction, there has now been mass participation in the gift economy.

Gifts in exchange for online content from peers and brands take many intangible forms, due to the nature of social media platforms and the value of engagement. While some users may distribute small acts of engagement as appreciation for a member of the community, others will distribute online engagement through more public means, such as the sharing of content, which can have a high social consequence if the individual has a larger following on social media. On social media platforms, acts such as “liking” on Facebook and Instagram, “mentioning” on Twitter or resharing content and tagging the content creator are all seen as engagements with value. Due to the nature of social media networks, all of these acts result in either exposure for the content creator themselves or help them to obtain an authority status, due to the engagement being seen as an endorsement by an individual or group (Romele & Severo, 2016). Whether the gift is either a tangible or intangible asset, there will always be an exchange, even if the giving and receiving are deferred. Gifts in this setting are always reciprocated by the return of something else that is usually of a perceived equivalent value at a later date (Elder-Vass, 2015). Together, the individuals within a community need to decide the value of the items involved in the exchange. Depending on the authority and respect of the individual themselves, gifts in the form of engagement may hold a high value and may suffice in the exchange. However, if the content creator believes that the engagement does not hold enough value for an equal exchange, it is likely that they will feel like the exchange has been unsatisfactory.

With the creation of these new economies in the online space, new assets and forms of currency have been created. A characteristic commonly associated with the online communities is an increase of the impact of the capital itself. The range of items and material assets available, people’s attention and people’s money all become important currencies on these platforms (Kane, 2016). As the ease of access results in more competitors online, “Social capital” becomes increasingly important. The online space has developed structures for collaborating and communicating with others, including strangers. This means that there is also grounds for building and distributing social capital on these platforms (Rahman, 2016). This is generally done through the collaborative features of web 2.0. Social networking sites and content sharing platforms, comments sections allow for users to leave more qualitative feedback, which is where social capital can be built and exchanged. As these comments are generally public, at least to a certain audience, they have a significant worth, and they are now a factor that determines your relationship and future engagement in relation to these economies.

In conclusion, it can be recognised that the collaborative nature of web 2.0 technology is what has made way  for users to engage with each other in a way that can be described as “transactional” in online communities. The development of the World Wide Web made it possible to have a centralised meeting ground for communities regardless of previous boundaries, such as geographical location or time, and the addition of web 2.0 collaborative platforms has further enhanced this as it allows for the engagementment amongst individuals, resulting in a good foundation for communities to grow. Furthermore, the added ability for users to create an individual profile also means that people and groups can create their own unique presence within a community space online. Although, the act of consciously constructing a unique presence can sometimes perhaps lead to users creating a distorted or altered version of themselves online to represent how they wish to be perceived. Through online platforms, individuals share their appreciation for one another within their community through acts of engagement with individuals profiles or their content. The value of such acts, such as commenting, “liking” or sharing content or profiles can be seen as a gift exchange, as the act itself does have value, although it is not financial, and is expected to be reciprocated at some point, creating a transactional way of showing appreciation that is tailored to the online space. It is the nature of interactive web 2.0 online spaces that has allowed for new economies and currencies to be created. In these emerging economies, we can see new forms of non financial transactions that have value within online communities.. All of these factors play into the way that individuals now engage with others online in a transactional manner within communities on web 2.0 platforms.

References

Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070

Best, D. (2006). Web 2.0 next big thing or next big Internet bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven. Retrieved from: http://docshare02.docshare.tips/files/463/4635236.pdf

boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Currah, A. (2007). Managing creativity: The tensions between commodities and gifts in a digital networked environment. Economy and Society, 36(3), 467-494. doi:http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/03085140701428415

Crogan, P. & Kinsley, S. (2012) Paying Attention: Towards a critique of the attention economy. 1-29.

Elder-Vass, D. (2015). The moral economy of digital gifts. The International Journal of Social Quality, 5(1), 35-50. doi:http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.3167/IJSQ.2015.050103

Hellekson, K. (2009). A fannish field of value: Online fan gift culture. Cinema Journal, 48(4), 113-118. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/222357652?accountid=10382

Kane, G. C. (2016). Crowd-based capitalism? empowering entrepreneurs in the sharing economy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3) Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1778453874?accountid=10382

McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from: http://www.wikiservice.at/upload/ChristopheDucamp/McAfeeEntrepriseDeux.pdf

Mochon, D., Johnson, K., Schwartz, J., & Ariely, D. (2017). What are likes worth? A facebook page field experiment. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 54(2), 1. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1903519847?accountid=10382

Rahman, K. S. (2016). The shape of things to come: The on-demand economy and the normative stakes of regulating 21st-century capitalism. European Journal of Risk Regulation : EJRR, 7(4), 652-663. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1863562219?accountid=10382

Romele, A., & Severo, M. (2016). The Economy of the Digital Gift: From Socialism to Sociality Online. Theory, Culture & Society. http://doi.org/10.1177/0263276415619474

Veale, K. (2005). Internet gift economies: voluntary payment schemes as tangible reciprocity. First Monday, 3. Available:http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1518/1433