blog 10

Ch 5

“web 2.0 and participatory culture” I know this chapter talks about commercialization of the web and all that, but this one paragraph really got me thinking. It’s pretty off topic, so I’m sorry; though Web 2.0 has increased the average individual’s ability to (a) become informed about a particular cause and (b) become “involved” in one, I think that digitized participatory culture is weaker than its non-digital predecessor. Why do I say this? It is not because of recognition, because the digital era has made is impossibly easy for any cause to gain momentum and awareness. But what about web 2.0 and results? In today’s society, it is very easy to express support and align yourself with any given movement. But how much further does the average person pursue the endeavor? We can throw around as many hashtags as we like, but how likely are we to get physically involved? How likely are we to go to a rally, a protest, a sponsored event, a charity drive for our cause? In my opinion, I do not think it is very likely at all. Especially compared to earlier generations, whose only choice was to physically get up and do something for their cause. Now we can send out a tweet or change our Facebook picture and bam, we’ve participated. This type of participatory culture seems to cultivate false or shallow participation—participation that does not really mean anything. It is participation that is only for show. It is more performance art than anything, in my opinion.

“pointed to the crash as proof…the web was just a fad” I can’t imagine that anyone could believe that the web was just a “fad.” I really want to know where those reporters are now and ask them what they were thinking, considering how the internet is so omnipresent now. We practically set a plate for it at the dinner table. Also, I don’t really understand what danah means when she thinks we’re repeating this cycle. What cycle does she mean? If she’s speaking about the web and commercialization, I don’t agree; we had to create entire programs (ad blockers) in order to protect ourselves from being bombarded with advertisements (and advertisers are still finding ways to get to us), so I don’t think that aspect of the web is failing. And I know nobody thinks the web is going anywhere. So I’m not sure what she’s getting at here. Unless I missed something?

I never realized there are no ads on Wikipedia. It is true though that Wikipedia does, essentially, beg users for money. I remember the first time I saw it, I was shocked and appalled and worried about Wikipedia’s continued existence. (Which, as danah points out, was basically their goal.) Sure, I can’t use it as a source for my next research paper, but I use Wikipedia a lot in my personal, everyday life. It’s a good place to get some moderately detailed information about something you don’t know anything about—it’s perfect for beginners, no matter what the topic is. I thin, having a consistent online presence like that is important, especially in a time when you’re automatically skeptical of a sources validity (inversely of pre-digital eras?).

I like the idea that the public at large is taking advantage of the industry (whichever one that may be) instead of the industry exploiting us. It is true that fans and consumers always manage to either find or create loopholes that enable them to get free content or alter existing content in some way. Honestly, people who do this are my heroes. The level of dedication (to learning how to modify), skill and ingenuity really blow my mind. An example that I think most of us can relate to: people who mod GTA games. Some of the mods I have seen are absolutely hysterical and when I see these mods and I know that I never would have thought of that myself:

Like what is the purpose of creating such content? There really isn't one, I suppose, but I guess that's also what make sit fun to do. 

I also think that filing every creative endeavor under the term “labor” creates a bad mentality about putting effort into things (the question of “worth” as danah says). On one hand, you have people who will probably try to take advantage of that and try to pass everything they do off as “labor” (which just screams “extortion” to me); on the other, I feel there would be people who wouldn’t want to do anything creative because they’d start to feel guilty or ripped off for not charging to do something, even if it’s something they love doing (which is too capitalistic of a mindset I think). Example: I like to make my friends mixed audio cd’s for their cars. Should I be charging for this, since I use my own resources and put in a lot of creative “labor”? Interesting how the idea that “free access” to something is somewhat scandalous now (danah and her blog). And how, if we don’t try to monopolize on literally everything we do—if we’re not cinstantly trying to eek out a penny from every single effort—we’re stupid, we don’t value ourselves and we’re degrading our own work. 

(Isn't everything done for political interest?) The topic of government in digitized areas honestly gives me anxiety issues. I think the internet is the final frontier in terms of the "unknown" (forgetting the ocean, because there is some scary looking stuff in there that I don't want any part of), and whenever politicians try to regulate the internet, I can't help but think "there goes the last of our freedom." (I'm not sure how that comes across to you guys though.)