(November 11(November 11thth 2009) 2009)Shane Mc Loughlin

Shane.mcloughlin@ucd.ie

IS20090 : Toys

The Social, Political and Economic consequences of Web 2.0

Learning Objectives:•To survey some wider theoretical issues concerning the emergence of web 2.0•To present definitions and critique on the discourse surrounding web 2.0•To sketch out the scope of web 2.0 technologies and their use•To note important issues concerning the design and implementation of web 2.0 technologies•To present significant theoretical themes and arguments concerning the impact of social, political and economic implications arising from web 2.0•To present up to date figures and statistics of web 2.0 usage by citizens

-Students should become aware of wider theoretical issues concerning the impact of newer technologies on society (e.g.. 'Power', Castells 'Network society' and 'Communication power' etc)-Students should understand definitions , scope and critique of the term web 2.0-Students should be aware of significant social issues concerning the design of these technologies. -Students should become familiar with significant theoretical and practical issues concerning the social, political and economic implications arising from web 2.0-Students will become familiar with significant international events demonstrating the role of web 2.0-Students should have an understanding of present figures and statistics regarding web 2.0 usage by citizens.

Learning Outcomes:

- The creation of the profile online means we reduce our lives and identity to the short fields provided on a profiler form? - The question of whether everyday conscious experience is 'better' and whether 'quality of life' has improved because many of us spend time on the internet? Web 2.0 enhances or substituting offline contact?-Our interaction with technology online and its design and architecture is one means by which all of us partly share a kind of conscious experience.??-Self regulation? Does the internet mean the masses provides its own policing assisted through the technological apparatus?-We become prosumers, we become part of the production chain for the products we acquire online?-We give away our privacy with little in return?-Web 2.0 allows more effective social movement and counter culture?-Etc. Etc. etc...................................................

Web 2.0 questions:

-Fritjof Capra presented a synthesis of theories which he regarded as the best explanation for understanding life on earth; biologically, cognitively and socially. Patterns of organisation can be observed throughout the domains of life, whereby the content and nature of the process of these patterns vary throughout different domains. (Capra in Pisani, 2007, p8)

-Manuel Castells like Capra recognising the importance of the network pattern; refers to networks as 'the fundamental pattern of life, of all kinds of life.' (Castells. 2004, p3) He has cited networks as the defining characteristic of our age. (Giddens, 2006, p671).

Patterns, patterning, networks

Manuel Castells – Network Society

“The network society is a society where the key social structures and activities are organized around electronically processed information networks. So it's not just about networks or social networks, because social networks have been very old forms of social organization. It's about social networks which process and manage information and are using micro-electronic based technologies….The diffusion of a networking logic substantially modifies the operation and outcomes in processes of production, experience, power, and culture” (Castells, 1997)

“For the first time the written, oral and visual modes of communication have been integrated into a single communications structure.” (Castells, 1996)

“the fundamental battle being fought in society is the battle over the minds of the people...Because Communication, and particularly socialized communication, the one that exists in the public realm, provides the support for the social production of meaning, the battle of the human mind is largely played out in the processes of communication....As a result, power relations...are increasingly shaped and decided in the communication field”

(Castells, 2007).

Networks are:

-Flexible-Reconfigurable-They allow convergence-They Link up what’s valuable -They handle complexity-They can be self-organising-They may allow for collective intelligence -They can be decentralised-Can distribute power and control

Features of Networks:

 - A Google search of “web 2.0” throws up 87 million search results for the term.

-The term first came to popularity after the O'Reilly media web 2.0 Conference of 2004 when Tim O'Reilly cited the move to the web as a platform where software application are built to work on the web.

-Overall web 2.0 is an idea about a second generation of the internet, away from mainly static web pages to a social platform where abundant connection and communication happens amongst people, and everyone has ample opportunities to communicate and participate rather than consume.

What is Web 2.0?

Castells (2009) defined web 2.0 as:

“the cluster of technologies, devices, and applications that support the proliferation of social spaces on the Internet” (p. 65).

It marks the transition to a more open, social, participatory and collaborative internet?

•The participatory web•The open web•The social Web•The Collaborative web•The dynamic web•The media rich web•The interoperable web

What is Web 2.0?

Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a "piece of jargon":

"Nobody really knows what it means...If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."

What is Web 2.0? Criticism

•Openness – companies make their boundaries more porous

•Peering – self organisation and collaboration

•Sharing- sharing knowledge, resources, content and hardware

•Acting globally – companies and individuals pursuing needs and opportunities globally.

(Tapscott & Williams, 2006)

Economic impact of Web 2.0: Web 2.0 and Wikinomics

Gartner, Inc. :Web. 2.0 technologies enable changing business models. Gardner researchers stress the need for 'flexibility' within organisations, the need for balancing control with openness and more generally the power of networking:

'Gartner predicts that by 2009, six out of 10 new collaboration-related IT projects will seamlessly incorporate supplier, partner and customer personnel, heralding a move away from the traditional, closed, inward-looking organisation to a more open, collaborative and innovative environment.' (Kennedy. John, 9-11-07, “Web 2.0 could lead to ‘openness’ in the workplace” (Web 2.0, 2007)

Economic impact of Web 2.0: Operationalising Network Society Theory

-Empowerment?-Democratisation?-Creativity?-Exploitation?-Narcissism?-Mediocrity?-Exhibitionism?-’Over-sharing’?-Self-Monitoring? And policing?-Commoditisation and branding ourselves?-Image over substance? Simulacra-Flickering over depth?-Weak over strong relationships?

Some social issues with Web 2.0?

Power and the web: Cultural hegemony

Antonio Gramsci (1891 –1937)

- He suggested capitalism maintained control not just through political and economic coercion, but also ideologically through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the 'common sense' values of all. Thus, a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and helped to maintain the status-quo rather than revolting.

- Gramsci suggested that prevailing cultural norms must not be perceived as either “natural” and “inevitable”,

-Personal "common sense" maintains a dual role. Individuals utilise "common sense" to cope with their daily life and explain to themselves the small segment of the social order they come to witness in the course of this life. However, because it is by nature limited in focus, common sense may inhibit the ability to perceive the greater, systemic nature of socio-economic exploitation that cultural hegemony makes possible.

Question for the group:

- How might Web 2.0 enhance cultural hegemony? and how might it serve to counter it?

Power and the web: Communication powerCastells (2009) asks “Where does power lie in the global network society?” (p.42)

-Castells (2009) defines power as ‘the relational capacity that enables a social actor to influence asymmetrically the decisions of other social actor(s) in ways that favour the empowered actors will, interests, and values’ (p.10)

-For Castells, the contemporary internet is shaped by a conflict between the global multimedia business networks that try to commodify the internet and the ‘creative audience’ that tries to establish a degree of citizen control of the internet.

- Framing, agenda-setting, priming, and indexing are for Castells the four mainmechanisms of communication power that are used in politics etc. for influencing the public mind.

Power and the web: Communication power

-The global culture of universal commodification is culturally diversified and ultimately contested by other cultural expressions’ (Castells, 2009, p.136)

Overall, some of the worries and hopes of the networking power of the web are as follows:

•Fragmentation?•Polarisation? •Tribalisation?•Refeudalisation?

-Bottom up and top down profiling...

-More and more of our lives become mediated through technology and such information can be captured by the market – 'Knowing Capitalism'

“Information about preferences, choices, and other personal details are considered valuable in an age of 'knowing capitalism' where data-mining and predictive technologies are prominent.” (Beer and Burrows, 2007)

For Scott Lash the 'web 2.0 heralds “an 'age of the portal' where 'the data find you' (Lash, 2006, p.580). This is highlighted as we are frequently confronted with recommendations, news specific to our interests or about our friends, suggested purchases and other things of supposed interest.

You find the data? The data finds you?Capitalism finds you?

-Web 2.0 enhances the capacity for social movements both proactive and reactive:

•Environmental activism•Feminism•Religious movements•Political uprisings

•Counter cultures•Flash-mobbing•Tweet-ups

Power and the web: Communication power

Some examples:•Falun Gong (late 90s)•Seattle WTO Protests (1999) – Email and Boards•Hurricane Katrina (2005) - Katrinalist•President Obama (2008) – Social media•Iran Elections (2009) – Twitter•Lisbon treaty (2009) – Facebook status and political apps•Aston Kutcher versus CNN (2009)

Power and the web: Communication power

However, Fuchs (2009) argues that ‘political counter power on the internet is facing a massive asymmetry that is due to the fact that the ruling powers control more resources such as money, decision making power, capacities for attention generation…power struggles may remain precarious’ (p.8)

He cites how Indymedia, the most popular alternative online news platform is only ranked 4147 whereas the BBC is marked 44

Power and the web: Communication power

Pierre Bourdieu (1930 -2002)

- When one accumulates sufficient economic, cultural, human and social capital, one sets the rules of the game.

- Symbolic systems [language and its practice] exercise a cognitive function in that different modes of knowledge structure different ways of apprehending the world.

- Deep structures of meaning are shared by all members of a culture and dictate what is possible to know within that culture.

- Symbolic systems serve as instruments of domination.- Through knowledge and communication, a dominant symbolic

system integrates all the members within that system, establishes a hierarchical order for less dominant systems, and legitimizes the distinctions of social rankings.

Power and the web: Symbolic Violence

- Power also entails some form of legitimation.- Symbolic violence is hegemonic in that dominated groups accept as

legitimate the condition of their domination- Social agents reproduce their social worlds, they also reproduce

their own domination.- The capacity to impose the ‘legitimate vision of the social world…its

divisions’ constitutes what Bourdieu (1987) calls worldmaking power, which rest on misrecognition.

- Misrecognition involves the process by which the dominated come to recognise the dominating culture as legitimate and perhaps desirable. This produces and reproduces the power of those dominating.

Power and the web: Symbolic Violence

Question for the group:

- How might symbolic violence be a relevant theory to understand social life on facebook?

The Public Sphere:

Jurgen Habermas (1974)

-“The public sphere...mediates between society and state, in which the public organise itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere” (Habermas, 1974) -“Public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed” (ibid)-“Theory of Public sphere posits that the development of….capitalism provided the conditions in 18th century Britain for the development of both the theory and practice of liberal democracy….making available to a new political class, the bourgeoisie; both the time and material resources to create a network of institutions within civil society such as newspapers, learned and debating societies…”(Garnam in Webster et al, 2005) 

The “New” Public Sphere:John Keane

“'The old dominance of state structured and territorially bounded public life mediated by radio, television, newspapers, and books is coming to an end. Its hegemony is rapidly being eroded by the development of a multiplicity of networked spaces of communication...fragmenting anything formerly resembling a single, spatially integrated public sphere within a nation state framework...public life is today subject to refeudalisation, not in the sense in which Habermas...used the term, but in the different sense of the development of a complex mosaic of differently sized, overlapping, and interconnected public spheres that force us radically to revise our understanding of public life and its partner terms such as public opinion, the public good, and the public private distinction” (Keane in Webster et al, 2004, p366)

Keane proposes Micro, meso and macro understanding of public spheres

 

Network Gatekeeper theoryGate – The entrance to or the exit from a network or its sections.Gatekeeping – Process of controlling information as it moves

through a gate.Activities include selection, addition, withholding, display,

channeling, shaping, manipulation, repetition, timing, localization, integration, disregard and deletion of information.

Gatekeeping Mechanism1 – Tool, technology or methodology used to carry out the process of gatekeeping.

Network Gatekeeper – Entity (people, organizations, or governments) that has the discretion to exercise gatekeeping through a gatekeeping mechanism in networks and can choose the extent to which to exercise it.

Gated – Entity that is subject to a gatekeeping process.

(Barzilai-Nahon, 2005)

Network Gatekeeper TheoryKey propositions:• The gated can also create and produce information,

in the age of networks and the internet. Thus, gated are no longer just receivers of information.

Possibility to circumvent gatekeepers and gatekeeping mechanisms

The bargaining power of the gated is on the rise. On the other hand, gatekeepers have more mechanisms to control information.

- Mark Granovetter is an American sociologist at Stanford University who has created theories in modern sociology since the 1970s. He is best known for his work in social network theory and in economic sociology, particularly his theory on the spread of information in social networks known as "The Strength of Weak Ties" (1973).

- Your relationships with others, or 'ties' range from strong ties to weak ties:

- Strong ties are those relationship with people you are emotionally close to. They tend to be multi-stranded, frequently maintained and intimate. It is argued that strong ties were common in traditional communities.

- Weak ties are connections with people emotionally distant to oneself, e.g. acquaintances. These ties are generally single-stranded, infrequently maintained and non-intimate

-In his famous article The Strength of Weak Ties, Granovetter (1982) stresses the importance of weak ties as they enable people to seek out new resources, new information and diversity of information one doesnt get from strong ties

Strength of weak ties

Web Statistics:

The top 20 sites on the internet:

1.Google 2.FaceBook.com3.Yahoo! 4.YouTube 5.Windows Live 6.Wikipedia 7.Blogger.com 8.Microsoft Network (MSN) 9.Baidu.com 10.Yahoo! カテゴリ 11.Myspace 12.QQ.COM 13.Google India 14.Twitter 15.Google 16.Google 17.Microsoft Corporation 18.新浪新闻中心 19.WordPress.com 20.Google UK

- Tripling of the time Internet users spend on SNS in the space of a year. - social networking now accounting for 17% of time spent online. (Nielson, 2009)- Combined daily reach of 3 popular social network websites (facebook.com, myspace.com and twitter.com) is 24% of daily internet consumption with facebook.com accounting for 17%. (Alexa.com)

Recent reports by both Comscore and Nielson appear to show that social networking and social networking sites are now the most popular online activities;

"social networking was the second most popular online activity in the U.K. based on average time spent per user (4.6 hours), trailing only instant messaging (8.6 hours)" (Comscore, 2009).

Recently released research for the US by Nielson (2009) found that Americans spend over 4 1/2 hours (on average per month) on facebook, more than any other site (of the top 10 brands) on the Internet. Thus, both the Nielson and Comscore reports say that Social networking, in particular facebook, is the most popular online activity in both the UK and the States.

Impact of Web 2.0: Time spent social networking:

Are there disparities amongst citizens

contributing on the web, creating new differential

power relations?

- 1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions

- 9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.

- 90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don’t contribute).

Impact of Web 2.0: Contributing on blogs, wikis, Microblogging

The 20 most accessed web 2.0 platforms accounted for ;

-13.24% of global average page views.-96.15% of these page views were on profit orientated web 2.0 platforms

- During much of the time that users spend online, theyproduce profit for large corporations like Google, News Corp. (which owns MySpace), or Yahoo! (which owns Flickr). Advertisementson the Internet are frequently personalized; this is made possible by surveilling, storing, and assessing user activities and user datawith the help of computers and databases.

-People get access to global communication networks in exchange for surrendering their privacy and becoming advertising targets, however they can use these technologies in counter culture also.

Impact of Web 2.0: Commodification of users?

In 2008, the year of the Obama – Mc Cain presidential election:

-10% of US Internet users posted political comments on social networking sites and 8% on blogs - 64% of online political users in the US got their information about the November elections from network TV websites such as cnn.com, abcnews.com,or msnbcnews.com; -54% visited portal news services like Google or Yahoo, -43% visited the websites of local news organizations, -40% read someone else’s comments in a news group, website, or blog; -34% visited the websites of major national newspapers, -26% visited political or news blogs, -12% visited the website of an alternative news organization

(Pew Research).

Impact of Web 2.0: Political participation and public debate?

Who are the global bloggers?- Two-thirds are male- 50% are 18-34- More affluent and educated than the general population

- 70% have college degrees- Four in ten have an annual household income of $75K+- One in four have an annual household income of $100K+ - 44% are parents

Impact of Web 2.0: Who gets heard?

“Most blogs are of personal character. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 52%of bloggers say that they blog mostly for themselves, while 32% blog for their audience. 31 Thus, to someextent, a good share of this form of mass self-communication is closer to “electronic autism” than toactual communication.

“ (Castells, 2007)

McKinsey Quarterly – Business survey 2009

Found that successful companies not only tightly integrate Web 2.0 technologies with the work flows of their employees but also create a “networked company,” linking themselves with customers and suppliers through the use of Web 2.0 tools.

- High-technology companies are most likely to report measurable benefits from Web 2.0 across the board, followed by those at companies offering business, legal, and professional services.

-Companies most often report greater ability to share ideas; improved access to knowledge experts; and reduced costs of communications, travel, and operations

- Highest on that list of benefits is the ability to gain access to expertise outside company walls more quickly. These respondents also cite lower costs of communication with business partners and lower travel costs

- Respondents say informal incentives incorporating the Web ethos, such as ratings by peers and online recognition of status, have been most effective in encouraging Web 2.0 adoption. They also say role modelling—active Web use by executives—has been important for encouraging adoption internally

Impact of Web 2.0: Business value

Mc Kinsey Survey Continued…

-The survey results suggest that networked organizations have created processes and Web platforms that serve to manage significant portions of these external ties.

- Respondents reporting measurable benefits say their companies, on average, have Web 2.0 interactions with 35 percent of their customers.

-The more heavily used technologies are blogs, wikis, and podcasts—the same tools that are popular among consumers—(Exhibit 2).

- those capturing benefits in their dealings with suppliers and partners, the tools of choice again are blogs, social networks

-- allow companies to distribute product information more readily and, perhaps more critically, they invite customer feedback and even participation in the creation of products

Impact of Web 2.0: Business value

References:

Alexa (2009) Alexa Research. Available at; http://www.alexa.com/ Barzilai-Nahon, K (2004) Gatekeepers and gatekeeping mechanisms in networks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Beer, D., & Burrows, R. (2007) Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations. Sociological Research Online, 12(5). Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood. Castells, M., (1996) The rise of the network society. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers. Castells, M. (2004) “Informationalism, Networks, And The Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint”. In Castells, M. (Ed.), The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Castells, Manuel. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society, International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), 238-266 Available Online :http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/46/35 

 

Castells, M. (2009) Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Comscore (2009) Comscore Statistics. Available at: http://www.comscore.com/ Fuchs, C. (2009) Some Reflections on Manuel Castells Book “Communication Power”, TripleC-Cognition, Communication, Co-operation, 7(1). Granovetter, M. S. (1982) The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis: 105-130. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Giddens, A. (2006) Sociology. 5th ed. / Anthony Giddens edn. Cambridge: Polity. Habormas, J. (ed.) (1976) Was heist Universalpragmatik?, in K. O. Apel Sprachpragmatik und Philosphie. Frankfurt am main: Suhrkamp

McKinsey (2009) McKinsey Quarterly, Available at; http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/home.aspx

Pisani, F. (2007) 'Networks as a unifying pattern of life involving different processes at different levels – An interview with Fritjof Capra' International Journal of Communication 1, Feature 5-25

Pew Research (2009) Pew Research. Available at: http://pewresearch.org/Tapscott, Don; Williams, A. (2007) Wikinomics. How mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin Books Ltd Technocrati (2009) Technocrati. Available at: http://www.technocrati.com 

 

Web 2.0, (2007) 'Web 2.0 could lead to ‘openness’ in the workplace'. Silicon Republic, URL: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single960 Webster, F et al (ed.) (2004) The Information Society Reader. Routledge: USA