There has been much debate about the social meanings and use of new technologies in the territory of Web 2.0. In an social environment where users have supposed unlimited access to content and uploads, data assumes immense worth and is of the highest social importance. The symbolic associations for users in terms of cultivating a pervasive and ever-present presence have been reworked for content that spans SNSs, blogs, IM as well as the ‘You’ contacted via mobile phone. Thus social presence has become a meaningful commodity that is vilified by the participation across Web 2.0 and have been most noticeable on SNSs.In this context, identity is being treated as a product in its own right that can be traded and used as a currency in order to have purchase on others. This in turn may mean that there are possible sources for conflict as individuals choose to act (or not to act) upon the social prompts from others. Web 2.0 is then a part of more complex sets of relations that are layered by networks of contact and visible social presence.
Specifically this has been the dominant story of Generation-i (the cohort of young people born in the 1980s and raised with technology). Within this tale of burgeoning social networks and omnipresence online the interactions are distinct from previous ‘cyber space’ identities. Assumptions and expectations are based around emphasis on the ‘here’ and ‘now’ where interactions are valued for their ‘liveness’ and true to life social recognition. The social tools that are in use carry social weight compared to previous static settings of email address and chatroom user names. In Web 2.0 land interactions are fluid and can be ‘tied down’ only in so far as they can be gotten hold of via constantly modified social presence. The next step up from this has been debated by Mike Harvey's article The Future of Social Networking in The Times where social information is beamed to others via mobile devices. Like something out of Spielberg's 2002 Minority Report information would be received as you and your device cross the thresholds of shops, restaurants and even parties. Although with a nod to Cruise’s lack of on screen charisma these scenarios seem too fantastic and far off from having any real consequence any time soon.
Also we'd all look a little silly in those gloves.
4 comments:
I'm not sure if we are that far from it with Twitter. Some of my friends sadly spend as much time talking and keeping up to date with virtual stuff when they are in parties or pubs with their real live friends. I've seen people (mainly men - sorry guys) not really speak a lot but twitter stuff like "I'm in the pub with @anniemole". They're catching up on "brands" and companies they might be following on twitter.
Admittedly they are early adopting super geeks but I don't think it will be that long before teenagers embrace Twitter in the same way they embrace Facebook and then they can get big brother type broadcasts beamed down to them the minute they walk into a party.
@ annie mole,
Perhaps you are right. As far as the 'super geeks' go particpation seems obligatory, or they'll break out in a cold sweat if they don't tweat, blog, poke or subsribe to something every ten minutes.
In terms of BB behaviour, the trickle down effect to the teens of today and'super geeked'- up of tomorrow will be interesting to watch.
Such interactions might make for a better Channel 4 BB show too! but i'm not sure what Orwell would make of that!
Yes odd the RL seems only to work for some when stuck into Twit or something like it. Funny the way it is the guys who seem most stuck into this e-gossip
@ Anon,
great subject for another posting: Twit updates and 'eGoss' as a masculine/feminine divide: Discuss!
Post a Comment