How many links does it take to?...

Web 2.0 can appear as a disjointed and unstructured milieu of links that lets users celebrate the various freedoms afforded information shares, tract backs, commentary, participation and contribution. In effect the user is always social. Always creating, updating and modifying links. Turow and Tsui speculate that we are now ‘hyper-linked’ and its always nice to insert the word hyper to make something appear de rigeur, of the moment and with the added sense of urgency. You are not linked, unless you are hyperlinked!

The integration between articles and social tools is a telling one, and the situation for where would disagree about the looseness of Web 2.0. We are at liberty to participate and to decline participation; however our very openness means that links are valued for their level of trust and content of truth.

Previously (version Web 1.0) this had led to assumptions that there is little integration of more static offline links to sinuous online connections. This was a world with outside and inside doors that had locks and bolts. The power of Web 2.0 is its social composition. The newer concept of digital social networking reveals how most connections are user led and have an important social aspect to them. From the point of view of those of us who are hyperlinked, the most interesting aspects are the creation and recreation of ourselves, likes and connections across digital technologies. Our expectations tap into Surowiecki's Wisdom of Crowds versus Keen’s Cult of the Amateaur.

John Battelle describes the underlying structure as a ‘database of intentions’. And he is right. How we search, navigate content providers and contribute means links become more valued and we, ourselves, valuable.

And lets face it, no-one wants just one friend on Facebook.

Profiting off another ‘lonely girl'

This week Monday’s MediaGuardian interviewed Joanna Shields the new commercial ‘driver’ of SNS Bebo – a woman now set to launch her own Social Networking-‘angst’ phenomenon. In the wake (quite literally in light of recent events) of lonelygirl15’s death on the SNS YouTube Shields, along with lonelygirls15 creators, is set to help to launch ‘Kate Modern’; the days, life and times of a fictional struggling arts student.

In The Guardian interview Shields outlines the marketability of such a ‘resource’ for SNS. As part of Bebo this is seen as a ‘natural’ and, moreover, profitable, extension of the ‘lifestyle media’ that Web 2.0 users are already a part of.

This is where there has been a shift in the algorithm of Web 2.0 content that has reflected user demands and behaviours. It seems ironic that precisely what has made SNS like Facebook so popular and a ‘premium’ when compared to other sites like MySpace is that they are ‘real’ people sustaining, managing and making connections to other ‘real’ people. In this context I am surprised that there is demand for such fictitious life-style and life-course accounts. Shields astutely points out that there has been a shift from Web 1.0’s more information-based searches, to a Web 2.0 connected life-style, which sees people (in particular young people) living out their lives online.

In part I agree with Shields. Lives are indeed being lived out through Sherry Turkle’s screen. These lives however are closely connected to their ‘offline’ counterparts, as individuals interact through the screen and then back out again.

So my question is this with lonelygirl15 and Modern Kate, what kind of ‘lives’ are these?

danah boyd the American doctorate student whose research is about social networking has (like myself) focussed on the ‘technosocial’ constructs that ‘real’ individuals are creating and the ways that they interact with one another on such sites.

Which returns me to my own question, not only ‘what kind of lives are these’, but what type of users are interested in them?

boyd's most recent publication ‘Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace’ has considered the possible class divides across the most popular SNS’s that reflect ‘real’ divides offline. Blog lives like Kate Modern represent a convergence of the ubiquitous social media that Web 2.0 has to offer, one that is mixed with a milieu of episodic and voyeuristic media representations.

For Shields’s Kate’s life merges the community engagement of social networking together with audience interaction that smacks of commercialability where the likes of Kate ‘can interact with you’. This returns us to the ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ lives that were the earliest domains of Web 1.0 – and where, to hark back to that classic cartoon, in cyberspace you were never sure if you really were interacting with a dog or not.

In the context of YouTube, MySpace and Bebo it seems there is demand for serialised and fictional ‘friends’. Perhaps boyd’s consideration of the American class divide on social networks should be reframed, or extended, in terms of a generational context that could shed some light on the kinds of users that Kate Modern appeals to.

In light of my own research, rather simplistically, a generational breakdown would look something like;
MySpace: the domain of school students and early teens – free to ‘hang out’ away from parental scrutiny.
Bebo: a forum for ‘cool’ college 6th form students, late teens and ‘young people’ keen to define themselves as more sophisticated than their MySpace younger brothers and sisters.
Facebook: the most savvy of them all. Originally the domain only of University students and post-grads with a ‘.ac.uk’ address. Since opening its digital doors to non-university users, their parents/extended family/friends and those in commercial organisations have clambered to join – (want proof, just see how many from the BBC you can spot!)

The generational context of SNS leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth, as the realisation strikes that it the pre-Facebook generations that are likely to be subjected to the most rigorous of marketing strategies and commercial manipulations. At its commencement Lonelygirl15 did not offer the caveat that its character was entirely fictional. In contrast, Kate Modern makes no pretence that her lives and loves promise to provide a fictional storyboard for her audience to enjoy.

Again there seems an irony here in the context of a SNS, where user lives are about their ‘real’ networks, or at least as real as the email address provided to connect such networks

Perhaps there is no issue here at all, the merger of lives, ‘real’, ‘fictitious’ or otherwise simply reflect the melting pot of digital content. This simply means that users need to be savvy about the ‘whom’ they are conversing with. But only if it matters that the ‘they’ are not a canine friend. Otherwise as Andrew Keen has speculated the ‘cult of the amateur’, or ‘fictional’ looks set to continue to form an integral part of our technosocial lives.

Web 2.0: Finally, a setting for social theory!

Web 2.0 just got theoretical ! or at least that is the idea.

Being hosted at the University of York 5th and 6th of September is The Social Science of Web 2.0 event - that intends to bring social theory and some serious social discussion to the Web 2.0 frontier.

One of the Key Notes is Andrew Keen whose recent book 'Cult of the Amateur' regards Web 2.0 interconnectedness as a detriment to social knowledge and user (or rather society) intelligence. But then isn't that what they said when ICT's first came into the home and placed users online for the first time?... Well no doubt he shall prove a very worthy Key Noter, and alongside George Ritzer, Charles Leadbeater, Scott Lash and Bernie Hogan this promises to be a very entertaining and thought provoking event.

Moreover I am looking forward to dispelling Keen's concerns that Web 2.0 is at the cost of our culture and is instead a milieu of activity and creativity - ok so not all of it 'quality', but there are some real gems out there!

So if you have an interest in Networks, Online Communities, Privacy, Identity , Trust, Community Media and Democracy this event should appeal to you too!

Straight from the horses mouth

Social networking and social networking sites (SNS) have become hugely popular and I have just recently come across a new one 'horsesmouth'.

Based in the UK unlike other SNSs horsesmouth is about the sharing of information rather than making connection with already 'known' friends.

The premise, built on the adage that knowledge is power, is to share your potential specialist skills with others without 'image' or popularity being at the fore of connections.

Horsesmouth states:

'we don't want people to find each other because of what they look like... on horsesmouth you'll have to let go of your looks and let the real you shine through'

From your profile you let others know your area(s) of 'expertise' and can advise on anything from the mundane - cookery tips, to more intellectual and philosophical ideas and even emotional relations.

This is an interesting take on the sharing of social resources and knowledge. As Web 2.0 is all about peer participation and user-generated content this seems a more natural way to combine social links, create and share with one another.

What we need to be careful about is how we interpret such information (with a large pinch of salt!). Sites such as Wikipedia seem to stand alone as a definitive guide and information resource and have created what Andrew Keen has labelled in his recent book the 'cult of the Amateur'. Perhaps the sharing and discussions created by sites such as horsesmouth can create new forums for debate and pools of knowledge... or are we being led up another information controlled path?..

BUT I think as geeks we are more savvy than to accept without question information uncovered online. Where Keen's concerns of an amateur culture have come to the fore, we should revel in the opportunities that we have to open debate and stimulate discussions!

A toast to the collabatory Web 2.0 and all from the horses mouth!

Big Fish; Small Net

The Catch is Small: Confusion within a shrinking net

Searches online, whether a name, place, historical event and so forth inevitably lead you to Wikipedia. Unnerving is its position as a seemingly ‘all-purpose’ and oracle like information source you have only to type ‘frog’, ‘giant’, ‘Tokyo’ into a search engine and up pops the same source.

I have recently criticised Andrew Keen for his dreary vision of Web 2.0 as permeated by the passive and mindless masses consuming and creating information in the same way, on the same pages and probably using the same keystrokes. The catch of new streams of information is something that should be celebrated, and any means that allows for people to become enthusiastic and share across the board knowledge is a wonderful thing. However, such fishing of information and insight knowledge is under threat from the ‘giants’ of information sourcing.

According to the Technology Guardian July 2007 Google now handles 65% of all website searches. Add to this the domination of information trawlers such as Wikipedia and we have a World Wide Web shrinkage problem. Information is in the hands of the Big Three: Google, Wikipedia and Yahoo! which direct an array of information queries in the same way. Rather than broadening the scope of information reach and depth these remain bound to dominate search results where the already Big fish get BIGGER.

I had hoped that Web 2.0 would bring forth a new optimisation and widen the net for information where increasingly nuanced readerships and viewerships would have a chance to be caught amongst the mega-catch of the Big Three. However, it appears that I must give Andrew Keen his dues as Web 2.0 seems to be following the inevitable pattern of growth that we have all become familiar with as part of a globalised economy. Homogeneity is dominating; the largest sites are securing their command and hook through expanded advertisement revenue (yes sadly even Facebook has succumbed to this ploy) as well as the buying up of smaller sites to continue to widen their lead.

The tripping point would be a switch from reliance on the big fish of information that may trigger new streams as users switch from one set to the other. Perhaps those consigned to the periphery should celebrate their uniqueness, as an unfished source, swimming against the tide of en-masse information.

The Keen-ness of Keen

Amateur HumDrum

Adam Webb writing in The Guardian 'The Vinyl Frontier' has found that the future of the record shop may not be as gloomy as we have been led to believe. Does this mean that the reign of the 'amateur' and user generated information is not as bleak as Andrew Keen has made out?...

Andrew Keen notes in his recent book 'The Cult of the Amateur' that we are entering a 'uesr generated' era, where tracts of 'reliable', trustworthy' and 'quality' information have been poorly substituted by online downloads (more often than not illegal), piracy, internet shopping and an array of user platforms that create a plethera of digital download options, searches and even creative 'masterpieces'.

In terms of music Keen laments the closure of his favourite record stores, and attacks the current cultural 'choice' provided by Web 2.0 that is dependent upon those anonymous reviews from itunes or Amazon.com - a 'death rattle' in the face of the co-bodily encounter and superior knowledge of the music clerk.

However, and contrary to Keen's bewail-ment, the popularity of music is stronger than it has ever been before. In part this is to do with Web 2.0; audiences can now access the 'creator' of their favourite music, find out much more detailed add-on information, subscribe to authored blogs etc. On MySpace if you are accepted as a 'friend' you can even become your favourite bands NBF (New Best Friend). But there is still demand for preserving the physicality of music appreciation. From buying cd's and enjoying the atmosphere of a music store to standing up to your neck in mud and getting into the music.

As Webb points out in his article, current trends are centred on the role of the independent retailor to 'pass the baton on' where they encourage new music and break new acts. Alongside this the back catalogue offers a new generation of music lovers a way to get excited about music that cannot be replicated on itunes. Here the embodied interaction between music dealer and audience enjoyment retain their place despite Keen's concerns to the contrary.

What Keen really overlooks, is how the audience still appreciates and seeks to get excited about music. His view is rather generalised toward a (lack of) culture audience, limited in their tastes and passive in their ability to feel inspired, act upon or recognise quality acts. Whilst Web 2.0 has given rise to file-sharing, illegal downloads, and so forth to the detriment of music retailors such as HMV and Tower Records, this audience want to get excited about new bands, share, remix etc with one another. Perhaps it is not the 'cult of the amateur' that is failing Web 2.0, but Web 2.0 that is failing the rise of a more confident audience.

Sources
Keen, A. (2007) The Cult of The Amateur
Webb, A. The Guardian 'The Vinyl Frontier' Friday July 6 2007