v-Fluence Blog

Putting Web 2.0 in Perspective: Part 3 - Web 2.0 needs to place less emphasis on the technological and more on the social

The notion that the development of certain technologies is inevitable, or that the social influence of a technology is inevitable, is an over-simplification at best; and most likely, a myth. Simply because a technology is available and potentially serves a real purpose does not mean that it is likely to, at least not without the influence and adoption of other factors.

The great British cultural theorist Raymond Williams is, perhaps, the most effective at arguing this openness. According to Williams, technologies are inherently social products; they are the result of inventions, related developments and even non-technological advances or shifts in society and culture. As Raymond Williams (1974) explains, "The invention of television was no single event or series of events. It depended on a complex of inventions and developments in electricity, telegraphy, photography, and motion pictures, and radio."Furthermore, there were numerous non-technological developments, such as efforts from lobby groups that shaped what came to be known as television. Similarly, the Internet that we see today is the gradual outcome of innovations across network technology, microchips, software development and personal computers, among others, but also in non-technological areas, such as the open-source movement and network neutrality debate, key issues that will help determine the eventual shape of the Internet.

William’s theory goes against the inherent belief that Web 2.0 technologies will inevitably turn the Web into a "global brain," as O'Reilly explains. Besides being shortsighted, this determinist line of thought is, potentially, dangerous and marginalizes the role of human agency in the innovation process. The notion that a 'Machine' will provide a 'new way of thinking' assumes a unidirectional flow of influence: from the technology that we use to our behavioral patterns as humans, which neglects the role of social factors in determining the shape of a technology. Clearly, instead of simply glorifying the technology, assuming that it’s moving in the right direction, there needs to be a renewed focus on the non-technological elements of Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 should be about the people

In just under 10 years, we have used various terms, from ‘reaping’ to ‘harnessing,’ to define the Web’s technological and social potential. The first real substantial work on virtual communities is commonly attributed to Howard Rheingold‘s work, aptly titled 'The Virtual Community.' Four years after he published his works, John Hagel and Arthur Armstrong from McKinsey & Company responded with 'Net Gain,' in which they outlined what they perceived to be the "real" value of online communities: their potential as a commodity (1997). Ironically, within the first several paragraphs, the authors state, "like every communications network, the Internet is all about establishing and reinforcing connections between people," before shifting gears and outlining the "real" value of online communities. As the book description on the McKinsey & Company Web site reads: "Net Gain served as a manifesto for a new generation of competitors seeking to reap the rewards of the on-line economy."

The only defining characteristic of Web 2.0, as explained by O'Reilly, specific to its users, is the 'harnessing of collective intelligence.’ As O’Reilly explains, current Web technologies have allowed companies to “make their mark on the Web” by “harnessing collective intelligence,” but what is the benefit for those people whose intelligence is being harnessed? The use of the word 'harness' is limiting and ironic, in a sense. The verb 'harness' is a derivative of a word initially used to describe a "stable gear consisting of an arrangement of leather straps fitted to a draft animal so that it can be attached to and pull a cart," according to the Princeton WordNet dictionary. Are we harnessing collective intelligence or embracing it? If we are to listen to the words of Ross Mayfield - "Web 1.0 was commerce. Web 2.0 is people," then we should embrace it.

In late 2005, Madden and Lenhart (Pew, 2005) reported that 57 percent of teens who use the Internet could be considered content producers in some way or another. In 2006, Fox and Lenhart (Pew) reported that 12 million American adults keep a Web log. These are significant trends, yet are neglected in much of the talk of Web 2.0. If Web 2.0 is to hold any water, it must begin to more fully consider the Internet’s social aspects. For example, what is the significance of the Internet for the teens that are currently content producers? How are technologies that are classified as Web 2.0 affecting the way in which we go about our daily lives? These are the types of questions we must be asking.

Conclusion

When initially brainstorming ideas for an article on Web 2.0, our chief technology officer Bob Schmidt made the valid point: the use of '2.0' is ironic. O'Reilly claims that in Web 2.0, "None of the trappings of the old software industry are present. No scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement." Well, the 2.0 signifier is representative of the software release cycle, isn’t it?

Do the tenants of Web 2.0 not apply to the offline world?

In a true Web 2.0 world a non-profit organization shouldn't have to worry about being threatened with legal action for using the name "Web 2.0." In a true Web 2.0 world, the name Web 2.0 wouldn't be trademarked. The proof of whether Web 2.0 is representative of a new era in communications will be in the pudding. If we are truly linking ourselves into a global brain, and the technology is leading us in that direction, we should see real world impact on the way we live and behave. If Web 2.0 holds water, we should be able to embrace its principles in the way we work and how we communicate.

Booth, K & Dunne, T 2002, 'Worlds in Collision', in Worlds in Collision, Palgrave MacMillan, New York

Carr, Nicholas (2005), 'The amorality of Web 2.0', Rough Type, viewed 19 September, 2006, http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php

Corbin J, 2002, Al-Qaeda: In Search of the Terror Network that Threatens the World, Thunder's Mountain Press/Nation Books, New York

The Economist (2006), 'Living a Second Life', The Economist, 28 April.

Fox, S & Lenhart, A (2006), 'A portrait of the internet's new storytellers', Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.

Hagel, J & Armstrong, A (1997), Net Gain, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Haddon, L. (1988) 'The Home Computer: The Making of a Consumer Electronic', Science as Culture, No.2, pp.7-51

Kelly, Kevin (2005), 'We are the Web', Wired, August.

Madden, M & Lenhart, A (2005), Family, Friends, and Community, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.

Marvin, C (1998), When Old Technologies were New: Thinking about Communications in the Late Nineteenth Century, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

McKinsey & Company (1997), 'Book Description: Net Gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities', McKinsey & Company corporate Web site, viewed on 18, October 2006, <http://www.mckinsey.com/ideas/books/netgain.asp>

O-Reilly, T (2005), What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, O'Reilly.

Silverstone, Roger (1999), Why Study the Media?, London, Sage Publications.

Van Couvering, E (2003), Media Power on the Internet: Towards a Theoretical Framework, Research Seminar Paper, London School of Economics, London.

Wikipedia (2005), 'Web 2.0', Wikipedia, viewed 19 September 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_2.0&dir=prev&action=history.

Williams, R (1974), Television: Technology and Cultural Form, Fontana/Collins, Glasgow.

United States Institute of Peace (2004), How Modern Terrorism Uses the Internet, United States Institute of Peace, viewed 19 December, 2005, < http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr116.html>.

Share this post: