Thoughts and commentaries on social interaction on the internerd

Seriousbidness

The advances of social computing in a modern world of exponential technology growth has had a most profound effect on the way people live their lives today. I don’t think that these concepts are far-off intangibles that only concern field speculators and anthropologists; but rather a surging phenomenon that affects everyone around it. Our social behavior and heuristic processes are radically influenced by modern interaction mediums and social climates brought on by new technologies. I like to think that the human brain has evolved slightly in recent years to adapt to the radical changes faced.The modern computer is now smarter and faster than ever before; and so is its average user. The refinement of the personal computer and the fiery birth of the internet have opened up the common mortal to engage and complete a wide and varied set of tasks never before thought possible. One can now simultaneously edit photographs, do their own accounting and banking, draft letters and correspond with just about anyone in the world : all while sitting in front of their personal computer. In the business world, a huge power shift has subsequently occurred from corporation-style megaliths on to a decentralized trend of empowered entrepreneurs. The broader concept of the newfound power of application plays an important key in understanding the ways in which things are done today in contrast with previous times. The individual does not have to rely on obsolete corporation structures as he/she can now thrive in the free market of the internet as we know it today. One could say that our potential as individuals is now being unleashed as tasks are easier to complete because the necessary tools are easier to use and obtain.

In parallel with the aforementioned technology advancements comes the evolution in interaction convention and medium. The freedom of expression and growth of internet communities and social networks is prompting the average user to interact and contribute more and more. While this can be regarded as a good thing, it is important to review the social implications that are associated with it. I am strongly against the principals and endorsement of the various online collectivisms available on the internet today. The “Cult of the Amateur” (Keen, 2007) is being enabled to increasingly exponential degrees by the newly found freedoms allowed by Web 2.0 and its various innovations. The freedom of expression that the new online mediums generate blatantly undermines the foundations of academia and peer-review. The problem, as I express through the insights of “The Cult of the Amateur”, comes from a host of negative entities that spout from this new everyday user freedom.

Huxley’s theory says that if you provide infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, some monkey somewhere will eventually create a masterpiece – a play by Shakespeare or perhaps a Platonic dialogue. The problem lies in that there are infinite ‘monkeys’ with access to personal computers that have been given the freedom of expression and the power to shamelessly contribute to knowledge. With this power and the guise of anonymity, the words of a qualified professional speak with as much authority as the common fool in front of his personal computer. On the internet: the person with the largest ego, loudest voice or the most eloquent presentation of thought wins the argument and therefore has the control of the information. This is proven over and over again in various online forums and communities (like Wikipedia itself) in that individuals have the power to recklessly detract from the foundations of academia. What is left from this unconscious spam of data input is watered-down version of what academics and elitists once proudly called ‘knowledge’.

To fully realise the tangibility of this insight, I contrast it with how things were done in the past. In the past we sought information in libraries, books, newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. Knowledge and information was handed down to the public pool by means of an academically-reckoned hierarchy authority of industry experts in a sacred ritual of trust and authority. There was defined reputation and structure behind the words of all knowledge where only the words of the wise had a place in academic realms. In an environment like the internet where the anonymous user may manipulate and speak with freedom and without verification: the truth is – the common mortals are now the gatekeepers of truth and logic. the veracity of general interaction on the internet in the new Web 2.0 formatting has taken a sharp, downward dive. While the advances of the internet and paper-free world were once seen to be fascinating and most profound, I don’t think that many foresaw the aforementioned problems appearing. Let it be known that these shameless ramblings of unverified knowledge do not take place only in coffee table style forums and exclusive environments, but everywhere. Peer to peer collaboration in blogging, wiki’s and forums alike are subject to this, as well as any environment (in the context of electronic communication) that one person is able to correspond with another. People are writing more and more, from which more and more amateur knowledge has to be sifted through to get to peer-reviewed data. This has left the user with a sense of empowerment and security behind their anonymity, for which is not conducive to secure and verifiable data.

The topic of user confidence on the internet is quite interesting, too. In this new age of internet (as some refer to as Web 2.0), blogging enables the infinite monkeys to endlessly advertise themselves. It is plainly obvious to see that many are willing to share details about their lives through electronic mediums than in real life. In this convention where so much ‘output’ is being given, it is likely that far less input is being received. In other words – there is lots of outgoing advertisement, but not much listening. In this new age, we are so used to periodic updates on our acquaintances various ‘lives’ that we actually take far less notice than for which we would personally hope for in our own rants. With data being thrusted so crassly onto us, we’ve thickened heuristics for dealing with this data.

It’s also interesting to see how users limit their inputs from the world wide web of vast information by subscribing to RSS feeds and limiting the incoming data to their screens by sifting and bookmarking. We stumble across an amusing irony here as people form exclusive groupings of races, cultures, ethical views and interests in their social networks rather than expanding the mind and exploring the internet. This is probably because user, sadly, has been conditioned so much to protect themselves from the aggressive marketing schemes and tactics employed to cash in on the increasing field of attention with the growing popularity of the internet.

To conclude, I think that the new attention economy workings of the Web 2.0 concept provide interesting impacts on the individual. We are now so obsessively reliant on technology for business and social interaction that we, perhaps, lose track of reality. Through the awesome new power of modern electronics and the widespread penetration of the internet, the users potential has been unleashed somewhat to do more than previously imagined. Communication barriers have been broken all around the world, and users can now share and learn from each other as they wish. Innovators and advertisers have reacted well to the growth of social networking around the world, but have at the same time contributed towards the problems that it faces. I think that an individual’s general quality of work and knowledge is not as pure as it once was. A computer-literate person, in relative terms, is now a ‘jack of all trades’ – and possesses the tools, networks and confidence to comment and contribute in their many fields of interest. We now have a society of conditioned amateurs and anonymities that we rely on and trust with information of the many aspects of our lives. For this lack of veracity, integrity and quality, I think that the new age detracts somewhat from the effectiveness. I comment on this in a broad sense, for one often undermines the degree to which this affects us. This age of information abundance is not being utilised as optimally as one might hope for and the subsequent effects of filtering and attention scarcity leave the user in an awkward position of questioning their own veracity and inputs in light of the threats that face this new system.