Reading response 5- NaJin Lim

 In this chapter from Lovink’s book Networks Without A Cause, he outlines the dynamic shift in social interaction online in the move from Web 1.0 to 2.0 that relies on “user generated content”. What do you envision Web 3.0 to be and what is the next level of user empowerment?

Based on Lovink book Network without a cause, internet and social media interaction have been utilized in various aspects. However they also have created many problems such as “echo chamber” and diminishing access to information. Regarding such trends, i believe that uses of internet in people’s daily lives will decrease as 3.o begins. To expand, both problems mentioned above have arose mainly due to internet censorship. Degree of internet censorship is becoming higher as “geo-sensitive technology” is being in crisis for increasing global internet users. What it does is blocking users outside the country from watching public television online. Also, China exported national firewall technology to Sri Lanka to block certain offensive websites. Moreover, websites of public libraries block other citizens living in different regions for access. Such lack of information access and increasing copyright laws based on hostile attitudes toward users living in different areas will definitely decrease people’s reliance on web.

 

Throughout the article, Lovink argues for a form of criticism that is specific to the Internet—one that looks at theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technologies. Do you also believe that this is necessary to study as we move forward? Why or why not?

I strongly agree with Lovink’s argue about look at the theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technology. Now the internet is around us that we can live with out them or maybe it’s really hard for us to live with out it. Every information we found are in the internet and those sources are came out from internet, also people are so influenced from the internet. So I think studying culture and society through the lens is kind of out only option. Form this, it is better for people who are using the internet to understand and using properly rather than just doing it, because internet space can be a easy comfort place but sometimes, it can be very dangerous place. Sometimes, people who aren’t still familiar with the internet makes mistakes, but system and tool of the internet is getting easier to use (thanks to the engineers), so it’s not that complicated to know about the internet.

Response #5 – Steven Lourenco

The Wipers – Is This Real?

Looking forward, away from Web 2.0, we must ask ourselves. Is this real? The Wipers were asking it. Is it all a dream? There seemed to be this legitimate escape from the formalities and pesky social/political/geographic divisions imprinted by the material world. Young dreamers in the West were exploring uncharted territory, outside of their bodies and in the third eye. All the while, the money movers were looking on from the physical world, waiting for the proper moment to pounce on the technologies that were being fortified by the real adventurers. Mergers were made, the young were chained to their laptops, and as the efficiency and ease of social mediums and online marketplaces strengthened, the openness of Web 2.0 seemed become confined.

I experience the internet now as this shiny, chrome horse, flying through our neighbourhoods and homes and heads with flaming nostrils and thunderous hooves. It seems too perfect to go anywhere else. I can ride it freely with a saddle that seems custom-made. It’s so strong, clean, and perfectly outfitted to accommodate my desires. I feel like every button is there and every border and padding and hover colour, and underscore and favicon and logo is in it’s most pristine condition. I can present myself with the most ease and receive my “Likes” in a straight-forward, expected way. How could I feel any more welcome? How could I feel any more empowered?

chrome_Horse

“LIFE IS A HIGGGGGHWAYUYYYYY, I WANNNNAA RIIIDE IT…”

I feel like in an ideal world, the current advantages of our open-style format of ease of browsing and sharing; downloading and uploading; would stick around. However, I imagine this would almost happen immediately, with multiple actions occurring simultaneously. These thing are already happening with introductions of computing applications such as “The Cloud” (or “Fog). But  we still seem to have a sort of ownership over our content, that we are contributing to something and that we’re doing something meaningful. There seem to be invisible walls but like my phone can tell the ALL SEEING EYES where I am, and the people providing my service can drink up all my info with the most ease. So do I really have control over our content and the ways in which it is viewed by friends, family, strangers? The mere fact that something basically doesn’t belong to us once we upload, that it ends up on some server somewhere in a massive underground warehouse, is that not freaky? With all of the legislation that’s being put into place to control the internet; or the endless debates in “serious” political forums about the state of how much internet we get or what we get to use/see; or Ted Stevens; the power is being recognized. The power of it all and the power struggles therein have been manifested in our daily lives. The regular characters we allow to sort out all of our other shit, have recognized its power and are saddling that horse. I’m sitting with my friend who says: “Shit, they’re probably gonna talk about us using Facebook and like @fuckjerry’s Instagram in university lectures in the future.” And it’s gonna be this like weird pedestal. I don’t know if its gonna be called the Golden Era or the Dark Net Years or something, but this transitionary period will be remembered. We’re trying to wrangle this whole experience because we’ve been given so much so fast and we’re like: “whoa slow down”. Everything will probably get shinier and prettier, but it’ll all be held in a tight grip. I guess I would liken it to the legalization of weed, in a way. Even though its great that people will have access to the medical and other benefits of weed, the sameness and not to mention expense of regulation will take away the nuance, intrigue, adventure, and mythos.

(My browser is doing this thing where it won’t let me “right-click” and save a picture of Ted Stevens from GOOGLE, so just imagine a picture of Ted Stevens with a furrowed brow and mouth half open with a tag-line reading: “The internet is a series of tubes…”…….GOOGLE appeasing the overlords!)

What Lovink really gets into with the study of social and cultural climates in regards to our actions online is how we are often acting in response, in conflict, in juxtaposition, or parallel to the medium. We inundate the forums and chats and statuses with our opinions and I don’t think this is a new thing. I think this free-speech attitude comes with a willingness to understand, and through this understanding, sustain ourselves and survive. But where to we designate who is the authority on these issues. With mainstream media, we often see ourselves as the other; us v. them. But we’re kind of all mixed up here in this limbo, dancing around. Do we identify ourselves in relation to the free-ness of this whole thing? Are we evolving along a new strain somehow? As a culture, do we strengthen and prepare ourselves for a confrontation? Who is the internet? It is us right? If the artificial brain is smarter than a brain, are we at its whim? I don’t know if cultures can operate and grow with that sort of pressure. That’s a huge hinderance on our progress. We kind of exist in this setting where the environment is growing all around us and we’re so pleased by its appearance that we don’t really grow personally, we just acquire all of this baggage, and frankly, I don’t know what to do with any of it.

 

reading response 4 – NaJin Lim

Although this speech was given 25 years ago at the advent of the Internet, many of Postman’s concerns and insights around technology and the role of the computer in defining contemporary life ring true today. If you were to give a speech about the state of computer technology today that would be read by someone 25 years from now, what issues would you address and what predictions for the future would you make?

After reading Neil Postman’s “Informing Ourselves to Death” speech, I agree with the author Neil Postman. He made right points about the computer back in 1990’s, but today is 21 century which is 25 years later than “informing Ourselves to Death” speech was given. time has passed a lot and the technology and internet had been so updated, that we hardly  follow to update these new concept and system. There are lot’s of differences between now and then.

today, everyone connect with SNS and sees the world in the internet system. It’s now a way of life style and almost like a trend, like everyone around us is doing Facebook or instagrams, and you don’t even know why you made the account. It’s just happens and we don’t even know why we are doing it or what is the benefit of it. Also same as the information we can find in the internet, there are too much informations in the internet and it is super easy to get information of what we want. This can be a positive thing, but I think it’s more to the negative side. because the information could have been wrong and what they believe from that information, it maybe can mind control the people. For example, if the famous newspaper company says wrong things about something very negative, people will obviously believe about that, because it’s a famous well-known company. But we don’t even know it’s actually real or maybe or only exist in that article. Also another thought I thought while I was reading this speech, the information became too light now, meaning that everyone can write about something and easy spread to the public and it’s also easy for everyone to read about it. What I think is that there should be a limits or certain line to write something about it and giving it to public. To the winner of these technology, they will end up with a lot of informations and knowledge but they don’t even know it is actually a right and real. It will make their life easy and can fulfill them but at some point, it possibly can effect them negatively. For the losers, it will hard to gather informations compare to the winner of the technology, but sometimes it’s good with how the old way works.

It’s pretty amazing how Postman made this point in the speech 25 years ago, even the technology and the internet was’t that big compare to now. Maybe people in nowadays aren’t really thinking and care about it, doesn’t really realize. What I think of this technology and the internet is that now, it’s actually hard to find the privacy and our informations are out there too easy and people aren’t really aware of that danger. Media and the technology are keep developing so fast still and we can’t predict about it anymore, because as new concept and ideas are coming out, people starts to develop newer and better things are actually making it to reality which tells that now we have the technology to built most of things that is in our minds. It will keep develop and someday, it will divided in to two section of winner and loser of the technology. Also from this too much informations and writings, these will become more subjective evaluation rather than a fact.

Reading Response 5 – Lindsey Luckevich

I can’t help but be pessimistic about the future of individualism on the internet. I see the potential for Web 3.0 to become a corporate dystopia. Each user is another cog in the machine, another body hooked up to the matrix, and the corporate overlords determine what each user is capable of/has access to. I’m imagining some kind of future where everyone has a bar code attached to all their web posting and everything is monitored by either governments or corporations. I’m imagining all of this run by Gary Oldman’s character in The Fifth Element. I’m probably wrong about this. The internet is probably going to continue to be a place of relative freedom. If Web 2.0 is focused on user-generated content, Web 3.0 will focus on sociality and interaction. Call and return. Web 3.0 may not necessarily be easy to use, but it will be beautiful.

web 3.0 dystopia


where this guy knows everything about you

Anyway, I think it’s important that we, as a networked society, continue to study the intersection of the network with other facets of society. Lovink says “networks are both powerful and dissolve power” (5). Much of history is concerned with the distribution and dissolution of power. Clearly, this is important to pay attention to. How does networking shift power? What does it mean when the majority of internet users are browsing in Asia, but code is written in English?

Reading Response 5 -Madison Gobbi

  1. In this chapter from Lovink’s book Networks Without A Cause, he outlines the dynamic shift in social interaction online in the move from Web 1.0 to 2.0 that relies on “user generated content”. What do you envision Web 3.0 to be and what is the next level of user empowerment?

I can’t imagine what Web 3.0 would be like. Based on the drastic changes that have occurred in the passed couple decades thus far, it seems to me like we will just keep on improving the current web, instead of completely revolutionizing Web 2.0. I’m hoping that in time some changes that may present themselves will be entered on some sort of filter or organization of information. The majority of the online population has at least one opinion on every topic, and with the freedom the internet gives to its users, everyone feels they have a voice. With all these voices shouting at each other in different times and ways, its hard to keep track of all the rapidly changing data, information and opinions.n Users already feel empowered, hiding behind their anonymity, so I can’t even begin to imagine the next level.

         2. Throughout the article, Lovink argues for a form of criticism that is specific to the Internet—one that looks at theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technologies. Do you also believe that this is necessary to study as we move forward? Why or why not?

I agree with Lovink’s argument to have a form of criticism that is specific to the Internet. Seeing as it has become an integral part of our daily lives in today’s society, I believe it is only appropriate to learn a form of language and criticism that is directly relevant to the web. It would be interesting for the internet to have its own universal language, just like coding has it’s respective languages like html and javascript. Because the internet is becoming more and more popular, it’s starting to become its own sort of culture and society, and just like other theories we may study in science and philosophy, having a form of criticism that is specific may benefit those who are new to the web or who want a deeper knowledge of this newly developing and always growing society.

Blog Response 5 Colin Rosati

Web 3.0 will have fully immersive centralized social media platform that opens the users desktop, local file library apps like ITUNES as well as Pinterest, Tumblr, Intsagram, Twittr, StumbleUpon and Spotify to be connected with your peers. These application will have privacy settings, to allow anonymity and integration but those will still lack security. I believe social media will also have separate threads that are more like a database or access to a public server of content. With the all the information overwhelming Google there will be decentralized databases of information that are more biased made by individuals & groups correcting each other. The user will be able to search things and objectivity will no longer exist, except up to the test of a small group of people that could like, verify or add folklore annotations (non-objective ideas that ppl share)

There will be more content than every and the media streams will be easier to tap into and stay locked. Netflix, Youtube will be escalated and the walls of the mazes will be harder and higher to navigate. The masses of web 3.0 users will be apathetic and able to become increasingly escapist into a media landscape. The creativity of the mass web 3.0 users will be still at the hands of corporations who give you Instagram, Tumblr and Pinterest where you can curate content but in a standardized form. Although the limitation of the web will be more evidently not attached to the screen, holograms and augmented reality of Pinterest interior decoration is not critically creative. These users will be well curated aestheticized indiviualists that lack critical creativity that reflect society. There will be entertainment artist that blur the immersive boundaries of art like CGI artists working with Oculus.

In Web 3.0 the open source movement will still be a major creative driving force behind information, media and applications that will hopefully be means to navigate media mazes. I wonder if Marshal McLuhan’s medium is the message stand up against Web 3.0- is augmented realities, instantaneous media, penetrating networks the message?

 

I agree with Lovnik with the specialized field of internet criticism. The internet is shaping us and changing our dailey habits. I believe it is important to explore and criticize those changes as well as debunk myths and biased social effects of the internet. I believe there should be a field of criticism for many any field that studies human behaviour- net-pyschology, net-sociology, net-archeology, net- personal and business advisor, net-councilor, net-anonymous, net-exorcist, net-guru, net-mother, net-moral leaders, net-unions… these are silly but my point is these fields should study these effects as a major historical development as well as have specified net analysts.

Reading Response 5 – Emily-Rose Gibbons

In response to Geert Lovink’s Capturing Web 2.0, Networks Without A Cause

In this chapter from Lovink’s book Networks Without A Cause, he outlines the dynamic shift in social interaction online in the move from Web 1.0 to 2.0 that relies on “user generated content”. What do you envision Web 3.0 to be and what is the next level of user empowerment?

I envision Web 3.0 to be focused on being even more tailored to users and more specifically, their bodies.

It seems to be a trend that technologies are growing closer and closer to our bodies and brains. Our smartphones have become another sort of unnatural of limb; always in our hands or pockets. There’s even an ever-growing population reporting that their mobile phones are turning into phantom limbs. Many of us feel lost without our phones in hand. The trend of wearable technologies such as the Apple Watch and Google Glass, in my opinion, directly tap into this recently-found dilemma and enable users to never be without the Internet.

                                  now                                                                      future

phone        nano

Web 3.0 would take this idea even further and bring the Internet closer to the human body than ever. I imagine this would occur with the use of nanotechnologies, inserted into the body. The Internet is already a sort of extension of ourselves and our minds (i.e. digital memory, the person we portray online) so with the exception of the need for important prior ethical and medical research and discussion, I believe the next step would be to make it a part of our bodies. Basically, the Internet would be more convenient than ever –it would be a physical part of us.

Throughout the article, Lovink argues for a form of criticism that is specific to the Internet—one that looks at theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technologies. Do you also believe that this is necessary to study as we move forward? Why or why not?

I strongly believe that a form of criticism that is specific to the Internet is needed.

The Internet has its own particular set of symbols, terms, languages and unique cultures that are difficult to describe and analyze without proper criticisms in place. There is certainly a sort of gap in describing and understanding the the Internet nowadays. Having a new form of criticism revolving around the Internet would make this process much easier.

manipulationI feel that having an Internet criticism in place would also make it easier to educate the masses about the functions and inner-workings of Internet. I strongly feel that many people are manipulated by the Internet simply because they do not grasp what it is they are interacting with. It is so common for people to be interacting with the Internet on a daily basis, around the clock. To not be educated about a tool we give so much time and information to can be detrimental –sometimes obviously (i.e. having an e-mail account hacked) and other times not so obviously (i.e. spending money because of tailored advertisements based on previous searches for capitalistic endeavours). Many people get caught up in the convenience of the Internet but fail to acknowledge that these seemingly helpful tools can be sneakily manipulative and frankly, creepy. Having an Internet criticism for educational purposes would likely help prevent this.

Nora Mahdi/ blog post/ 5

  1. The Internet has integrated seamlessly in our every day lives. Most people see it as a better way of living and enhancing life. Technology has certainly been changing rapidly and the Internet is always changing which is becoming harder to keep up with. So many changes occurred with the rise of the Internet, changes in style, design and mainly social interactions. It’s definitely hard to imagine exactly what the future of Web 3.0 will turn out to be but it’s not impossible. Some suggest that we have already achieved it but others believe we are only starting to create it. It’s not hard to use our imagination, especially with today’s mindset of the future created by recent movies. Many people believe that the Internet will develop even faster than it has already, and will include higher sematic, virtual and artificial intelligence. Many movies like Her predict that the Internet will form into a cyborg robot that will preform 10x better than computers, it seems that that is the mentality people have of the future. A world run by machines.
  1. I certainly believe that we should be able to study theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technologies, especially since our lives revolve around technologies and communicating through them. It is crucial for people to understand the essence and roots of these technologies before even using them, in order to accurately function.

HER

qb4q4buwytfplshzbyux

Use of this service is governed by the IT Acceptable Use and Web Technologies policies.
Privacy Notice: It is possible for your name, e-mail address, and/or student/staff/faculty UserID to be publicly revealed if you choose to use OCAD University Blogs.