Category Archives: Reading Response 5 (June 16)

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?

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

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.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

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.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

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.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response 5 — Alysia Lisanti

1.  While I was reading this chapter, I could not help but wonder when (or if) the Internet will ever be over. It already provides so much content on such a large scale that I cannot even begin to think what the next “big phase”, or “Web 3.0” will be. Will it ever reach a maximum limit? Will there ever be a point where technology catches up with the science known to humankind? Electronics and softwares are constantly evolving (thinner devices, touch control, voice activation, enhanced experience, etc) and will continue to progress, but I feel like it will remain in the Web 2.0 phase because it is just a continuation of development. It’s hard to draw the line that signifies the end of Web 2.0 and the beginning of Web 3.0 unless it is a blur between the two. Some predictions from other web sources include enhanced technology, as well as personalized searches. However, we can already see this happening through advertisement pop-ups of recently visited sites through Google. I feel like this shift isn’t drastic enough to be categorized as a completely new phase.

My prediction is that society will become even more publically detached from one another (due to social media). We are already experiencing this now, but it could just be the beginning. The irony is that social media is intended to be a connection tool worldwide, yet it is beginning to disconnect us from each other in reality. Many people (including myself) are more extroverted on social media because it does not require speaking face-to-face, and eye contact. What will happen with future generations, who grow up using such digital devices? Will they even be taught proper social skills? To think of the future from our current reliance on the Internet is quite frightening. Our generation is fortunate enough to still have some recollection of life before the digital age, but future generations will be oblivious to this.

-Whether or not this video is real, it foreshadows how technology will impact a new generation.

To me, Web 3.0 will show some major differences from today. I feel like it will occur when the Internet has peaked, or when something severe will change it or even destroy it. We already have “up-to-the-second-info”, as Lovink explains on page 12. This has shaped us as a society to demand for instant service, and develop extreme impatience. “There is simply no time to enjoy slow media” (12) which is sadly true today. What will happen to society if this high-speed privilege is taken away from us? Another aspect to think about is the amount of content being posted on a daily basis. My question is, will it ever get to the point where we won’t be able to keep up-to-date with webpages? Thinking of Lovink’s idea of “real time”, webpages that are constantly added can potentially bury older ones instantly, making it near impossible for the user to refer back to. If this were the case, it is questionable if users would even attempt to search for something.


What would happen if Google (or other browser’s) results were live like this? We would not be able to keep up with the fast-pace speed, making our searches nearly impossible.

Although there are predictions for Web 3.0, I feel like they are just additions to the Web 2.0 phase. For Web 3.0, (or future Web .0’s), I believe that it can either be a major revolutionary shift in technology and its usage, or the decline of the previous phase because it will reach a capacity that users can no longer keep up with.

2.  Since the Internet has become a part of a lot of people’s lives, I think it is worth exploring the culture and society through the lens of technology. This is to see the similarities and differences, and find a better understanding of the networking Lovink references. However, I think we should be cautious in doing so because the Internet is by no means a part of the lives of everyone who makes up the entire planet’s population. There are certain cultures that do not rely on digital networking, yet are equally as important as ones with it. Another fault with the research of cultural networking is the translation process. Translating languages can sometimes be misleading because they can be reworded slightly but give an entire different meaning. I don’t think networking defines who we are as an entire humankind population, but the portions within that can give a better insight to the different cultures that use them. Studying this should not define culture as a whole; it should enlighten people who are interested in learning more about the topic.


'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response 5 – Stephanie Blazevic

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?

If the biggest factor in the shift between Web 1.0 and 2.0 was user generated content, then I’d image the shift toward Web 3.0 may in fact have something to do with a more secured web experience. With just about every person being involved with the Internet somehow, the idea of the netizen may come back into play in a more official way. Perhaps, just as one has to apply for passports and drivers licenses, people in the future may have to register to become a contributing member of web content. I mean this in a way that is separate from registering or applying for a personalized webspace. Now it’s so easy to get an email address and that address is really your ticket onto the social network. Lovink mentions issues regarding comment culture of Web 2.0 becoming a concern for the safety or at least morality of user generated content. He also mentions specific police divisions whose sole purpose is to solve cyber crimes. Cyber bullying has also been a major issue amongst users, especially teens who don’t necessarily know the full impact that their virtual self can affect their real life. Web 3.0 could be its own sort of online society in a literal sense where users have to be legally registered, and a “police force” is put in place to assure cyber crime and cyber bullying don’t get out of hand the way they do now. Age restrictions could be enforced to assure children don’t find their way onto sites they shouldn’t be on, and also so they are less likely to post stupid things that could come back to haunt them. This is another issue that I think is really starting to affect people as they continue to grow from childhood into adulthood. No one should be haunted by a small stupid thing they did on the internet when they were 13 years old be it cyber bullying, posting inappropriate pictures or perhaps even just using a ridiculous email on too many accounts that they made when they were young. I don’t mean for this to become a way to suppress our freedom of speech, but as a means to make the internet safe again now that there are far too many ways for things to go critically wrong in real life situations through the Internet.



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 think that we have so many ways of criticizing other cultural elements that it’s a little absurd that there isn’t one that exists for describing web culture. Networked technologies are no longer just a luxury they are a necessity. There are so many jobs exclusively surrounding the Internet and networked technologies, let alone jobs that just rely on it. However I so believe that one day there will be one. This is a sort of milestone in the life of the human species just as the Industrial Revolution was. Society relies on technology for so many different reasons. I can remember my mother ordering her groceries online so that she could forgo the embarrassment of having to embark on the impossible mission that was maneuvering through the grocery store with two ADD ridden children who would scream about anything and one who would just cry because his siblings were screaming. My mother was no doubt the first to do this and I highly doubt she’ll be the last. This sort of societal norm should be assessed and defined as the technological realm progresses through the years and expands into more than a means of connectivity. The more and more we rely on technology, the more technology will advance and adapt to fit the new needs. Networked technology isn’t something that is going to go away any time soon. We may think that some people are crazy for doing what they do on the Internet, but surely there is a reason for this and we need a better way of criticizing our need for the Internet.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response 5 – Montana

In Lovink’s book Network Without A Cause, the first chapter discusses the move from Web 1.0 to monetizing free user based content in Web 2.0. My thoughts on the future of the internet, and possible Web 3.0 will just be more mobile. Large companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung etc, are pushing to have a more mobile world. The internet is everywhere. Shoes, watches, billboards, garbage stations, cars, glasses the list is indefinite. As Lovink states, data mining will still be something companies will continue doing, with the internet being mobile, locations of consumers will be a gold mine on the advertising market. With Google maps having saved your searched locations and locations you’ve been regularly, advertising is becoming more specific.

The next level of user empowerment will be the ability to profit off online advertising. Websites such as YouTube, Twitch and Facebook allow users the opportunity to partner with them and solicit advertisements through their channel, stream, and accounts. It is essentially the new sandwich board “scheme”. Although there are many applications to block advertisements, there are also businesses pushing to make that illegal.


Arguably it is more important to study the societal/cultural affects/effects outside of the lens of networked technologies. Similarly to the article referenced in Lovink’s book called Is Google Making Us Stupid? It is the users choice to manage their usage of the internet. Users should be more aware of what is going on outside of the economics behind networked technologies. Asking questions like, what will be the benefits to allowing places without internet access, internet access, will the ability of sharing content across the globe as well access it drastically improve their way of life? Comparing the lifestyles of people who live with the internet and the different cultures who only this year have access.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response #5 – Jack Lambermont

Because I find it difficult to imagine any sort of “web 3.0”, my mind immediately floats to cartoonishly distopian or cynical extremes, but I will outline them anyway.

Firstly, I do think that “augmented reality” devices such as the google glass will play a big part. In the late 2000s, touch screens became increasingly popular for smart phones and tablets, replacing complicated and clunky input with intuitive swiping and tapping gestures. The next move may be toward an increased removal of any sort of user input altogether, and more automation in the submission of user content. Gradually, I think it is possible for people to put their “status” in the hands of their devices, which will understand their location, activity, or even mood based on daily patterns algorithmically observed from the user him/herself, and also other users around the world.


Google glass

I also think that new transportation technologies will connect with the devices, providing further automation to daily routine. Examples might be automated vehicles, or pod cars, such as the ones currently operating in Masdar City in Abu Dhabi.


Pod car (left) — Autonomous car (right)


Google Glass transport view

To tie these together, it seems almost inevitable that a single corperation will mediate and provide service for all social media outlets; video, text, photo and others. The content will have more overlap, and its delivery will be even more immediate and streamlined. The line between user “empowerment” and submission to the “behind-closed-doors” code and guts of user’s technology will likely become increasingly blurry.


I think it is absolutely necessisary and overlooked to study cultural and societal theories in the context of networked technologies. The implications of internet technology on our communication, socialization, business practice, ect. seem to be accepted before they’re even fully understood. However, I do also think that this has been occuring throughout history. With the advent of any monumental shift in technology (printing press, television), critisism and contextual understanding are almost always discussed and understood when they are already in full swing, after an optimisitic “honeymoon” period (see information-superhighway, early portrayals of television).

So in a sense, I do think the sort of in-depth critisism is necessary, but I also think it is inevitable.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

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.