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.


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.

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.

Blog Response 5 – Laura Rojas

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?

It’s hard to imagine a new form of Web, particularly because technological changes occur so rapidly that we hardly have time to get used to one standard when another one is already in place. I think once we get to “Web 3.0” territory, we won’t even recognize it as being any different from Web 2.0 until we step back and really analyze how far we’ve come.

That being said, I envision it to be moving faster than it already does. It will probably include high amounts of wearable tech integrating with the online world in order to make our lives the simplest, most convenient possible (because that’s what it’s all about, right?). Web 3.0 may not be as drastic as the lifestyle shown on Pixar’s Wall-E, but something close I think is definitely possible. My guess is future technology will be more immersive than ever, keeping us glued to our devices and perpetually online.

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 definitely think that studying the effect of networked technologies on society and culture, along with the latter through the former, is something important and necessary to do. Culture is heavily impacted by technology and society constantly shifts around within it like we discussed in class earlier. Our language, our preferences, our style and hobbies – all of these things are influenced by online content. The amount of influences we have is overwhelming: every webpage we visit shows us content from around the world, adding to the stockpile of viewed content we carry around in our brains.

In her book Dark Age Ahead, Jane Jacobs, a writer and activist who focused on the impact of urbanization, talks about the loss of intimate community that comes from living in big cities and the subsequent cultural hubs that arise out of this need. I think technology is having very similar effects on our society- new, digital communities are born from the lack of real, human contact in order to supplement these interactions to an extent. It’s really important that we keep these dialogs open and active in order to form a critical perspective within everyone who uses networked technologies in the hopes of forming critical citizens and nourishing a global culture which doesn’t let itself get taken over by these things, but rather uses them wisely, carefully.



Reading Response 5- Sophia Oppel

1. I think the future generations of the web will continue to involve an increasing proportion of user generated and designed content, where web layout and personalization becomes increasingly prevalent. I am envisioning a user designed feed that is personalized to a number of specific pieces of news- like facebook but from multiple different sites- almost like the failed attempt of Google Wave. I do no think this would be particularly empowering for a user, but I believe it would give the illusion of empowerment, speed and efficiency which many people take pride in their technology for. I would also imagine Web technology to become increasingly small until it can be embedded in our brains and viewed subconsciously, allowing for more efficient corporate profiling and a constant barrage of stimulus. M.T. Anderson forecasted this idea in his novel Feed.  

I can also imagine a more immersive web experience; rather than the two dimensional navigation that most websites take, I would predict an integration of a z-index or webspace depth perception, kind of like a videogame. This will serve to further replace physicality, and might begin to account for directional movement as a representation of temporal movement (moving farther back in a feed to older content by moving further into the z-index). This would create a further fusion of time and space. Seeing as our social media personas are already content holders in the global market, I can imagine this moving a step forward so that many people are broadcasting a live stream of their physical lives for constant virtual surveillance and approval.

Screen Shot 2015-06-16 at 7.39.20 PMI would imagine that web services such as online shopping or online medical information will become more interactive, so that a digital facimilie or scan of every human body will exist online. This will be able to accurately try on clothes and get a physical doctors check-up; this digital self could be complete with all the bodily maladies the physical person has, to allow for a useful prognosis.

H&M actually allows an online customizable fitting room in some countries on their online site, but so far it has not really taken off anywhere else.

While some of these ideas may prove useful to users, their implications are potentially worrisome in the further fragmentation of a sense of physical self.

2. On page 23, Lovnik writes: “We need a contemporary network theory that reflects rapid changes and takes the critical and cultural dimensions of technical media seriously…We cannot merely study potentiality and growth patterns as pseudo-natural phenomena.” I think this implies that notions of networked technology are either taken lightly; as nothing more then empty entertainment, or factually; analyzed scientifically and statistically. I would agree that networked practices are now embedded in human culture, and it is necessary to implement an anthropological and theoretical study of the effects of this culture.

I think that exploration into new media and pop culture is often written off as a frivolity or a “hip” trend, as is mainstream entertainment; something meaningless and unworthy of further examination. However, I think all of these things become indexical artifacts of human culture, supporting just as much valuable critical content as a heavy three volume novel when examined closely. I think that what human beings are doing in their leisure hours is very telling of the culture in general, and should be further considered.

Seeing as technology has its own language, syntaxical set of associations, intervention into human interaction and aesthetics, it seems only logical to have a specialized strain of theory that goes into studying the ramifications of these cultural signifiers. It is important that humans employ self-aware usage of networked devices, and possess the vocabulary and ability to analyze the infrastructure and aesthetic decisions being made to frame their user experience. Without some form of educational theory, it will be difficult for the common user to knowledgably position themselves within mediated interaction and understand the corporate politics that underlie many large websites and technologies.

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.

Reading Response #4 (Steven Lourenco)

Viet Cong – Newspaper Spoons


So, after reading Neil Postman’s 1990 speech Informing Ourselves to Death, I feel that I agree with the gentleman. It is disheartening to hear that we as a collective “people” (whether that be a physical population or as a sort of nametag for the current and coming generations) have essentially continued our human-made path toward “enlightenment”.  Yet our movement remains in crawl-mode and the path is arid. When Postman references greats like Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Thoreau, and Pogo the possum, he highlights that self-knowledge can only come from the tranquility of life, the accepting of our nature.


You said it, Pogo

To paint a picture, Postman stood in front of hundreds if not a couple thousand people who exist in a realm of playing that God-Author role, producing and relying on their tools derived from the digital world, and he referenced religious figure-heads to indicate the severity of the situation. That we are becoming enveloped in things that we whole-heartedly believe will change our lives and will improve the world for generations to come. But Postman wishes to indicate that we are becoming completely occupied with the tools that are said to be geared toward enlightenment and this is the crux of the issue (and his speech). Our acceptance and even expectation of the efficiency of and straight up, just the presence of said technologies in our lives has almost solidified our reliance on them.


*drools* Love you so much, baby *drools*

If I had to confront a convention full of robotics specialists, engineers, programmers, technicians (and others) with the same message, I would hope to have the emotional gravitas and arsenal of prose as Postman. He really appealed to a sort of human guilt. If it wasn’t there before, he certainly managed to implant it. I think that at the pit of the whole idea, we have humans who really do want the best for themselves, families, friends, communities, and the world (it may dwindle incrementally but its a nice thought). We use organic and human-made tools to make our lives easier and our digital technologies are simply an extension of that effort. But I think that because there is so much of us in these tools, we root for them to the -nth degree. We whole-heartedly believe that these inventions are going to save us all from all of our illnesses and downfalls. But the system itself is just as sick because we have our little hands in it. Some would call them distractions or addictions, and because the technology is constantly responding to our actions and informing ours simultaneously, perhaps they are. We need it just as much as it needs us.

I think if I were to write a speech about computer technology today, for someone to read down the arid road, I’d probably start with how our necks are fucked. “There is this new stance called the hang-man, where you hold your phone at your waist, arm holding phone glued tightly to your side, and your curl your neck forward at precisely 90 degrees to look down at it.”

…I wouldn’t start with that but would maybe touch on it. Yes, the physical effect our devices and tools have on us is certainly noticeable. Our lack of eye-contact, our-stopping-the-middle-of-the-god-damned-street-to-text-back, our selfie-stance (hand-outstretched in front of body, phone facing back)…the list goes on but this is on facet of how the technology has manipulated the human body, and even determines the physicality of settings and locations. By this I mean to say that physical streets, cafes, malls, parks (!), homes etc. have become more notable only in relation to their wi-fi for example. For another example, there is this feeling that I get specifically now that I am living on my own, that pertains to the presence of cable and/or wi-fi. I don’t watch tv, I occasionally use Netflix, but Im not on there too much (this isn’t the addiction talking, I mean it). But I use alot of wi-fi, I’m practically on it at all times unless I’m out or at work and sometimes, when I go places that don’t have it…….I get anxious, slightly depressed, uncomfortable. This is kind of embarrassing. but I have this feeling I’m not the only one. I think it comes from this widespread idea that our technology represents our sophistication, our pure and steadfast advancement. And I think that is what I would have to say. I would tell stories of people slipping off cliffs for not looking behind them during selfies and about bullies who brought their hate to Facebook to incite thoughts of suicide and people losing entire financial stability because of Stoner666_Fuck. And maybe now after saying that, maybe its a whole other conversation. Through our addiction to all this funky newness, we will eventually just step into the technology and become a part of it. Insert 80’s techno-adventure joke here.

Reading Assignment #5: Rob Kim

Reading Assignment #5
Rob Kim

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?

The technology and web world has been developing enormously to interact with the users and broaden up the authority given to the public. As we pass Web 1.0 to 2.0, I envision Web 3.0 to be a web system that interacts physically with the users which merges the virtual community with our reality as one system. Also, it’s next level of user empowerment to be the interaction of physical status with the automatic web-computer technology. For example, google watch. It is a watch invented from Google, which contains technologies of phones and computer in a small wearable and carriable scale. It is different than just normal smart phones due to its potential and function to get informations of the user’s physical status. It can calculate the person’s heart rate and their speed of the moving pace which allows them to store the informations on to the web space without having to write them one by one. It’s automaticity can have emergency functions that could call or reach other people when the user’s physical status is insecure and dangerous. Such as calling 911, or reaching for the person’s nearest friend by detecting the location and contact them automatically, sending each other’s information through the watch. Also, as this automaticity of communicating the webspace with the physical space develop in the future, it could gather its necessary informations by it self to provide informations that the user need on the spot rather than actually having to check and compare the information with the user’s self.

New Product Announcements At The Apple Inc. Spring Forward Event


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 believe it is nessesary to study the theories of culture and society through the lens of the networked technologies because I strongly believe it’s potential and possibility to expand its field as big as the physical space we live in. As much important as it is to study the theories of the natural world, I think it is also very significant to set theories of the web cultures because as the technologies develop, the boundary between the virtual and natural will decrease and It won’t just be an part of the world’s aspect but a new virtual/physical world that everyone must adapt to live. The developments such as smart phones, social network systems, and artificial intellegence in the web system will replace the actual machine and systems and as they dominate the existing world, the technology itself will become a new culture and society. We will have to examine the world’s culture and society through the lens of the network technology to prepare the new constructing future society and those theories will act as a base of the new dominating system. I assert that we must adapt the new transition because it won’t be possible to reject the new wave of technologies or will be very limiting. For example, the kids who are born in present generation are already familiar and proficient with the online and web cultures such as SNS(Social Network System) and smart phones. They have never experienced life without the new internet systems therefore by studying theories specific to the internet is a method of understanding the perspective of the future and way of adapting the new generations in a more delicately. So the next generation will naturally adapt and study based on the theories we prepared for them

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.