Technology: An innovation at war

Technology, which I believed was constantly evolving to suit and complement the dynamic nature of man, its creator, seems to be a source of concern to many. In these few weeks, I have been exposed to other aspects of technology that I had not taken particular interest in, all of which I have shared on this blog. However, as I delve deeper into the readings, it appears that technology is at war with several established structures of the human society. First, there was the dispute it created between users and owners- the issue of privacy, connectivity versus connectivity etc. Then, its role on the loss of democracy and now, it has to do with technology’s conflict with cultures in the human society.

Culture: Operationalized definition

The culture being referred to here is not just the traditions and values of a particular group of people, but also the practices or the way things have been done for a long period of time. For instance, the way the media has been run for years can be classified as “media culture.” Therefore, a change in these already established norms and practices can be described as a shift in culture. Hence, the authors in this week’s readings explained the cultural and historical implications of technology. In other words, the ways in which technology has brought about a shift in the culture of the people.

Man or technology: Who is the bigger threat?

Williams (2007) described technology as a threat to the human society. He explained the thoughts of technological determinists and cultural pessimists; highlighting that technology can only change a society, if individuals residing there adapt to it. So, it is obvious that the major player in every innovation is man, not the thing that has been created. With this thought in mind, does it not imply that man is actually the threat to its race, not technology? Since, it has been established that technology has impact only when it is adopted and used by human beings. One interesting thought pointed out in Williams (2007) was the fact that “a technical invention can only be called technology when it is used for particular social uses.” Thus, people are major determinants of the effects of technology in the society.

On the other hand, like we discussed last week, new technology has increased capitalism in the society and so many “cultures” are changing. Again, culture here refers to practices that have been developed over time. For example, the shift in the media industry – if one takes a look at what is being shown on television stations today, one would realize that advertisers have taken over and thus, there has been a shift in what is considered to be important or “news or program worthy.” Sponsorships now decide whether something would take place or not. The other day, we were trying to organize an event and the major determinant of the event taking place, was having specific areas sponsored by individuals or corporations. In other words, if there are no sponsors, then there would be no event. Therefore, the question is when did sponsorship become the deciding factor in the implementation of things that are beneficial to the society?

The point is that individuals and organizations have become comfortable with the idea or “culture” of sponsorship that many events begin with the thought of possible sponsors. Nevertheless, this dependence only came as a result of the individuals and corporations who seek to dominate the society or certain areas of the society and are thus, always willing to spend money in profitable areas of the human society. Hence, they capitalize on these platforms, using it as a leverage to build their influence in the society, which leads to huge gaps in the society. Several people are being excluded from decision making in the society, because they lack the finance to be as influential. Therefore, those with the resources are driving both technology and the society, creating the loss of minority cultures and opinions.         

Control: In the hands of a few

Now, obviously I am a “social constructivist” as described in Hamilton and Heflin (2011), because I have chosen to “elevate human agency above technology.” This is true, because I cannot seem to see past the fact that technology is not a living thing, which to me implies that it cannot function perfectly on its own without a control button. It is being controlled by human beings or as we have observed so far, only by a few people that have chosen to monopolize the system, thus influencing not only the growth and spread of technology, but also how it is used in the larger society. The implication is that it is possible that what technology has become today is not in its entirety acceptable to all. However, because there are some major drivers manipulating the system, it appears to be generally accepted. Is everyone comfortable with the privacy settings on Facebook, No! But, these minority voices are ignored, because the society has become a “capitalist-sponsored culture” (Williams, 2007). So, instead of blaming technology, why not blame these big players who have taken control of the system for their own personal gains. After all, “A medium is not an evidence and cause of its own history – human agency is involved” (Gitleman, 2006).

Mental disconnect in technological history

Technology in itself has become a part of culture (Gitleman, 2006), because it has become a huge part of people’s lives. For me, the concern is not that it is a part of culture, but that it is being controlled by only a few people. In addition, it has been used to change the society, and is now a threat to other historical aspects of the human society (Gitleman, 2006; Marvin, 1987; Schwarzenegger, 2012; Winston, 1998). These authors are of the opinion that “new technology” is distorting the connection that could once be easily drawn from past innovations to the current ones. According to Gitleman (2006), for proper history there ought to be “different people on the same mental map sharing.” This to me means that the constant reinvention of technology has created a gap in the society that people can no longer grasp a mental picture of when a particular technology began and when it is likely to change. 

Even the younger generations have no idea what technology was like years before they were born and institutions that ought to preserve knowledge are also adapting to this change, thus, widening the gap.

Take for instance, the social media; how can one know when it was first adopted in a particular country or society? It has become almost impossible to measure the starting point of things in many societies today, like it was in the past. There are many more recently adopted practices (culture) today that has blurred the line between the past, the present and the future. There are immigrations, ships, air planes, cable television, internet – all forms of technology or effects of it that have made it easy for undocumented changes to occur in many societies. 

I remember that in high school, I was taught that the first newspaper in Nigeria, “Iwe Irohin” was published in 1859 by Henry Townsend. I wonder if today this is still possible. How does a person measure information in a digital media society that has redefined the concept of time and space? You tell me!  

References

Gitleman, L. (2006) Always already new; Media, history, and the data of culture (pp. 1-22). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hamilton, J. F., & Heflin, K. (2011). User production reconsidered: From convergence, to autonomia and cultural materialism. New Media & Society.

Marvin, C. (1987). When old technologies were new: Thinking about communications in the late nineteenth century (pp. 3-8). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schwarzenegger, C. (2012). Exploring digital yesterdays–Reflections on new media and the future of communication history. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 118-133.

Williams, R. (2007). Culture and technology. In T. Pinkney (Ed.), Politics of Modernism (pp. 119–39). London: Verso.

Winston, B. (1998). Media technology and society: A history: from the telegraph to the Internet (Chapter 18 – The Internet pp. 321- 336). Psychology Press. Retrieved from http://monoskop.org/images/d/da/Winston_Brian_Media_Technology_and_Society_A_History_From_the_Telegraph_to_the_Internet.pdf

Technology and the loss of democracy

This week’s readings had some very interesting titles! The first title was, “The Daily Me.” The second was, “What is the Elephant in the Digital Room” and the third began like this, “Wikinomics and its discontents….” On sighting these titles, I was mostly intrigued to discover the reason behind each of them. Therefore, in this blog, I will be sharing my discoveries and interpretations of what I felt these authors were trying to pass across.

The Daily Me

This book began with a fairy tale. It described a Utopian world, where humans are able to determine what they see, hear and read. The author believed that with the way technology seemed to be driving the society, individuals would soon be ignorant about every other thing that is not connected to their personal interests. Apparently, the author is not alone in his thinking because Time magazine termed it, "the Me generation." In other words, if I am interested in music, I could select just songs on my news feed, pay for only music channels on television, purchase only magazines related to music and the likes. It’s just like selective attention; choosing to pay attention to just things that interests me. This is what the writer coined as “The Daily Me,” which implied that an individual’s every day experience becomes all about him or her.

Technology is made for man

The author however forgot that no matter how great technology is or how it seems to be in control of man, man once existed and survived without it. On the other hand, human beings cannot survive without other people. Hence, as long as an individual remains on earth, he or she cannot do without encountering other people. If this is so, then there is no way one can control in its entirety, what one sees, hears or reads. This is only possible if a person is isolated in a universe or room without people, because the moment you are walking on the streets, you are seeing other people, who may not look or dress like you do. That in itself is a new concept, your mind has just encountered and for some people, they would keep pondering on the reason for the way that other person was dressed, which eventually leads to interest and then search for knowledge. So, often times even though individuals have areas of interest, they end up expanding to new areas as they interact with other people, either verbally or non-verbally.

Therefore, as much as the author would like to narrow down exposure or in this instance democracy to technology that is not the way life works. The book was focused on explaining the concept of democracy, which the author pointed out also included people listening or paying attention to the opinion of others, irrespective of their own personal interests and how technology appeared to be empowering people towards the opposite direction. Hence, the writer noted that “You need not come across topics and views that you have not sought out. Without any difficulty, you are able to see exactly what you want to see, no more and no less.”

Robots or human beings?

At this point, I wondered about what the author thought about human beings. Asides from the fact that we are social beings, how is technology going to be able to eliminate social structures that were erected a long time ago? Does the author mean that there would be no more schools or institutions of learning or churches, work places etc.? I’m sure we all agree that this is not possible. Therefore, even though one may be able to design how one uses the media, which for the record I have no problem with, one cannot only see, hear or read what one wants to all the time. It is impossible!

Too much information versus too limited information

My final conclusion therefore is that the writer was analyzing this issue as a "technological determinist" and so, ignored the social aspects of it. Even on social networking sites, one is exposed to interests of friends and others, which means that with technological advancements, there is also the possibility of exposure to too much information that may be irrelevant to one’s life. Thus, there are two sides to the coin; too much information versus too limited information. Irrespective of whichever seem more prevalent, critics must realize that man would always be superior to “things” (I mean technology). Technological growth is only rapid today because it is helping to improve lives and human interaction. So, to imply that human beings would begin to ignore one another’s interests because of technology is stretching it just a little bit.

What is the Elephant in the Digital Room?

On reading this title, I was curious to find out this thing or person that had been given the status of a giant. As I read on, it was funny to find out that the imagery did in actual fact refer to the giants in the technology industry that had transformed the once non-commercial mediums to profit-making ventures.

At first, I thought it was the internet that was being described, but then the author noted that it was high time people recognized the elephant in the room – Capitalism. I know! Where did capitalism come from? That was my question too!

Capitalism: defining the internet

The writer was of the opinion that the “Celebrants” and “Skeptics” of the internet had ignored the impact of capitalism in their arguments. According to McChesney (2013), capitalism defines everything that is of a social nature including the internet. To prove his point, he had several reasons. But, one that I thought was very valid had to do with the fact that profit motive (a feature of contemporary corporate capitalism) had over the years defined the way the internet had developed and would probably continue to influence its growth.

To me, this is very true because the way the internet is run today, is very different from the ideology it started with. Just as we have been discussing on this blog for the past three weeks, the internet has become a platform where big giants like Google and Facebook struggle to take over every space possible. They try to “lock in” individuals in order to have fuller access to individuals’ preferences and further channel their products to them. All of these were only made possible because of the free market system of government. Everything online today appears to be designed to attract advertisers, marketers, and public relations people; thus, commercialization is now the end goal for platform owners. For instance, most SNSs all have these little communities or groups that people are a part of either by choice or by invite. These little groups have become perfect baits for marketers and advertisers who now have all their customers in one place.

Political economy: A better way

These big giants have monopolized the system and thus created a power imbalance in the society, which is against true democracy (McChesney, 2013). In other words, capitalism, which is enabled by the government, "is turning the internet against democracy." Therefore, according to McChesney (2013), the key to understanding the internet was not in the confines of a “networked economy” or a “global economy;” but, through looking at it from the angle of political economy. This is because these giants were only enabled by favorable regulations and taxation policies of the government, who alongside other large corporations are enjoying the benefits of the current state of the internet - free surveillance and consumer information.

 

The world of the internet is fast becoming a scary place, with all these secret agendas from not just platform owners or even users, but also corporations and the government. Perhaps, the author is right! Looking at the internet from this point of view has definitely broadened my understanding of the internet.

Wikinomics and its discontents

As the title connotes, the article was about flaws found in the logic described in the book, “Wikinomics,” which was discussed in the last blog. Basically, this article was a critique from “Skeptics” of the internet, who opposed the concept of “convergence culture” proposed by “Celebrants” of the internet.

The authors argued that the notion of “collective intelligence” implied that consumers were all active users of the internet to collaborate with others. They also pointed out that content was the least important thing in the minds of platform owners, who were simply interested in connections (connectivity) made by individuals for data mining.

Collaboration versus connectivity

These were intelligent arguments, because it is true that not all who use the internet do so to come up with group solutions to the world’s problems. Believe it or not, most people use the internet for personal reasons not really to join with others in generating a cause on the internet. They log in, do what they need to do, which could include responding to messages and finding out what is going on and then, they log out. But, like I mentioned earlier there are always two sides to the story. So, there are also those who recognize the opportunities created by the internet and therefore, choose to collaborate with others of similar interests to find solutions. For an example, take a look at this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu7ZpWecIS8 

But, of course, these authors were critics of the internet and so, they attacked from their own standpoint, which was not balanced at all. The other issue they raised was that of “connectivity” and data mining, which has been over flogged on this blog and so, I will not dwell on it. I would nevertheless, advice that instead of being critical or overly celebratory about the internet or technology, more time should be spent understanding its implications and making the best out of it. Technology has its pluses and minuses, which is why media literacy is important. Everyone needs to understand the implications of technology and use it to the best of his or her abilities.

Second thoughts!

Although, now that it is owned and controlled by only a few players, I am unsure about whether any one user or consumer can truly manage the internet or technology the way he or she wants. But, you never know, it could be possible. Let’s find out what other authors have in store for us next week. Then, we’ll know! 

References

McChesney, R. W. (2013). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the internet against democracy. New Press, The.

Sunstein, C. (2001) “The Daily Me.” Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7014.pdf 

Van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855-874. 

Convergence culture: The power of the human mind

In the past two weeks, our focus has been on the “culture of connectivity,” (Van Dijck, 2013) which basically had to do with users versus owners. This week, we moved to another kind of culture, “convergence culture” otherwise known as participatory culture (Jenkins, 2008). What was most fascinating about this week’s readings was the fact that all three books had the same line of thought and so, common themes could be observed in the authors’ discussions. In analyzing these themes and for easy digestion, I have labeled them as the 5Cs. This represents Consumer, Content, Collaboration, Consequences and Conclusion; all in an order that I thought was most emphasized by these authors.

Consumer: An important player

The notion of convergence first began in reference to technologies merging to improve daily living and business practices. This was referred to as “convergence I and II” by Thomas Friedman in his book, “The World is Flat.” According to Friedman (2007) and these other authors (Benkler, 2006; Jenkins, 2008; Tapscott & Williams, 2008), the definition of convergence has grown beyond technologies alone. Convergence refers to the generation of consumers, who use these technologies as a medium of collaboration and connection to the rest of the world. The use of generation here does not refer to a particular age, rather it speaks of a set of people, who have refused to sit back and digest everything the media feeds to them. They are producers of their own information and consumers as well. These consumers are not vulnerable to the “Hypodermic needle theory” of the media; they don’t just take in information they see or hear. What do they do?

They have made consumption, a collective process (Jenkins, 2008) and for the purpose of this blog I would refer to them as, “players.” No pun intended, but looking at the behaviors of this genre of consumers, that word struck me as the best to explain what it is that these consumers do. These players receive information, then they think about it through researching online and offline, discuss it with friends and finally accept the conclusions they have drawn. Do you see why I used the word, “player?” They go around and then finally settle on what they think is best.

Jenkins (2008) noted that “the circulation of media content depends heavily on consumers’ active participation.” Benkley (2006) mentioned that “individuals more than the owners control this networked economy.” Lastly, Tapscott & Williams (2008) pointed out that “individuals had the power or opportunity to link up in loose networks of peers to produce goods and services….”

The floor is now open for anyone willing to be among these active consumers; but as added by Jenkins (2008), not all participants are created equal. I know what you are thinking, here comes the popularity principle again! Hmmm…not really, there is a difference!

The difference is that in this case, participants are not equal based on their strategic positioning in life. For example, one cannot expect an ordinary Citizen’s participation to be considered equal to that of the President. Not necessarily because of their different status, but rather the fact that the President obviously has to participate and collaborate more with people in the same country and outside of it. That way, the President becomes more empowered through his or her choice to participate. Imagine if the President had chosen to fold his or her arms and not care about politics, and you decided to do something about it, you would become the higher participant because you would be the President.

The power is in your hands, what are you going to do with it?

Content: “Everywhere you go”

At this point, I am reminded of a popular telecommunications provider in Nigeria, known as MTN that has the slogan, “Everywhere you go.” The slogan was coined to depict how widespread the network is in Nigeria. This idea is quite similar to what information has become in the world today; if information had a super power, it would be called, “fluidity,” which connotes how flexible it has become. The convergence being discussed here involves the free flow of information across the various forms of media (Jenkins, 2008). In other words, no longer is information restricted to a few elite in the society or one kind of technology or equipment; it is available to everyone who desires to participate.

Remember, those days when only a few had access to books or some form of printed information. Word of Mouth was the “in thing.” Who you knew determined how much you knew. But, today we are in a “networked information economy” where information is free and accessible through low rate communication technology (Bentler, 2006). If you don’t have an iPad, you have an iPhone and if not, you have a laptop or a computer; even if it is not your own, you have access to it. Okay, you don’t have any of those mentioned, what about your cell phone, or television, radio, newspaper, and books in the library, which is free of charge! There is so much available information, but it is only a list of words, if no one makes sense out of it.

The point about convergence culture is not really that information is available, everyone knows that! It is really about the fact that some consumers are gathering this information across multiple media platforms and communication devices, and further using it to create meaning in their lives, businesses and society at large. So, just like Friedman (2007) noted, “If it’s not happening, it’s because you are not doing it!”

Collaboration: Different captions, but similar meaning

Just like collaboration suggests different people, organizations or places coming together to create meaning, these authors (Benkler, 2006; Jenkins, 2008; Tapscott & Williams, 2008) each had their own caption that defined the concept of collaboration.

In Benkler (2006), it was called “coordinate effects;” in Jenkins (2008), it was “collective intelligence;” and in Tapscott and Williams (2008), it was “peer production.” All of them meant the same thing, which is the coming together of individuals from across the globe to actively shape their world, through interactions with technology.

Take for instance, peer review of scholarly articles that is done by different people, selected from different locations and specializations or “our favorite” Wikipedia, in which contributions are made by individuals from every part of the world.

People are collaborating, while some others are shutting down, running away or preventing others from taking part in this new culture. Remember, these popular sayings, “no man is an island” or “united we stand, divided we fall;” these ideologies explain the concept of convergence or in this instance collaboration. When people harp on networking, it seems as if that word is being overemphasized, but the truth is that humans were created to collectively impact their world. So, switching off your TV set or your mobile phone; or turning off your data (as we call it in Nigeria) or Wi-Fi (for Yankees) and shutting down your computer will not solve anything.

It is much better and profitable to utilize the media to better your world – relationships, home, school, church, community, society and as many that resonates with you. No one knows everything apart from God; so, why not collaborate with others.

“Two good heads are better than one,” you know, and “if companies can go global, individuals too can” (Tapscott & Williams, 2008).  

  

Consequences: A blessing or a curse

Imagine the reformation and enlightenment made available through the spread of information.

Imagine the innovations in the world today as a result of collaboration.

Imagine the solutions brought to countries all over the world through communication.

Imagine the destruction taking place in some nations today as a result of this global participation.

Everything has its good and bad side, but that should not stop you from playing your own part!

Conclusion: Final agreement

The world of convergence is awaiting some great minds like you and I to step out and create solutions to the problems in the society and world. Basic information and technology has been created, all that’s left is a human mind to put it all together. Convergence is the merger between human minds and media technology.

What are you waiting for? The world is waiting!

References

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom (pp. 6- 43). Yale University Press. http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler/portrait.a5.pdf

Jenkins, H. (2008). Introduction: “Worship at the altar of convergence”: A new paradigm for understanding media change. In Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (pp. 1-24). New York: NYU Press. http://www.ricardollano.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Convergence_culture_Jenkins1.pdf

Jenkins, H. (2008). Conclusion: Democratizing television? The politics of participation. In Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (pp. 240-260). New York: NYU Press. http://www.ricardollano.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Convergence_culture_Jenkins1.pdf

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything (pp. 7- 33). Penguin. 

The Struggle to Define Online Sociality

Book Cover
Photo by Ngozi Maduoma.

This week’s reading began with a really interesting quote from Lucian Marin’s blog, which stated, “Before Twitter, Flickr was the only social network I needed.” I found this quote quite interesting; partly because I do not know many people that use Flickr and mostly because I have never used that platform. It’s intriguing that it was or is a social network platform that had such a huge impact on its user. Van Dijck (2013), in her last four chapters discussed about Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia and the ecosystem of connective media. She referred to Flickr as one of the best-known online photo-sharing site that was found to foster a “network of small communities” Van Dijck, 2013). For a second, I thought to myself how great it would be to be part of this online network. I mean this is what we are being taught in every global communications class; the need to network. Then again knowledge, which I have gained so far from this book, made me hesitate.

Remember, one lesson learnt from last week’s post was the need for users to be cautious and deliberate in online environments, knowing that there is always more than meets the eye. Besides, this book has been able to establish that most of these platforms always start off with great user-based intentions and then along the line, change focus in pursuit of what the author calls, “connectivity,” which by the way only comes at the detriment of “connectedness.” Personally, I would rather have “connectedness” than “connectivity,” and I’m almost certain that this would be the choice of most users of these platforms. However, this “ecosystem of connectivity” cannot operate that way. There are users and there are owners; just like there are wants and needs.

Flickr and the struggle to balance Users’ want versus Owners’ need

The example of Flickr, which was bought over by Yahoo, revealed the struggle owners face while creating balance in the ecosystem. Flickr users wanted the site to remain as it was – community-based, same interface and with no form of commercialization. But, Yahoo, who became the owner, needed the site to yield profit, which the platform could not achieve if it maintained status quo. Notice that I used the word, ‘wanted’ in describing the users’ desires versus the word ‘needed’ in the case of Yahoo. This is because, Flickr users do not really need the platform to survive, but, Flickr needs money to survive and thrive in this culture of connectivity. Therefore, in this case one cannot blame Yahoo for trying to make ends meet. On the other hand, running Flickr on the same rules that apply to Yahoo site was not a good business decision. There must always be some form of compromise in organizational management. The users were willing to follow the new rules of having to sign up on Yahoo to access Flickr and adjust to the new interfaces. Yahoo should have soft pedaled a bit on its rush towards transforming Flickr into a money-making venture.

It is an ecosystem, in which players are interdependent; without users, there will be no owners, and without technology, there will be neither of the two. Hence, the need and struggle to maintain balance between what users’ want and that which owners’ need. Flickr is on the decline today, because someone forgot the public relations rule that no public of an organization should be ignored. Yahoo (Flickr) sort to satisfy managerial needs and that of commercial users, at the same time adapt to the new trend in online environments; but ignored the desires of the everyday users of the site. As a consumer, I don’t consider Flickr a success, and that’s only because I am basing my judgments in comparison to other social media platforms. However, according to Van Dijck (2013), when it has to do with online sociality, “success and failure are not entirely in the eyes of the beholder.” So, don’t quote me! On that note, I move to the next platform, YouTube – the video sharing site created as an “alternative” to watching television (Van Dijck, 2013).

YouTube – the “alternative”

A snapshot of the YouTube homepage.
 Photo by Ngozi Maduoma

The ideology behind the establishment of YouTube was like that of a rebellious child, right up to the point where it turned around and became the “prodigal son.” YouTube created a platform through which anyone in any part of the world could upload videos online and view that of others. Cool, right? I thought so too! Unfortunately, this strategy generated problems for the company; so they returned and made peace with the parent organization – television. Hence, the observable similarities between the design of the site and that of some television web pages, such as CNN. Also, the language used on the YouTube site, has more to do with television than a social networking site; words like “subscribe,” instead of the usual, “like,” “share” and “follow,” and “channels” in place of “pages.”

A snapshot of the CNN homepage.
 Photo by Ngozi Maduoma

In spite of these changes in the structure of YouTube, some users still consider it an alternative to television. One user from Nigeria called Obi, who is also a gospel artist, described it as a platform that helped him save time that may have been spent watching television. He also acknowledged that YouTube enables him upload his musical videos for free and affords him the opportunity to watch only selected videos. Hear what he has to say! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyvpDfswj9A

This platform adopted another format and yet it still continued to grow in size. Did you know that “within 8 years, YouTube became the third most popular internet site in the world, boasting four billion videos and uploading more content per month than all three major US television networks combined have done in sixty years” (Van Dijck, 2013). The company was able to accomplish this great feat, because it created something that was user friendly and different from the traditional way of broadcasting. It was like a grand theory – a break from the past ideologies and practices of the media. Users no longer had to pay to air their views, tell their stories, broadcast their songs and videos to the world. Therefore, even when it had to adapt to its environment, it still maintained its user volume.

Food for Thought

Reflecting on this, I wonder if YouTube thrived only because it had introduced a new trend or because its adaptation was inclined towards the social environment rather than online environment or “connectivity” as Van Dijck (2013) calls it. Did individuals and organizations find it easier to adjust to YouTube’s new interface, because of their familiarity with that kind of structure (traditional media) and framework? If this is so, just maybe “social determinism” wins after all. Also, contrary to popular opinion that traditional forms of media - television, radio and print would be replaced with newer technologies, they seem to be going nowhere; because according to Van Dijck (2013), they are now part of the “connective media” and I would like to add, even setting the pace too, as in the case of YouTube.      

Wikipedia and the “neutrality principle”

 Lastly, I cannot but write about Wikipedia, which asides from being the only non-profit social media platform discussed in this book, could also be deduced as the author’s favorite. Van Dijck (2013) explained that, “Amid a sea of goofy videos, pointless babble, tweets, endless updates, and nippy snapshots, Wikipedia’s encyclopedic content at least has the dignified status of being verified, impartial, and durable.” I do not contest the logic of this statement, but last semester, I lost a point in one of my class assignments for citing Wikipedia as a source. Hence, I’m not sure how credible this site is considered, if it’s yet to be accepted in academic research.

However, the author of the book, “The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media,” made a valid point as regards the “neutrality principle” applied in the operations of the site, in comparison to the “popularity principle” that is observed in other social media platforms (Van Dijck, 2013). Other platforms promote people, tweets, videos that are considered to be popular online, but Wikipedia only accepts articles that are written from a neutral point of view – NPoV (Van Dijck, 2013). For me, this was the only platform I was intrigued by its business model. I was curious to learn how it was run with no financial profits, and how it could afford to pay the staff of the Wikipedia foundation. Eventually, during the course of my reading, I learnt that it had established a mutually beneficial relationship with Facebook and Google, both of which often make huge donations to support the site. How neutral, you may want to ask? Your guess is as good as mine.

The Conclusion of the book

According to Van Dijck (2013), owners in the ecosystem of connective media have adopted three ways to ensure that users stay connected to their platforms. They include the strategies, “Lock in, fence off and opt out.” Here is a breakdown of how it works. The user is lured in and “locked in” from liking a page, to commenting on it and then sharing it, to being recommended to play candy crush, to downloading it and then, paying to gain access to the next level. Then, the user is “fenced in” through ownership and partnership across various platforms (Vertical integration). For instance, Google has ownership of Google +, YouTube, Gmail, Google search, Google music store, Google wallet, partnership with Wikipedia and other platforms (Van Dijck, 2013). So, an individual, who seeks information, clicks on the webpage of Google search and from there is asked to log in to gain broader access. This access opens the door to the user being flooded with notifications of other platforms tied to Google that are available to him or her. The cycle continues as much as the user keeps on clicking, until it becomes difficult to “opt out.” Sometimes, opting out is harder for some, because of the technicality involved in the opting out process, and for others, it is the fear of being isolated from the world of connectivity, which has become the norm in the society.

So what?     

No one can escape being a part of this world of connectivity, especially because it has been embraced in most societies and has become necessary criteria to thrive in this “global village.” Therefore, I subscribe to this quote from the Bible, “Wisdom is the principle; therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding” (NKJV, Proverbs 4:7). Information is available everywhere now; so, learn about these platforms and know how best to utilize them to your advantage.

Till we meet next time, be wise!