Natali Del Conte

I have to disagree with some of the things you said. For example, despite being a person who live on the cutting edge, I do find out about something new or atleast get updated on something that I already knew about every time I see your programs.

Ok, seriously, I do feel equally dissapointed about how technology hasn't changed us enough. I think technological advancement is not a linear and constantly progressive in nature, rather it has many branches of which some continue to grow while some dry out and fall to the ground. If you look at the history of aviation for example, there are so many nifty inventions that never made past a blueprint or prototype while some became part of our everyday life.

Another point to remember when thinking about this sort of thing is that some people tend to assess what's going on in the "world" based on what's going on around them (i.e. the US or the western countries in general) Why is it in the movies aliens always invade New York?

So, what about media freedom, digital divide, decentralized control etc? As long as humans continue to contribute to technology, there will always be a bit of human nature in it. So the real question is not if technology has changed us but have we changed the way we embrace and go about dealing with it. After all, human development didn't start in the 90s. It's wasn't always a positive trend either. (There were times when the Greeks forgot how to read and write) We can never expect things to just magically get better. I think we are in for a huge expectations bubble burst not too far in the near future.

I enjoyed this post.

"New media" is the favorite term of many these days, but it simply can't succeed without "old" media's content. Considering the real power in these technologies lies in the people behind them, and how they use these technologies, maybe we need "digital sociologists," who focus entire careers solely on understanding people's behaviors online, regardless of the technological platforms they're using.

I agree that the Internet's love affair with new-ness is pervasive, but cautious, tamed optimism and eagerness for innovation can also help great ideas grow that might otherwise never reach adoption.

I think of the technology 'explosion' as sort of like a lava stream. The lava flows even though rock forms around it as it cools. The rock is left behind as the hot lava continues forward. The 'rock' is illustrative of the 'determistic' technology which is soon left behind because, well, it is rock hard and the lava must go somewhere.

Determinism in this field sounds like wishful thinking on the part of those who control certain areas (or hope to). New is not always better, but it is always inevitable (I think).

Natali,

You can do better. Better than this. C'mon, what do you really think? What do *you* have to say on the subject? Something I was struck by, through conversation at the BOL meet-up, was your appetite for knowledge. Your pursuit of information. It's one of your better qualities as a person I'd say.

But this particular post seems more preoccupied with sounding articulate, without articulating anything in particular. Uses a whole lot of syllables, without saying a whole lot.

You have a wealth of experience and expertise. You have our attention. Your voice has value. So, let's hear it!

John McMillion
San Diego, CA

I think the same could be said of determinism in general, among schools of history a major movement lies in a form of historical determinism, that all major social changes have come from large anonymous historical factors, such as climate changes, new technologies, or biological changes, and these occur irrespective of individuals. This is essentially a Marxist doctrine - that society goes through phases that individuals have no influence over. But any cursory understanding of general history proves this wrong, many times throughout history individuals have had profound influences on the entire course of human development. The same is very true of technology, a poorly conceived law could derail technological innovations or even stop them cold. For over a decade Brazil banned PC imports and subsequently have the most outdated and smallest computer market penetration even adjusting for their average social-economic status. The original semi-conductor patent was so different from other technology that it didn't even have any references in the 'prior art' section. The fact is all social changes are the result of a complex interaction of profoundly influential individuals and larger anonymous social changes, and none of it is deterministic.

I would argue that there is nothing inherent in the Internet or the Web that would directly change the way we communicate or reshuffle the concentrations of media power. Instead, they offer possibilities for new technologies, new communication, and new voices. But, as you said, it's up to us to decide which technologies we carry forward. The Net/Web have removed the barrier to entry that was the infrastructure for publishing. Now, the hurdle to overcome is visibility.

Any advantages the major media producers had before the Internet still apply; these are namely visibility, resources, connections, and scope. Plus, the already big media producers get the same advantages given by the Net as the little ones. The Net empowers people by removing the barriers of physical production, publication, and distribution. For small bloggers or podcasters, that's everything when it comes to having a voice.

Visibility works both ways, though more effective going from real-world to online than the other way around. Entities that have great real-world visibility will start off with much higher visibility online than the average blogger. Twitter is a great example of this. As soon as it became mainstream, all of the top-followed people were ones who were already real-world celebrities of some kind. However, because bits are endlessly copyable, it's possible that Just Another Average Blog can become a focus for the attention of the entire Web, provided their server can handle it. For this to happen, the content needs to be interesting, compelling, or include cats. Aggregators like Digg help to bring the best content to the surface of the pool that is the Web. This attention isn't forever, though, since news does generally require that the information be new.

Major media outlets are not just a single blogger or journalist anyway, so it's no surprise they can hold attention and maintain the concentration of power and control. A single person going it alone rarely commands the same kind of audience, especially a sustained one, that a whole team of journalists does. The "love affair with new-ness" results in the attention moving on from a topic after the novelty wears off. A large group ("old" networks like CNN, or "new-ish" ones like CNET) has the collection of content that will keep the attention within its domain. Some blogs, like Engadget, become continual centers of attention, but they do so by becoming big. Much of what they report on isn't even new for many, either. It seems as though there is often a tradeoff between novelty and visibility, though I'm not sure how much of a dichotomy this really is.

I think that the communication tools we should watch out for, and encourage, are ones that reward compelling content with visibility. Obviously, compelling to whom is the real question, and in most cases compelling will be determined by the crowd at large. Robert Scoble has been making a fuss about Twitter's lists, saying that they will change the game from having the most followers to being on the most lists. His reasoning is that lists will help to distill the users who have the most interesting content. Tools like that are the ones that will help the average blogger become noticed, they just have to provide compelling content, then push it and get people to notice.

\

As the novelty of social inter-networking begins to fade the practicality of business inter-networking will take its place. Ebay was the great liberator of the worlds junk, until business got the message and began utilizing ebay as a portal. Now many businesses who made a name for themselves on ebay are working on their own sites in order to build their brand.
It seems that the internet is an incubator for creative business, media, and ideas. Its viral nature combined with low cost has reduced the incubation time for these ventures, and therefore their MTBF. The ideas spew out daily and are replaced with new ones the next, and the paradime shifts. The only constant is change. But were assured that everyone is focused on the internet.
So given all this hoo ha, why not have a discussion about the evolutionary next-steps for the internet? What will ubiquitous bandwidth bring, if anything? Will the masses tire of texting? Is twitter just a phase or will it clog with spam just as email did and become something boring we do at work? What are the similarities between the evolution of email and that of twitter, if any? I want to know if the internet is the technology of the future, or just the obsession of the day. Is there something else out there that will change our lives in a more profound way, and were all missing it because were too busy harvesting someones crops in farm town?
Inquiring minds want to know!
T

A fascinating thing to think about, and indeed it's something I am spending a lot of time in graduate school examining. If technological determinism makes you uncomfortable, you may enjoy looking into the "Social Construction of Technology" (SCOT) model. Rather than arguing that technology shapes social action, social constructivists argue that it is in fact humans and their actions shaping technology. Please feel free to check out my site -- http://unpoppedcollar.com -- for more discussions on technological determinism versus social constructivism.

Stewart Brand's famous meme asserting that a tension is created because information simultaneously wants to be free and expensive comes into play in this discussion.

"Information wants to be free (because of the new ease of copying and reshaping and casual distribution), AND information wants to be expensive (it's the prime economic event in an information age)... and technology is constantly making the tension worse. If you cling blindly to the expensive part of the paradox, you miss all the action going on in the free part. The pressure of the paradox forces information to explore incessantly. Smart marketers and inventors quietly follow-and I might add, so do smart computer security people." (Stewart Brand)

Information has become cheaper. Broadcasting that information has become cheaper. Building a platform that adds value to information is at the core of Web 2.0 and social networking sites, by letting users rank, vote, forward, or comment on the information. The question becomes, to what end?

Joe is shouting in a tunnel... and his shout may not be heard today any more than it was heard before the Internet. However, if Joe is providing information that people are curious about, and if that information is hard to find elsewhere, the shouts will be heard. Or, if a social networker is able to cross Joe's tunnel with Sue's tunnel and Bob's tunnel, then their voices might be heard more readily... if what they are saying is unique or interesting.

Society shapes itself with whatever tools are at hand. In the case of the network as a tool, the network doesn't care whether the information it distributes make the world better or not. The people making use of the information have to decide that.

For example, the same network allows Obama Campaigners or Conservative Tea Party Planners to use facebook and twitter to organize events. If facebook did not exist, however, these events would probably still happen... the organizers would have to use a different tool to get the word out.

Society may not use the tool to shape itself for the better... the network doesn't know or care that its pipes are filled with a gazillion megabytes of porn or serves as a recruiting tool for a hate group or a terrorist organization.

When information production and distribution were more expensive, publishers and broadcasters would seek authoritative sources to protect the value of their investment. As this becomes cheaper, and viewers are flooded with information, now the viewer (not broadcaster) seeks a way to find authoritative sources, to help reduce the information clutter and protect their investment in time. This puts Joe right back in his tunnel, not getting heard until he is deemed an authoritative contributor. At the same time, the broadcaster increasingly moves away from authoritative to novelty, in the interest of picking up the pieces of their fragmented audience.

Interesting article here. A little scattered, but I think I understand what you were getting at on a couple of points.

If Joe is blogging in a forest he should probably get attacked by a bear for not enjoying mother nature, or maybe Google should be applauded for finally establishing free wireless internet across America. But seriously though, yes, Joe *could* make an impact. In fact, the impact of technology and greater access to information on society is tremendous...mostly because of these average Joes. And I think it's really interesting to watch these days.

The latest events in Iran come to mind, with the "revolution" that unfolded almost entirely on Twitter and across the internet. Technology doesn't level any playing field necessarily, but it does push the information domain to new heights. I'm not worried about media as a business, but I do find it interesting how technology has established information dominance as the driving factor for the future in just about every field.

I thought that better communications was going to intensify the Global Village that McLuhan used to talk about. Instead, it has given us so many communications choices that we have turned into dial-a-fanatics, associating ourselves with whatever fanatical cause makes us most comfortable, from fellow beheaders to evolution deniers to Obama's not American-ites. Many years ago sociologist David Riesmann talked about the "other directed" among us, who take their values from those surrounding them. I wonder if he's alive now, when we have control over the society that surrounds us to the extent that we can be reinforced for believing any crap that we choose?

This really is an interesting topic. Thinking on it now, I think I would agree with technology determinism; technology does create a change in the social structure. While it seems the book is focused on computers and the internet from its title, there is no reason that Yochai Benkler’s definition of technological determinism cannot have broad application. In fact to properly understand the role of social networking, new media, etc. has on society it is vital that one looks at technological advances of all kinds. After all, how long has the internet been around? Heck, the iPhone is still less than 3 years old.

Expanding ones view beyond the realm of the internet it seems to me that technological determinism is pretty relevant. The issues that must be addressed are the scale of this social change and if this change will be positive. New technologies will have an impact on society, but a belief in technology determinism or determinism of any type doesn't dictate the size of that change. For instance, the development of the transistor has had a huge impact on our society and has helped motivate serious social changes since its invention and first implementation until it has given us the social structure we have today. However, for a significant part of the world, the transistor has had absolutely no impact, namely the 3rd world. So this one example has resulted in a social change but not equally for all parts of the world, or even I would say all aspects of US society. A look at pretty much any technological development would result, I think, in a similar result. I would also say that any new web technology has similarly resulted in a social change. The issues of the size of the change, and if it could be called "positive" depends not so much on the technology itself, but the implementation, marketing, early adoption, etc. The recent diversity data released by Facebook, is in my opinion an interesting realization of how the social change can really be limited in scope. Luckily it seems the FB's social change has recently been acting on a larger more diverse scale as it has opened itself to folks besides college students.

So, has Web 2.0, new media created a social change? Yes, and it still is, however its change isn't as wide spread or as grand as one thinks. For certain segments of society--the segment that we are part of--these technological advances really has created, in my opinion, a very positive social change. But is it going to upset the entire social structure of the US? Probably not, but it does provide an interesting avenue of eventual change. It can also equally allow individuals to become more entrenched in their social and ideological strata. Ultimately the amount of change, and what the change will look like will be up to us. As another commenter pointed out, government regulation can have a huge impact on the social changes realized by any technological development. In that regard discussing these topics is vitally important because we need to actively shape the change we seek and not leave it up to chance otherwise, which in my mind means we are leaving it up to large corporations and those with financial influence.

Sure you remember East of Eden and the Adam's idea, "REFRIGERATION". He thought it could change the world. ANd what a failure. And he became the town's idiot...
As always, technology only makes an impact when it hits the critical mass. Ships didn't change the world when used by fisherman as much as they did when they were used for commerce. Same with planes.
Just give it time