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.

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.

“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.

I'm a huge fan of yours! I'm interested in applying for a job at CBS Interactive (in the Finance dept.), could you help me out by forwarding it internally to someone in HR? My email is: jay.wong8@gmail.com

Thanks,

Jay Wong