Professional Communication Technology
Reading the Reader 1
for the introduction of the theory or the concept of Web 2.0 reminds us how far
communication and the internet have evolved. As a person who grew up with
limited or no access to computers or the internet, it’s both exciting and scary
to finally start embracing and fully participate in this social networking
revolution.
Thinking back to some
of the discussions during the first session that looked at the positive and
negative things that social networking has contributed in our home and working
life. This made me think about how I have used social networks in the past,
especially Facebook, to promote events I have organised. Even with all these social networks sites we
still rely on traditional means of promoting events such as: magazines, news
papers, TV, radio, flyering, posters and word of mouth. Therefore we need to reach out to people that
might not have the means or access to participate in this ever evolving tool
and more importantly foster human contact. As Hamilton suggests in his theory
of Architectures of Participation, if people do not have the instruments by
which they can participate then they will be unable or unwilling to participate
in something (Hamilton 2000).
Not having time, money,
skills and infrastructures are some of the factors that Hamilton proposes will
stop people from participating but this does not simply mean that sharing of
information will stop. There have always been means and ways of sharing
information and participating in something before Web 2.0, through human
contact via dialogue in social and political gathering. One of the many things
Web 2.0 has changed is that we don’t solely rely on conventional news for
information but information that can be gathered and broadcast in countries
where journalists can’t gain access to. In other countries money, skills and
infrastructure are not a real issue but rather the amount of control and
censorship which the state has over its media for different political and
social reasons. This then raises questions about human rights and freedom of
speech as states use fear to prevent meaningful dialogues or organising
gatherings.
On the other hand, how
much freedom of speech is too much? The definition of Web 2.0, as stated in
Reader 1 that “[it] provides the opportunity for the reader and creator to
interact and more importantly, for reader to become the creator.”
However this does not mean
that all creators will participate in a meaningful and positive manner nor
organise constructive social gatherings. The recent London riots is a good
example of how people can use social networks to organise themselves to cause
destruction; whether you agree with what happened or not, the point is that the
service providers should have been aware of how their business was been used.
If they were not aware, this then raises questions about how they monitor the
safety of the users. If they were aware, did they choose to protect their
customers through freedom of speech over the safety of innocent people? Status updates on Facebook is another method
that can be used as a positive tool for passing on meaningful and informative
information but it has become a platform for an emotional outlet for the users.
We are in a very exciting place regarding information sharing and participating
in public forums. We also need to recognise that not everyone is in engaging in
a constructive and secure way. Overall Web 2.0 has revolutionised how we work
as professionals, whether we use blogs to share our ideas with the rest of the
world, YouTube to research media or as a teaching tool, ITunes to upload
podcasts and Google to ask and answer questions. Whether or not Web 2.0 has
contributed to the lack of face to face communication or not, at the end of the
day it comes down to choice and that is the beauty of democracy.
