As some of us funwall our way through the day, others are using social and participatory media to shape the future. One of these people is Social Signal’s Rob Cottingham who asks Can web2.0 change the world?
“It’s easy to get fixated on the shiny toys of the Web 2.0 world: the latest invitation-only beta of the hottest new collaborative technology using the coolest whatever. Nothing wrong with that; our natural affinity for cool and new helps provide a built-in audience for technological innovators.
But the bright glare of technological promise can obscure its social impact… and not just the negative effects that technology’s critics are fond of citing.
The social web holds enormous promise for social transformation. Alex recently posted about how you can help steer the web toward that promise, but it’s also worth asking: just what makes us think the social web could be so transformative?”
I believe it already has - for better and worse.
There is no other time in history when the human population has been able to access, create and broadcast information with relatively few restrictions (though this is changing). This is not simply a moment of technological innovation but a change in the way we think and behave.
But if web2.0 is going to enable any sort of real change, then we have to focus on creating spaces and tools that enable a positive future - for us and the planet. Empowerment, learning, citizenship, happiness are all part of that vision. We can enable this kind of change by thinking carefully about the core values and behaviours that new technologies enable. For example, to think about applications that promote:
- compassion v. cruelty
- empathy v. narcissism
- care v. harm
- community v. isolation
- citizenship v. civic apathy
- critical mindedness v. coercion
- social consciousness v. sociopathologies
- social equities v. social hierarchies
- creativity v. consumerism
- empowerment v. abuses of power
For example, I’d like you to think about what you’re engaging when you add an application called “rate” or “compare” friends. What exactly is it you’re engaging in - as a social act? Can (and should) social value really be measured via hierarchies or comparisons? Or are our relationships inherently unique in their meaning?
If we’re going to engage in and promote social and participatory media, we must also examine what sort of social values and models we are participating in. What we do now, has enormous consequences for the future of humanity, civilisation and the planet. Some of these changes have already taken place - and continue to emerge with a velocity yet unexperienced at any other time in history.
What core values should new technologies, services and cultural production reinforce to ensure a positive future for ourselves and our planet?
New to this sort of thinking and discussion?
A good place to get started thinking about these and other ideas is the TED talks.
A lot - a whole lot - boils down to intention. Facebook makes it so easy to install a new app with barely a thought and inform your friends with barely another. And while that’s a big win for usability, it calls us to exercise a whole new kind of attention to what we’re doing.
Funny thing: everyone’s against friction until it’s time to walk on an icy sidewalk. :-)
[Reply]
It’s a few days later, and I should have started that last comment by saying how inspiring I’ve found this post (sorry - it was late, the kids were crying, etc.). Just to expand on my comment a little more, this time from a change agent’s standpoint…
There are a lot of things that the web makes it easy to do (provided you have the hardware and the broadband access, neither of which is a trivial issue). It’s easy to share photos, easy to share video, getting easier to subscribe to podcasts, easy to install Facebook applications, easy to spam your friends, easy to reach out and connect with someone.
And when you look at a platform like Facebook, they’ve invested a lot of time and energy into making it easy - into reducing the friction that might keep someone from moving through the steps of an application. So have the folks at YouTube, and Flickr, and a hundred other sites that come to mind.
For those of us interested in using the web for social change, that imposes at least three key demands on us:
To make a substantial investment in the user’s experience of the kind of applications and services that encourage positive change and collaboration. We’re competing for people’s participation; when we’ve earned a little of it, we owe it to our users to waste as little of their time and energy as possible figuring out interfaces and workflows.
To learn from the experience of popular sites and applications, whether we think their impact is positive, negative or negligible. There’s always been a certain level of disdain for popular culture in some (not all!) segments of the activist left, and while I’m not suggesting people suspend their critique of the mainstream media, a whole lot of activity goes on there. To refuse to draw the lessons that activity can teach us would be an enormous waste.
To engage people where they’re participating. I was part of a discussion the other day where one person was asking for advice on posting a critique of junk media to YouTube; one of the first responses suggested YouTube is the last place you should post that kind of material, because it’s ground zero for junk culture. The commenter was joking… but in all seriousness, I can’t think of a better place to criticize YouTube than on YouTube. Instead of hoping our audience will make the trek to whatever decontaminated ground we’d like to meet them on, we’ll be a lot further ahead meeting them where they live.
[Reply]
Rob,
I really appreciate what you’re saying. And I do see where you’re coming from via the balance of critique with applause - when appropriate. As you can see from my enthusiasm for web2.0 I’m a big fan of innovation and exploration. That said, I think it’s important to pause for critical thought before embracing and endorsing - I’m not seeing nearly enough of that (questioning). Nor am I seeing the right sorts of questions getting asked (enough). Your post and question inspired ME because I felt you were asking the right questions. I only wish more people would.
My criticism of FB is based on questions around the efficacy of their models. I do not believe that new technologies merely passively reflect the truth of their creators but produce new and original systems and behaviours that nobody had anticipated (or bothered to think about.
So lets take these tools and try to reconfigure their use - with a thoughtful and mindful eye on the right outcomes. Those outcomes can include plenty of profit, too. There’s a lot of money to be made by those who choose to deliver something that users really want and need. I’d pay for it (as long as I got a good free beta’s worth out of it first!).
[Reply]
Here’s to the free beta! :)
[Reply]
Bring on change! Bring on the money! Bring it!
If they build it (right), I will use it (and likely pay for it).
There are all kinds of commercial opportunities in this as well. Let’s say you wish to create a community around your brand, services and products. There’s no reason you cannot apply the logic above (i.e., caring for the user’s needs, offering choice and user friendliness, delivering apps that have a positive/useful outcome) and also make money.
For the business people…
None of what I’m saying precedes profit. There is no reason why enterprise should be divorced from a socially meaningful mission and purpose - especially in the case of brands that cater to a more traditional, values-oriented demographic (which is increasing with the boomer generation). That’s just good business.
[Reply]