ponedeljek, 31. maj 2010

Facebook Rolls Back Privacy Changes …


It looks like Facebook will finally put the decisions about privacy settings in their users’ hands ...

Facebook Bows to Pressure Over Privacy

Under Pressure, Facebook Rolls Back Privacy Changes

Zuckerberg said the new privacy settings, which will show up in users’ accounts over the next couple of weeks, would make it easier for users to understand how much of their personal information was publicly accessible. “The settings have gotten complex, and it has become hard for people to use them effectively,” he said.

“Facebook's rapid response to privacy concerns may just have saved the world's fastest-growing internet brand from long-term damage. The company, which has undergone a month of withering criticism, today introduced a simplified new dashboard to control privacy settings, rolling back some of the changes made last month that confused users, concerned privacy advocates and drew the attention of Congress.“ It looks like things are moving in right direction, and I hope this really means that Facebook will stop misleading users with incomprehensible and tricky privacy settings.

Google TV: TV meets web, web meets TV

In my previous post I was writing about dilemma around overlaps of traditional and social media content and I concluded that new technologies will change the way people watch TV. Recently Google present interactive platform, Google TV, which combines TV and Web. Is this already one of technological innovation that will drastically change the way we watch TV?

It was estimated that around 4 billion people across the world watch TV, but today there is an increasing amount of our entertainment experiences that is coming from our phones and computers, mainly because they have access to the web. But on other hand these devices still lack some features and high-quality viewing experience that the TV offers. Google combined the best of TV and the best of the web in one seamless experience.

They have presented it on their Official Blog:
“Google TV is a new experience for television that combines the TV that you already know with the freedom and power of the Internet. With Google Chrome built in, you can access all of your favorite websites and easily move between television and the web. With the entire Internet in your living room, your TV becomes more than a TV — it can be a photo slideshow viewer, a gaming console, a music player and much more. Google TV uses search to give you an easy and fast way to navigate to television channels, websites, apps, shows and movies. “
Google TV will be available in the USA in autumn this year and elsewhere around the world in 2011.

But, will Google TV really make a technological renaissance that would change our TV-viewing experience forever, as predicted by some industry analysts? Ellen Dudar says Google is repeating failures of Microsoft TV, Apple TV and Yahoo TV. She argues that for a new product to attain widespread consumer adoption, it must be 10 times better than the current way, readily accessible and cost competitive.

She says Google TV will be another ITV failure because of
• Complexity -> consumers must add yet another box to what is already a complicated setup. Had Google asked internet surfers to purchase a separate appliance to sit next to their computer, their search business would've failed miserably.
• Cost -> to make Google TV work, consumers must purchase the Logitech box (rumored to be north of $400) or a new Android HD TV. This is in addition to what they pay for cable and satellite television since Google TV does not deliver television programming.
• Consumer behavior-> Consumer research indicates viewers want much more from their TVs, but not open surfing of the web. They want features that enhance programming and deliver convenience.
• Confused advertising -> Google wants a slice of the $70 billion advertising pie, while Google can deliver new ads in their overlays; they have nothing to do with making linear television spots more targeted and interactive. In fact, Google TV encourages even greater audience fragmentation that undermines television content and advertising models.
• Competition -> By the time Google makes its service available, 25 million cable homes will have interactive features at no additional cost and effort.

Although viewing experience that combines TV and the freedom and power of the Internet sounds appealing, I agree with Ellen Dudar, consumers want their TV to do more, but only if it's easy, relevant to the viewing experience and provides real consumer benefits. Will be Google TV able to fulfill all these requirements?

Good Old Television ...

Nowadays we are constantly listening how social media are changing and shaping the world around us and what a dramatic improvements in communication, connectivity and socializing they enabled. Yes, all this is true, but not long ago I read an interesting article, “In Praise of the Original Social Media: Good Ol' Television”, where author, Simon Dumenco, point out an interesting dilemma, “people often use “new” social media to talk about what is/was on TV”.

“For all the buzz and obsession about social media, old media still rules our lives. And of all the old media, TV maintains the tightest grip on our collective consciousness. Pay attention to what is really being talked about en masse on Twitter (and Facebook and elsewhere in the social- media sphere) and chances are pretty good it relates to what is on TV at the moment somewhere in the world, or what was on TV last night”.

He argues that people want to watch TV together, not only with their friends and families in their homes, but with the culture at large. TV remains not only passive medium, but one that people want to consume socially.

“We want to experience what lots of other people are experiencing and TV still delivers that mass, simultaneous experience better and more economically than anything else. There’s something deeply, beautifully human about people using newfangled social media to share their awe about great moments on good old-fashioned TV.”

To some extent I have to agree with his statements. I checked a little bit on Twitter and Facebook, and there are quite a lot of comments, link and groups that relates to what is/was on TV. But I am not sure if TV world in social media sphere really dominate over online world. In my opinion contents of social media depends on what age group and which social medium we are watching. Younger generations are definitely moving away from TV and instead on relying on TV for mass, simultaneous experience, they are using other online, digital sources. For other age groups, social media allows them to watch TV and interact on a “global” level with people watching the same show. As one of comments put it nicely, "social media are like the community TV room in the old-school college dorms. And it is for people who are old enough to know what is meant when we say that".

Project for Excellence in Journalism made an interesting survey about how blogs and social media agendas relate and differ from the traditional press. They confirmed assumption that relationship between traditional media and social media content differs according to a medium.

“While social media players espouse a different agenda than the mainstream media, blogs still heavily rely on the traditional press for their information. More than 99% of the stories linked to in blogs came from legacy outlets such as newspapers and broadcast networks. Twitter, by contrast, was less tied to traditional media. Here half (50%) of the links were to legacy outlets; 40% went to web-only news sources such as Mashable and CNET. The remaining 10% went to wire stories or non-news sources on the Web.”

Although new technologies are increasingly steering us away from traditional media, TV is definitely not going to vanish in the foreseeable future, but the way next generations will watch TV will differ drastically from what we know today.

torek, 25. maj 2010

SmartBrief: "Save your time and keep you smart"

In previous post I wrote about an interview with Merritt Colaizzi, publisher of SmartBrief, a media company that aggregates content in more than 150 daily business publications covering 23 industries. She pointed out the growing importance of filtering and aggregation of the content, as a result of information saturation in today’s world.

I was curious how SmartBrief newsletters look like and how useful they are, so I sign up for daily briefing on the business of social media. Although these newsletters are intended for businesspeople, I think they are very interesting and instructive also for students in this area.

SmartBrief on social media delivers news, insights and information about new and established social networks, user-generated content, blogging, wikis, media sharing, and more. Their editors hand-pick the most relevant and important news from all over, summarize it and link to the original sources. They also enable their readers to have a discussion about what they read; there is SmartBlog on Social Media, where e-newsletter readers share ideas. Subscriptions are free of charge, offered in partnership with more than 100 leading trade associations, professional societies, non-profits and corporations.

In my opinion this is a good way to follow what is happening in certain area and I recommend to check it out -->

http://www.smartbrief.com

http://www.smartbrief.com/socialmedia

ponedeljek, 17. maj 2010

How social media is changing publishing?

Social media has changed the world of publishing a lot and it is continue to change it every day. Few days ago I watch an interesting interview with Merritt Colaizzi, publisher of SmartBrief, a media company that aggregates content in more than 150 daily business publications covering 23 industries. She presents few most important trends about publishing industry related to social media.

sme_mc_022310 from Michael A. Stelzner on Vimeo.


The most important trend she points out is that people are reporting breaking news through social media and their reports are sometimes really edgy stuff that can not be seen in media. There is more and more audience participating in the actual production of what they are publishing every day. And there is so much information out there and every day new sources are proliferating, but we have the same amount of time to absorb that information, so there is more and more important the filtering and aggregation of the content. The survey among readers of Smart Brief publications showed that most important things of coming to readers in 2010 are mobile applications, content aggregation and filtering. Smart Brief adjusted their publishing model to these trends. They present few top stories from different areas in their publications and because there is important that conversations are going around the news, they enable their readers to have a discussion on different streams. They are also moving to aggregating the most important user comments and finding other ways to integrate reader input and develop their community further. That is why Merritt predicts audiences will get even more involved in the creation of the content they consume in the future. In my opinion this kind of publishing model will get more and more attention because engagement is becoming a key feature in media landscape.

petek, 23. april 2010

The death of traditional advertising agencies...

Agency Saatchi & Saatchi Canada has created interesting viral video clip, which predicts the death of advertising agencies, unless they assimilate digital creativity, which is the future. Spot entitled “The Last Advertising Agency on Earth” is a somber two minute film that compares the death of advertising industry with the fall of the Roman Empire.



It accuses the industry that non-critically insists on old methods, particularly with reliance on television advertising, despite the fact that customers seek for new, non-traditional ideas. The development of technologies for high-speed Internet, mobile phones, MP3 players, online shopping and digitization of all types of content, opens the door into a new era. For decades agencies prepared their brand messages for consumers, but the key difference is that they stopped being passive. Now they can actually choose what they wanted to see, not what the advertising agencies forced them to. “So much was lost because of arrogance and ignorance and because agencies choose to ignore the changes going on all around them” says narrator in spot, which ends with a message that advertising industry, will be extinct, if they do not assimilate digital reality.

The fact is that advertising is loosing power and there is increasing trust in individuals. Understanding of upcoming consumer behavior is crucial, because of era where consumers have more and more power. But what can we expect after billboards and TV ads? What kind of relationship with consumer will be needed and how important engagement will be? Will traditional advertising methods really extinct?

PC in our pocket

A new generation of mobile processors and faster mobile networks combined to put the power of a PC onto the smartphone in out pocket.

Few days ago I run into an interesting article from Information Week, dated in 2008. It deals with expectations about smartphones capability in 2010. A number of technologies that have been in development for years jumped from lab to factory and straight into the next generation of mobile devices.

Authors exposed three main trends that caused a fundamental change in the role and nature of smartphones: broadband everywhere, digitization of all content and pocket computing power. These trends have turned cell phones into smartphones and are driving the evolution of smartphones into devices that are always connected, that have access to all our digital content as well as to the Web, and to provide a wider array set of personal services. I choose few predictions from this article; let see how accurate they were.

“Smartphones will be closer to becoming the single most important devices we own.” Smartphones offer a huge number of different functions, which allow us to do more things in more places but in my opinion, mobile devices will be, at least in next few years, important extensions of our PCs and other devices, but will not become a single device we own.

“The biggest opportunities and changes will come with broadband Internet connectivity that is available no matter where you are”. It is true that broadband connectivity became widespread, but in my opinion, authors forgot about digital divide, contributing to fewer options for some parts of the world. Broadband is not everywhere and will not be in the near future.

"The complete Internet experience that you have on your PC will be available in the mobile space”. Web 2.0 tools, social networking and GPS-based location and navigation on mobile devices presented many new opportunities for users, so this prediction is quite accurate. Many web sites and applications are already adjusted for use on mobile devices and this adaptation is becoming more and more widespread. Laptops, by comparison, may be mobile, but you do not use them when you walk down the street or drive to the same extent that you can use a mobile phones.

“A coming shift in how smartphones fit into our digital lives will be much less about getting the phone to do what other portable devices do today (camera, music player, gaming, etc.) and more about connecting you to your Web-ecosystem of apps, services, and content.”

“In terms of applications, anything that has to do with entertainment, music, and video is going to be big. Increases in memory capacity will play a large role in this. Either way, storage capacity is going to increase dramatically. "Flexibility for large-capacity cards, allows you to move content easier".

All these predictions came true, smartphones in 2010 really allow us to access to most of digital content as well as to the Web and provide a wider set of personal services. Some of mentioned things were already in use before 2010, but not in extent we can see it today. Options for accessing to our content and ability to display and transfer large amounts of it easily will let people do more with these devices. Smartphones can free us from our PCs to a great extent and enrich our experience with mobile devices.

Because we are using our smartphones in such a diverse way there are many other concerns about these devices. In my opinion one of the most important is their security and more about this topic in following posts.

sobota, 17. april 2010

Video Pollution on the Web

In the previous post I was writing about the long tail and the rise of niche culture. The democratization of production and distribution tools and integration of supply with demand led to the huge diversity of choice. Without filters, e.g. search engines, recommendations, blogs and user ratings, users can lost themselves in a multitude of products, because the long tail has a dynamic and wide range of quality.

Beside all the positive facts that new technologies brought, the impact of pollution on the web is becoming evident to society. In the last issue of First Monday, I found an interesting article called Video Pollution on the Web. Authors say that videos have become a predominant part of users' daily lives on the Web, especially with the emergence of video sharing services, such as YouTube. Part of the huge success of multimedia content in the Web is due to the change on the user perspective from content consumer to content creator. By allowing users to publicize their independently generated content, the long tail of videos is becoming longer but video sharing networks become susceptible to different types of pollution. As example, users can pollute the system spreading video messages containing undesirable content. Users can also associate metadata with videos in attempt to fool video search engines (i.e., popular tags, but unrelated to the content). Moreover, users can upload identical videos, generating duplicates of the same content on the system.

Authors identified following types of pollution:
  • Redundant information (near-duplicates); since users can freely upload content in VSS systems, it is natural to expect that part of these videos is identical or very similar, this type pollute search results.
  • Incorrect, noisy, imprecise, or manipulated meta–information (metadata pollution); one of the new trends of the Web 2.0 is to allow users to freely create and associate metadata to the content. The main problem caused by this type of pollution is related with content retrieval, as most information retrieval mechanisms rely mostly on metadata. If a video content is not well described by its meta–information, it can not be found in search results or appear in lists of related videos.
  • Undesired or unsolicited information (video spam); in video sharing systems, videos can be used as objects of interactions between users. Similarly to e–mail spam, link spam, and spam in blogs and forums, conversations established in video social networks may contain video spam. Video messages can be considered spam if the video communication is unsolicited or is completely unrelated to the subject of the conversation or discussion.
Pollution can cause negative impacts on system aspects such as content distribution networks, and video search engines. The impact on the user caused by this type of content may include:
  • loss of interest in using the system, as some of the retrieved information is mostly redundant or does not match well to an expressed information need or interest;
  • distrust in the system, as some of the retrieved information is clearly not related to the current interest or navigation pattern, being perhaps offensive or being included only to take advantage of the user;
  • impatience, as some resources are very difficult to find or due to the low performance of the system, among many others (Benevenuto et al. 2010).
Authors have also suggested pollution control strategies, which may be applied to all of the three types of video pollution, video duplicates, metadata pollution and video spam.
  1. Automatic approach is widely used to control several types of pollution in Web environments and relies on machine learning algorithms (e.g., supervised classification). Basically, special purpose algorithms are developed to automatically detect and fight polluters and polluted contents.
  2. Another filter or control strategy is feedback from users. By allowing users to flag a video when they encounter pollution, the system is able to remove some sort of undesired video objects.
  3. The third is collaborative approach. Current popular video systems such as YouTube organize videos around online communities structured as personal (or “egocentric”) networks, with the individual at the center of their own community. One interesting approach to tackle pollution consists of empowering members of online communities with mechanisms to clean or report members that do not contribute positively to the community. This approach builds on the idea that each user should take care of the system and the content that other users upload, editing the content and associated metadata of every video uploaded to the system, like users do to articles in Wikipedia.
  4. The fourth approach is “make life harder for polluters” by increasing the cost of sending spam or creating pollution (Benevenuto et al. 2010).
Beside all the positive examples that new technologies have brought for individual there are also issues that can deteriorate our experience with them. All the filters that authors are listing, are really important because a dynamic and wide range of quality of products and services in long tail of video sharing networks.

Resource:
Benevenuto, Fabricio, Tiago Rodrigues, Virgilio Almeida, Jussara Almeida, Marcos Goncalves, and Keith Ross. 2010. Video pollution on the Web. First Monday, vol.15, issue 4. Available at http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/current.

četrtek, 15. april 2010

The Long Tail - How new technologies are changing consumerism?

Today, enterprises are often in dilemma, where to find more and more whimsical consumers. Few years ago, when mass culture dominated, this was not a difficult issue. Fewer things competed for our attention, and hits managed to attract a mass audience. But this is no longer the case. “The age of one-size products for all ends, and there comes something new, niche market,” says Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired magazine and author of The Long Tail, where he is reconstituting a map for 21.century economy.

The development of technologies for high-speed Internet, mobile phones, MP3 players, online shopping and digitization of all types of content, opens the door into a new era, where instead of “hits” culture, “niche” culture is dominant. Networks enable access to culture and content of all kinds, from mainstream to the most marginal. This trend challenges the economic power of hits. The market is broken into countless niches and consumers are becoming more and more diffuse.

The essence of the long tail theory is in the removal of physical restrictions of the shelves and others bottlenecks of distribution, which ensures that goods intended for a small target audience are the same economically attractive than those for the masses. New technologies incredibly quickly reduce the costs of achieving niches, and although the sale of products in each niche is relatively small, due to their abundance, these products make up a market that can compete with the hits. The long tail is therefore a culture that was not refined by economics of scarcity.

Although we are all trained to look at the world through the hits, new diversity and new environments thoroughly change our view on the world. More than we get away from mainstream, more we realize that our taste does not fall so much in the mainstream, as advertisers, culture, or simply a lack of choice were able to convince us. The diverse interests of consumers are working their way into the spotlight. Although niches always have been here, their economy is changing because of digitization and networked consumer. Market that was invisible until now rises to the surface. Price of saving bits is negligible, so everybody can find their audience.

Anderson noticed that the fastest growing part of the online business of content providers such as Netflix, Amazon and Rhapsody is coming from the sale of products, which are in traditional physical stores not even available. This was made possible because of trends of democratization of production tools, which enabled volunteering and amateur work (Wikipedia, blogs), declining prices due to the democratization of distribution and the increasing integration of supply with demand. Integration is crucial, because consumers would be otherwise difficult to tackle with the expansion of the diversity of choice. With filters we can discover items that are more attractive than items with the lowest common denominator, occupying the narrow channels of traditional mass-market distribution. Without filters, there is a risk, that in the long tail there would not be anything else than noise, because it has a dynamic and wide range of quality. If you want something that is appealing to all, you have to make some compromises, that is why niche products are attractive only to a narrow range of tastes. Without search engines, recommendations, blogs and user ratings, users can lost themselves in a multitude of products.

Anderson also talks about fundamental changes that transform relations in advertising industry. The fact is, that advertising is loosing power, and there is increasing trust in individuals. Communication is now controlled by a society, as a top-down communication is becoming less popular, while bottom-up rumors are increasingly influential.

This new economic policy is not only subject in the media and entertainment industry. Anderson also shows principle of a long tail in others industries, e.g. in the sale of used items (eBay), kitchen mixers (KitchenAid) and many others. All industries slowly recognize that hits were wonderful, but next big market will be composed of niches. Of course, the hits will not go away, and the same applies to the stores with a limited space. They will retain on the surface, because of the convenience of instant gratification and other tangible benefits that are important when we are buying something in a traditional stores.

The long tail book is an interesting reading for anyone interested in future business and society in general. Understanding of upcoming consumer behavior on the markets with an unrestricted choice is crucial, and sales challenges are growing because of era where buyers have more and more power. Excellent added value of this book are picturesque interpretations of the cases from the real business world and this book is an excellent opportunity for both merchants and consumers to learn how to exploit numerous advantages of the digital age.

torek, 30. marec 2010

Document Freedom Day, March 31st 2010

Document Freedom Day (DFD official site) is a global day for document liberation. Its main purpose is to raise awareness about document freedom and spreading the word about the importance of open documents and the workable open standards that ensure access to your documents now and in the future.

The digital environment is increasingly showing the need to develop and apply technologies and standards that enable smooth exchange and use of content, as well as the freedom of information and expression. When we save a document we need to be sure that the information in it will be accessible in the future. How and where we choose to access our documents shouldn’t make a difference. The only guarantee of long-term access to data is independence of formats and application which are used.

Open Standards are essential for interoperability and freedom of choice based on the merits of different software application. They enable choice of any operating system or application and still be able to read and edit all your old document and collaboration with others regardless of which software they are using. They also lead to more competition in software, resulting in better pricing and service, increased competition in hardware and this means more flexible, innovative and cost-effective solution. Moreover free software can be developed without thinking about commercial pressure that often degrades the quality of the software.

Open Source is also important for education. Software produced and marketed with restrictions on its use, is never really owned by the organizations that use it. For example, schools cannot give their students software they use at school, and students cannot copy proprietary software to share with friends. Why should be use of proprietary software taught in schools when students have to purchase for home use? Free software has become the foundation for society where we want to share our knowledge.

Document liberation is really an important issue for our future and we can join efforts of many teams around the world with support, spreading the word about it and also with participation. In Slovenia there will be numerous events occurred on this topic. Here is list of some events.

petek, 19. marec 2010

Why I like Prezi …


Prezi is zooming presentation tool and it is much more interesting and funny then all other presentation tools I know. I got tired of creating boring slideshows and Prezi helps me to express my ideas in a different way; that is why it has convinced me to use it. Prezi is beyond slides; it helps audience to understand and remember much better. Prezi is just one big canvas where you place your text in allowing clear presentations where you can provide great overview of ideas and you can focus on details and particular topics or show the relations between objects.

Prezi is easy to use; on their official web site there are many short tutorials. I learned its basics and most important functions in only ten minutes.

Prezi is not open access tool but you can get a free public license, which has 100MB storage space or free student/teacher license but these licenses does not include options for making content private and does not include use of Prezi Desktop, which enables offline work with Prezi. Great option is Portable Prezi, which is exported version of Prezi presentation and works without internet access. So it is easy to download presentation on your computer or share it online.

Here is my short Prezi presentation about Prezi.

Prezi is really worth to check it out!(:

nedelja, 14. marec 2010

Is the Age of Privacy really over?

These days there are many debates about social networks and their effects on our lives, friendships and also business issues. Many students enrolled in New Media & Society seminar already wrote about this theme on their blogs, so I decided to focus on dilemma about privacy policy of social networks. 350 million people signed up for Facebook under the belief their information could be shared just between friends they confirmed. But is this true?

The rise of social networking online means that people no longer have an expectation of privacy according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people”, he said. “It is important for companies to reflect the changing social norms in order to remain relevant and competitive.” "This statement may not be a surprise because it helps to justify the company’s recent and highly controversial decision to change the privacy settings of its 350 million users and it also represents a remarkable shift from where Facebook originally started out, as an exclusive network that allowed people to communicate privately within small groups of friends."

Many people disagree with Zuckerberg justification and one of them is also Marshall Kirkpatric. He says that Zuckerberg’s statements are “not a believable explanation”. Kirkpatrick points that Facebook is making a big mistake by moving away from its origins based on privacy because society is not in fact changing the way that Zuckerberg claims it is. Kirkpatrick presents three main arguments. “Evolving preferences do not justify elimination of choices”, although people are becoming more comfortable sharing private information that doesn’t mean that it is ok to take away peoples choices and force them to make public some of their information all the time. "It is hard to believe that the hundreds of millions of Facebok users want to throw their privacy out the window." Secondly, “privacy doesn’t just mean secrecy”, accurate and contemporary understanding of privacy is based more on the integrity of context. When personal information and conversation become public, Facebook is eliminating any integrity of context that these conversations would naturally have. Third argument, “many people need control over personal information”, point out that people need to keep access to some of their personal information online limited just to trusted friends. Removing user control over what's public removes the ability for millions of people to safely participate on Facebook.

“While we are sharing more, we are gaining more too” said Zoe Margoils in her article “Is loss of privacy a price worth paying". Her idea is that just because one medium attract more headlines about its supposed effect on privacy, it does not mean that other areas in life are less responsible for any loss of privacy we might experience today. She stress that while there are serious moral and ethical issues concerning the loss of online privacy, maybe this is a fair price to be paid by the dramatic improvements in communication, connectivity and socializing.

I agree with Margoils statement that we have gained much from advances in technology, both, personally and society as a whole. But although I am a user of social networks, there are definitely things that I still want private. There are some options to select levels of privacy on Facebook, but they are buried under public default options and also much of a user’s activity is not subject of that kind of options. In my opinion best solution is that what we want to stay private we do not share over social networks. I disagree with Zuckerbergs argument that Facebook is only reflecting the changes that society is undergoing, Facebook itself is a major agent of social changes. I think it is all about having a choice and education about privacy is definitely the key. Unlike the current, we need understandable options that are transparent and still we must be careful what personal information we post in public places online and take in consideration that they are there forever.

ponedeljek, 8. marec 2010

Howard Rheingold on collaboration

While surfing on Web I encountered interesting video (you can find it here), where Rheingold talks about new technologies and collaboration that they enable. He is presenting some interesting ideas and it is really worth to see it.

Rheingold starts his talk with announcement that we can already see the beginnings of new story, story where cooperation and collective action will play a more important role in society. Through examples he is presenting his ideas about evolution of new media that create new forms of collective action and new forms of wealth.

Today, of course, the enabling technologies are based on the Internet and in the many-to-many era, every desktop is now a printing press, a broadcasting station, a community or a marketplace. He stresses that new forms of communication and new media in the past have helped to create new economic forms and with examples of open source business he is pointing to a new form of production: peer-to-peer production. He suspects that if new forms of cooperation enabled by new technologies create new forms of wealth, we may be moving into yet another economy form that is significantly different from previous ones; it is based on collaboration. Businesses that are open-sourcing their software and services are not doing this out of altruism, but because they are learning that a certain kind of sharing is in their self-interest (Amazon, EBay, Wikipedia). Instead of “neither of us can trust each other so we have to make suboptimal moves”, it is, “you prove to me that you are trustworthy, and I will cooperate”. For example, BitTorrent turns every downloader into an uploader, making the system more efficient the more it is used. Rheingold says that we don’t know enough, not even about basic principles and he makes an appeal to start to think about them.

Rheingold made an interesting speech, but because of its complexity, I only summarized his main ideas about communication technologies. Although he present new way to think about new technologies, in my opinion his expectations are not completely realistic. I think that cooperation-based economy, although has its own advantages, is not going to be realized so soon. There are many power relations and structures that wouldn’t agree.

torek, 2. marec 2010

About my blog ...
New Media & Society seminar represented many new possibilities for academic work that includes online environments. One of them is also to write a blog. Although I never thought to have one, it is good opportunity to explore new venues of using new technologies in academic environment. This blog is one of assignments for New Media & Society seminar and is intended for presenting and exchanging ideas and reflections regarding this seminar.

... and something about me.
I am postgraduate student in Media and communication studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences in Ljubljana. My diploma thesis was about new media hypertextual potentials and I found that these potentials are poorly used; only few web sites provided open links to other online sources that are important for users. I am very interested in new media and I also planned to write my master thesis about homogeneity and commercial exploitation of media web sites. During this seminar I want to upgrade my knowledge, theoretical background and get better insight into the field of online communication, its opportunities and constraints, better understanding of this would help me more precisely define my master thesis.

Let it be enough for the first time ... Thanks for attention :)