Internet killed the cat.

Virtual Communities January 15, 2007

The lecture talked about the various roles that people assume in the virtual communities. I think for me the reading was very useful I’m not the biggest internet user so a lot of the terminology was new. But it makes sense now.

I did a bit of research and went to a few various web forums to see the theories in practice. And it is clear that there are set structures in place. Each forum is bound by their own rules, and breaking these rules can lead to suspension from the forums. On a NZ television forum I went to the rules included not talking about shows that had not screened in New Zealand for fear of posting “Spoilers” and then the whole sub issue of legalities about talking about material copyright protected – material that is now available thanks to the internet.

What I was most interested and is more relevant is the structure – there seemed to be a hierarchy which certain members were more respected than others – usually those with more posts to the newbies who were often ridiculed and their opinion was held in less regard to the higher posters.

Then we have lurkers – of which I was, those who don’t contribute to discussion but look. Maybe it is fear for rocking the boat, but some people don’t have the desire to post.

Then the actual discussions were what Mary talked about – where they can change from one person’s opinion to create off shoot discussions – so not all of the discussions were linear in that regard. And in some regard the discourse was based around the status of the people posting. I guess those who were familiar with other posters could have a more informal relationship and could create their own discourse.

Its all about power and the various relationships that these people hold in these virtual communities, and their interactions within these new social structures.

The Internet as social Entity January 11, 2007

I guess the first lesson in the course it was important to track the history of the Internet and gaze possibly where it is going to go in the future. Then using this knowledge we can look from a sociology perspective where it falls into possible theories.

The Internet started as a closed network, designed in the backdrop of the cold war – where America and Russia were constantly playing a game of one-upmanship. Its purpose was geared toward military use. Then it changed and was developed for universities and governments to spread information.

At this point it was hardly “mainstream” and was only being used for limited purposes by the elite.

But in the early 90′s the Internet exploded and suddenly the door was opened to the public. This was the start of Web 1.0. It appears fairly regimented, similar to its origins – people would access the information provided by a select few and we (the mass public) were more spectators, rather than participators.

The question was raised in class, has technology influenced the people or has the people influenced technology. For my mind the two questions answer each other.

For example technology has changed so we can now easily upload videos or create blogs online. This is technology influencing the ability of the people. But people are using this technology and as the form becomes more popular people are influencing the manner in which it is used.

For example – Youtube – Through technology we have the ability to upload videos online. But through YT people are able to share it with users all over the world. It can be argued that YT is the result of creating a one stop solution to how we are using the video technology – and at the same time creating new technology and discourse related to it.

And this is where we are heading with the Web 2.0. It is created in response to the ways people are using the Internet, yet at the same time will offer users new technologies which will eventually give rise to new technology which will lead to new ways the internet will be used by the people.