Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong

Intro:

Web 2.0 is a term used to describe a new way Web pages are being made and used. The term was coined in 1999 when they knew the Internet could be used for so much more than previously thought. This chapter will discuss the faults of Web 2.0; how value and worth affect the relationships between gift commodities and commodities,  the constant struggle between producers and users, and ultimately how this all creates a moral economy. 

Sections Guide:

What is the Web 2.0?

In this first section the authors define Web 2.0 as the standard “logic” behind the modern “e-business” that benefits from the exploitation of “participatory culture” in which consumers become “co-creators” or “collaborators” of their commercial experience. However, while Web 2.0 provides the opportunity for media become spreadable, there are conflicting expectations of what counts as “fair participation.”

Taking the "you" out of YouTube

 This section focuses on YouTube’s struggle to represent their users fairly and keep good relations with large media companies who hold rights to material that is being infringed upon. Automatic “takedown” notices, which use digital fingerprinting technologies to detect if copyrighted text has been used in videos, remove the audio and avoid legal action. However, takedown notices do not show the same attitude towards the “ordinary” user; if they feel as though their intellectual property has been stolen they must formally apply for a notice. The struggle to balance these two economies is also influenced by the platform’s scale and distinct range of users.

Toward a New Moral Economy

A “moral economy” is a term used to describe the theoretical idea of putting in place social norms and mutual understandings so that two parties can conduct business where both parties’ interests are being addressed. Moral economy focuses on long-term social relations making sure no short-term self-interests gain popularity. A shift in policies or the site’s practice are seen as breaking the social contract between YouTube and its users; damaging the moral economy and diminishing trust. 

Stolen Content or Exploited Labor?

 This is a debate between the fans who believe Web 2.0 has created a crisis in fair use and the corporations who believed it caused a crisis in copyright. Fans believe that collaboration produces better ideas whereas the corporations seeks to limit the potential economic gains from online collaboration.

Engaged, Not Exploited?

"Free labor" is not an accurate representation of the relationship between companies and audiences, one that fails to take into account the reality that the "exploited" are making numerous, consequential gains outside of mere financial compensation such as "prestige" within social media and a community of like minded individuals with common interests.  Despite an historical precedent of laborers who prioritized non-tangible notions over tangible benefits, audiences of today have lost sight on three fronts: what they are in fact gaining, why they are doing what they are doing, and their own "complicit role in the exploitation" formed from the realization that they are gaining just as much as they are being exploited.

Giving Gifts, Creating Obligations

The relationship between a “commodity culture” and a “gift economy” as they clash and permeate each other within the “Web 2.0” that seeks to integrate them. In reality they are simply theories that can be applied and consequentially what is described as a “third economy” or hybrid of the two, comes into the discussion.

Value, Worth, and Meaning

Gifts circulate through acts of generosity and are exchanged through priceless social agreements, ultimately having worth. Commodities circulate through economic incentives that are exchanged by agreements of measures of value or money.

Nothing is Ever Free

Free is a term thought by some to be devoid of monetary consequences, but defined in others' eyes by "reciprocal" implications; some perceive it to signal that the receiving party does not have to spend money whereas others view it as that which comes with the "expectation" that the receiving party provide an object or service of "social value" in return.  Due to this merging of conflicting meanings though,two parties are capable of interpreting differently what is meant by "free", a possibility that results in a miscommunication where the expectation is not respected and thus the relationship is fractured. 

Toward Transparent Marketing

Word of mouth has become the greatest opportunity to influence others by trusting one another’s credibility of endorsing a brand or corporation. In marketing, it comes down to the role of the relationships between audience members and brands to determine how transparent and authentic their word of mouth truly is.

We Don't Need Influencers 

  In order for content and creative ideas to become widespread and embraced we need to have greater connections then just influencers. In marketing we see the need to expand our audiences outside of our social norms and not target at hubs but rather seek to broaden the market ability of ideas through collaboration.

Moving Beyond Web 2.0 (But not just to 'Web 3.0')

Web 2.0, just like the term “viral,” oversimplifies what the authors describe as a “moral economy,” thus overlooking what “users” and “producers” separately get out of online interactions: in theory it redefines social products as commodified “user-generated content.” However, users actually use commercially generated content as “raw material” for socializing, and it is this disconnect that leads to companies ultimately blocking media from becoming spreadable.

5 Important Quotes:

1. “On the one hand, the mechanisms of Web 2.0 provide the preconditions for spreadable media; many of the key tools and platforms through which material is spread operate according to Web 2.0 principles. On the other hand, conflicting expectations of what constitutes fair participation means that the actual spreading of media content remains a contested practice” (49).

2. “As Ian Condry explains, ‘Unlike underwear or swim suits, music falls into the category of things you are normally obligated to share with your dorm mates, family, and friends. Yet to date, people who share music files are primarily represented in media and business settings as selfish, improperly socialized people who simply want to get something - the fruits of other people’s labor - for free’...Enthusiasts...feel an obligation to ‘give back’ to their ‘community’ and/or in the hope that their actions will direct greater attention and interest to the media they love” (62).

3. "The motives shaping cultural production within a commercial economy are multiple and varied; they cannot be reduced to purely economic rewards, as Richard Sennett shows us.  In addition to renumeration, artists seek to gain recognition, to influence culture, and to express personal meanings.  The social motives for sharing media are also varied and cannot be reduced to the idea of "stealing content," a phrase which still values the transaction almost entirely in economic terms" (61).  

4. “New technologies enable audiences to exert much greater impact on circulation than ever before but they also enable companies to police once private behavior that is taking on greater public dimensions” (54)

5. "To maintain a balanced perspective, it is vital to be able to imagine alternative forms of value and meaning" (71).

Conclusion/Three Main Points:

Firstly, in the debate on Web 2.0 between media companies and their audiences, there is no moral high ground or “winner.” Although both sides end up blaming each other for their grievances, there is actually no right or innocent side. Second, “moral economy” is not just about copyright, but also the respect exchanged between corporate platforms and invested users. It assumes that there is a shared belief in how multiple components should engage in different transactions with each other. In reality there is a disconnect that results from a realm in which the goals of  “commodity culture” clashes with those of “gift economy.” Therefore, how producers and users actually interact online is based on each group’s contradicting ideas of what is acceptable conduct.

Online Example:

http://thepiratebay.se/

PirateBay is a perfect example online that shows the clash of opinion between producers and users. On one hand, this site is seen as a form of piracy, while the audience uses it as a "file-sharing" website.