web2

Return to ENGL303

Respond to the Web 2.0 video. What do you think of it? What is the main argument?

For instance, what do you think of the title ("The Web is us/ing us")? What does the title mean?

Also, what do you think of his final assertions that we need to re-think ethics, identity, love, governance, etc. Is he right?

comments:

Erica Reib --ereib, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:03:54 -0500 reply
I thought it was an interesting clip. It showed the progression of writing from a pencil and paper, erasable, one person thing to a point and click, editable interactive webpage. I think the main argument is that with this evolution of information and technology, a single person can more easily get their thoughts and opinions out to the world. I think the title means that we are who is creating/shaping/changing the web. And because of that, the web controls how we get our information. I think as the web becomes more flexible in who can post information and what they can post, people may have to be careful about what they believe. This could effect how we think about thinks like ethics and identity because if there's no personal responsibility for posting correct information, what ethical standards are there? And if a person can post under any name, how can we verify that they are who they say they are? So, yes I think he has a point.

Erica O'Briant --eobriant, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:04:21 -0500 reply
I think the title is appropriate for what the professor was trying to convey. So much of what we are today is influenced by the web. It is where we pay our bills, communicate with long-distance relatives, take classes, watch news/movies/television shows, and even write journals. A large part of our lives revolve around the web, at least a large part of mine does. I think with all of the freedom that the web is allowing us to express ourselves, we do need to rethink some issues--particularly privacy. How much information should we be allowed/forced to give people to register or purchase things online, and if we give personal information, is it safe to do so? How much of the web should be accessible to children? I think these are important thoughts to consider when discussing the web, and they are thoughts to which I do not have the appropriate answer.

Jennifer Habina --jhabina, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:04:38 -0500 reply
I liked the video "Web 2.0". I think in the beginning it flat out said that the world wide web, a computer, and all of its components work better in communicating, writing, analyzing..etc.. then a pencil and paper do. I liked the way that the video flashed through different websites. I think the title means that the web is us. We are the web because we make up the web. We can change it, add to it, modify it, and create new aspects to the web. The video did a good job of showing it. For example, the way that it used the "erase" method where it would highlight text over and over again and change the wording to different phrases. I liked his final assertions on how we need to re-think ethics, identify, love, governance, etc. I think he is right because with all that is going on in everyones life's, people tend to forget what is really inportant and what really matters.

Kim Miller --kmiller, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:05:10 -0500 reply
I enjoyed the Web 2.0 video. It did a good job illustrating how the Web is continually changing, and changes us in the process. The main argument is that the Web is no longer just text, its people connecting with each other through videos, blogs, etc. When I think about the sites I use most often, almost all of them are connecting people in one way or another. When I think back to just two years ago, the Web was so different than it is now. I had never heard of YouTube?, and now practically everyone knows and uses it. The Web is doing more than just providing people with information. I agree with some of his final assertions, that we may need to rethink ethics and governance. With how rapidly the Web is changing, it is true that we will need to rethink our feelings on it.

Alison Daly --adaly, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:05:33 -0500 reply
I thought the video was put together really well. It's basically saying that the Web, now with millions of people-sharing programs like YouTube? and Flickr, is over encompassing the way things used to be and that digital text is no longer simple. There's thousands of ways to read/do/see things on the Web. The title Web 2.0 means that it is the next generation of the Web and Web users. Everything is growing faster and faster these days. I think that he is right when he says at the end about re-thinking love, privacy, commerce, ethics, etc. In a world where the Web is taking over and nearly everyone is sharing or meeting or trading things over the Web, it's definitely a smart idea to be careful what you post or what you say. Privacy especially. Is there any privacy on the Net? There are so many ways to be pushed out into the public eye, even if you hadn't intended on that. With love, how many online dating things are there now? How do you really know who you are talking to? Web 2.0 is extraordinary these days, but it's still a little humbling in my mind. Before we know it, the machine really is going to be run by us ... or maybe we'll be run by it...

Michael L. Withrow --mwithrow, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:05:58 -0500 reply
The main argument, essentially, is that the web is becoming more and more about interconnecting people instead of just being the "information highway" we all heard about as grade schoolers. Rather than existing as basically a giant encyclopedia, the web is now a network, a global community of people exchanging unlimited varations of media. In that way, the video's assertion that the web is "us" is really very true. The extreme popularity of blogs and personal websites like facebook and myspace accompanied with the overwhelming rise of YouTube? is strong evidence that the web has evolved into something bigger than one giant academic book. With this in mind, it is important for us to take a step back and rethink how we are going to define intellectual property, particularly in terms of copyright. For instance, the illegal downloading of music is a hot topic issue because of what it could mean for artists, record labels, distributors, etc. Whether or not such technology will weaken the existence of inter-personal relationships is yet to be seen, although I feel that the assertion that we need to rethink "love" is a bit over the top.

Meghann Wilson --mwilson, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:06:06 -0500 reply
The main argument of Web 2.0 is that it is forever changing. The web never stays the same. There are millions of hits on websites each day. I think the overall view of the video was well developed and interesting to follow. The internet and web are always changing and whatever we tell the computer/"machine" to do, we are doing it. The title, "The Web is using us" indicates that instead of we, the people, using the web for our own purpose, the web is using us for its purpose. I think the title is fitting to the argument of the video. The web is constantly sucking us into its trap. The final assertion concerning ethics, identify, love, govermance, etc. is correct. I think that people are constantly putting items on the internet that should not be viewed by the public and if Web 2.0 allows for change, why not allow change for everything else? What does one thing need to stay the same?

Kristen Crestfield --kcrestfield, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:06:09 -0500 reply
The video goes well with what the program 2.0 actually is. He did a good thing trying to convey it's points without a voice explaining it. Since much of it is something that most people wouldnt understand, its more of a visual thing, meaning it has to be seen. He does a good job to convey his point, so much of our life revolves aroun the web. Since the web seems to be a projection of us, but it still containes, emotions, love, and governence. Just not in that same context as we actually see it, the web alters things to make them associtate to topics like news, sports, and blogs. Yet we still have to think about the ethical issues of the web. A lot of the web is not sensored, and people have freen reign to do what they want to do, and post what they want to do. Sp even with the web we have to take in mind what is apporipriate for certain people, and how can we improve the web to protect those such people from accessing that information.

Alison Sanfacon --asanfacon, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:06:17 -0500 reply
The argument the professor is making in his video is that while we are controlling what goes into the web--its form and content--the web is at the same time changing us. This is what I think he means by the title "The Web is us/using us." We are the web because we create the content. It is our content, therefore it is us. The web is using us because it needs us in order to exist. Sites like Flickr use people and their contributions in order to grow in size and popularity. I agree with the final things he says about how we will need to rethink about copyright, authorship, love, etc. Sites like wikipedia blur the line between authors since anyone can contribute a page or rewrite someone else's information. In the case of love, I guess he means online dating. With more and more people meeting online and finding love, the ideas we have about the entire courting process with change. Everything that ordinarily happens in person will change into some electronic form.

Brittany Swisher --bswisher, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:06:32 -0500 reply
The author of the video highlights that every time we use the web, specifically web 2.0, it learns from us what is important. The web 2.0 itself is just a machine and has no idea what we like until we tell it. Therefore, it is using us to learn and to function. As the user is given more control over the content of pages and the ability to change a page that they did not create (ie: wikipedia), limits are pushed and you may even say that it becomes limitless. In this sense, we are all exposed to what other people feel or think or say, and these other people probabally do not hold the same standards of ethics, love, etc, as we do. We are being exposed to worlds we could never imagine, the someone else's world... and we are given a chance to change the way people view issues and the world around them. In web 2.0, every user is a source of information and every user has access to that information. We do need to rethink copyright and governance because it is nearly impossible to govern something so large and that is controlled by so many people. It is also nearly impossible to determine who said what first, making it difficult to obtain a copyright on any web 2.0 material.

Angela Moscaritolo --amoscaritolo, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:06:52 -0500 reply
The main argument associated with the Web 2.0 idea is that media and the internet have become more accessable to the average consumer. The internet has become interactive, allowing users to add to the content of webpages. Consumer review websites are the perfect example of this. Users can post their thoughts on a certian product and there is virtually no filer on the content that consumers post. The creator of the video "The Web i us/ing us" presents a problem that this causes. While it is exciting that anyone can post anything, there isn't really a way to prevent someone else from stealing your words, video, whatever and passing it off as their own if they wanted to. In print media there are guidelines and laws that prevent someone from doing this. The web is so vast that it would be very diffucult to regulate.

Patrick Brooks --pbrooks, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:08:42 -0500 reply
This is by no means my first time seeing this video but every time I see it, I begin to think about the changes that it discusses. The web is changing on a daily basis. Just a short while ago the web was reserved for people who knew a great deal about programming and HTML. Now, people everywhere have their own websites and are learning how to manipulate things on the web.

However, this is not really the topic of this video. The video is talking about a new anomaly on the web where people can add pictures, videos, and even their own thoughts to the internet. Sites such as youtube.com, webshots.com, and even Facebook.com allow people to share some of themselves on the web.

Finally, the title is a great play on words because “The Web is Us” and “The Web is Using Us”. We are the web because we are the people contributing and expanding the internet. However, the web is also using us to organize its content into some semblance of order.

response to Alison Daly --mwilson, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:09:13 -0500 reply
I agree with your statements regarding privacy. The example refering to love as far as dating services and such on the internet is a good example of how the internet/machine is running us. Now, we can go online and meet our potential mate... how much easier can things really get?!

Erica O'Briant --ereib, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:09:18 -0500 reply
I agree with the fact that the web is starting to consume so many aspects of our lives. At the same time, I think that we will struggle to make everything web based because so many people are skeptical about things like privacy. I personally have no problem putting my credit card number into an online shopping website, but I may be blindly optimistic about things like that. Generally older people, who don't know as much about the web and how it works, are less likely to be willing to post personal information for fear of getting it stolen. I think this is a legitimate fear that needs to be addressed.

Alison Sanfacon --bswisher, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:09:20 -0500 reply
Yeah, I hadn't even considered online dating as a factor... good thinking! I just assumed that maybe he meant that we would be exposed to what other people perceived as love, and forced to recognize that our definition of the word isnt the only one (same-sex couples, people who have several wives or husbands, people who use their bodies and sex to find "love").

Erica O'Briant --jhabina, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:09:22 -0500 reply
I agree with your opinions. We use the web daily for different needs. It is hard to tell if people are really who they are and it is even harder to verify it. Your view on privicy and ethics also prove a good point. The web is so big and we give so much of our information to the web so it is hard to know who you can trust.

Erica Reib --mwithrow, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:09:24 -0500 reply
You make an excellent point in your reference to the possibility of identity theft and even more so the nature of credibility. If anyone can post anything at anytime for all the world to see, how do we being to define what has legitimate academic or artistic merit? I think that will be a very difficult obstacle in this new age of web 2.0. And, if those things have to be rethought and defined, from what ethics or morals do we derive our conclusions?

Kim Miller --eobriant, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:09:56 -0500 reply
I agree with you that the video did a good job illustrating how the web continues to change, and how almost every site that I visit on a daily basis-and usually more than once a day, is in some way connecting me to other people. It seems that we are able to do something different than the day before with the web because it is always changing and updating.

Jeff Bowers --jbowers, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:10:31 -0500 reply
The title, "The Machine is us/ing us", to me evokes a sense of fright. However, I think the idea of the web as a place that promotes user-based content and interaction is not a "machine" at all. Using a term like that brings a certain negative connontation that implies that this enhanced ability to share and link information is something bad. The idea of web 2.0 is instead something that should be embraced. The internet is now not only a place that a person goes to look for information, but also a place to share information.

James McCeney? --jmcceney, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:10:39 -0500 reply
I think the idea of web 2.0 as a means of connecting people is great...in theory. Unfortunately, the reality is that no matter how small a good grassroots idea may be, it will eventually be corrupted by the almighty dollar. Corporations have already bought out myspace and youtube, and facebook is shopping their product around too. Hopefully the corporations that bought the aforementioned sites will have the good sense not to fix something that isn't broken (either by user fees or new advertising, etc).

While the guy that made the video is definitely idealistic, I don't think that he's all that realistic. It's true that there will always be small Web2.0-type sites out there that will remain untouched by companies with alterior interests, but the really good ones will always become too popular for their own good. I think the best we can hope for is that the sheer plurality of really good sites will become so great that it will be impossible to corrupt all but a small percentage. That way, people will always have an alternative...and that's really what Web2.0 is all about: alternatives and individuality.

Michael L. Withrow --asanfacon, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:11:41 -0500 reply
I thought the same thing when I first saw the "love" comment. I think what he meant by it was just that people will be finding it in different ways. The whole online dating thing is becoming less taboo. As far as weakening interpersonal relationships, I think there is definitely that risk. People are becoming hermits, staying indoors to watch/make youtube videos all day and contacting other people only electronically.

Kim Miller --kcrestfield, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:11:55 -0500 reply
I agree with Kim, I often use websites that connect many people in many ways such as; Myspace, and Facebook. Both of them seem to connect to everyone, with Myspace you can get much of your information. It give you the albility to stay in contact with your friends, and also find new artists, and other information before other people. Aagin with Facebook, it's widely used by poeple who stay connected through school. Websites have much influence on the way we view life, and many of them are becoming widely watched and used like Youtube.

Brittany Swisher --mwithrow, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:12:35 -0500 reply
You are right in saying that web 2.0 does make it virtually impossible to figure out who said what first. This is potentially very dangerous to the expressionsit nature of our popular culture, because if we begin to credit the wrong individuals for creating certain things, we being to create an atmosphere wherein some degree of incentive to create anything slowly becomes nonexistent. Does this then result in the stagnation of our art?

Alison Sanfacon --adaly, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:12:37 -0500 reply
I agree with what you are saying about how the Web is us and we are the Web. The Web would not exist without us since we are the ones who make all the changes, additions, etc to it, but I wonder if we would exist in a better light without the web? Would it be a better life? A simpler life? Or would things be so overly boring that we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves? I guess we'll never know.

Angela Moscaritolo --pbrooks, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:12:45 -0500 reply
I very much agree with your statements about copyrights. When you post something on the internet you pose a serious risk of having your words stolen from you (unless you are a large company). Though, I think that most people realize this when they post on the web. There are ways to prevent theft of materials, but for most people it is to complicated to bother with.

Erica O'Briant --kmiller, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:12:53 -0500 reply
I agree with your statement that a large part of our lives revolves around the web. I do everything from banking to shopping online, and this is something I didn't do just a few years ago. You mentioned the issue of privacy, and this is definitely something we need to be concerned about. I often put personal information online, such as my credit card number when I'm ordering something, and don't even think twice about it. I've noticed this strongly contrasts older generations who may not be as familiar or comforatble with the web. My parents wouldn't consider buying anything online because of issues with privacy. This shows how differently our generation feels about web usage and security.

Kim Miller --bswisher, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:13:00 -0500 reply
I think we can all remember a time when it was unheard of to post pictures of yourself on a page or video, or even a personal diary of your activities or feelings. Now nearly everyone connects through facebook or myspace. I mean, when I make a new friend I know that the next step is adding them as my "friend" on facebook. Then you learn their screenname, interests, things you have in common, etc.

Michael L. Withrow --amoscaritolo, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:15:09 -0500 reply
I think that Michael's example of the illegal downloading of music is a good example of how the internet is being used. This has been a big topic since the onset of Napster. The music industry has lost money due to the fact that users are sharing music with each other. This is one of the perils of the internet. That it allows for users to interact in a way that may harm others. If you think about it though, many people download music illegally or at least know a few other who do, and it would be diffucult to name anyone who has actually been punished for it. This is due to the fact that the web is very diffucult to regulate, like Michael has said.

Kim Miller --jbowers, Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:16:13 -0500 reply
I totally agree. Its hard to imagine a time where friendship didn't come with a "friend request". The Evolution of the web goes a long way to illustrate how people have changed with it. Things that once only existed on a very personal level have now morhped into an internet form like everything else.