Is web 2.0 different from the original idea of the web?

"Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is, of course, a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along." -Tim Berners Lee

Web 2.0 has allowed the internet to become more of an environment where user content can be created. Sites like myspace, facebook and even this blogging site have emerged from the evolution of the internet. Users can now create things in simple steps without having to have any knowledge about codes that are needed to create websites because it already done for them. Therefore, web 2.0 allows people to connect with others around the world without having to go through the long-winded process of creating a website from scratch.


With web 1.0 people were just consumers, but now with 2.0 they have become prosumers. People can now get more involved with the process in which things are made. For example, ordinary people can create apps for an android phone or an iPhone. 


Web 2.0 is not completely different from the original idea of the web because the whole idea of the internet is to connect people. However, it differs in the way that is allows people to be connected. Ideas can be shared more freely and in different formats. Youtube and social networking sites have become a big internet communites with people sharing and interacting all over the world. With a few clicks of your mouse you can become part of a social networking site and start meeting new people who share similar interests. All the hard work is done for you, for example if you join facebook, Mark Zuckerberg has already done everything so that you can create an account in seconds!

Do we become a different person when we're in cyberspace?

“On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog” –Peter Steiner, The New Yorker.

When we create a facebook profile or set up a twitter account are we becoming someone else or being the person that we are? “Should we post our age and marital status? Should we make our profile private or public? Should we reveal that we're gay? (Data-crawling programs can make a pretty good guess about it even if we don't.) Should we boast on Twitter that we applied for a grant? Should we talk about the ravages of chronic Crohn's disease?” (Andy Oram, 2009)

Nobody really knows who they're talking to on the internet or who's profile they'e viewing. You can be anyone you want to be because of the freedom that the internet offers. Unfortunately this can sometimes be bad because it can be a great place for people to commit crimes such as identity theft and online grooming, which is more common amongst the teenagers and younger people that use the internet. 

However, because of the freedom that the internet offers I think that we can be ourselves a lot more or become someone that we'd want to be. When someone posts a status on facebook or twitter they can write it in any style that they wish, be it formal or informal. You can chose how people see you and therefore you can create an image for yourself. 

So, we do become different people online. We either have the confidence to be ourselves because we have a screen to protect us or we can become a person that we'd like to be. 

Newsgames: Do they take the seriousness out of the news?

 Image courtesy of newsgames.gatech.edu

Newsgames "can persuade, inform, and titillate; make information interactive; recreate a historical event; put news content into a puzzle; teach journalism; and build a community." (Bogost, Ferrari, Schweizer, 2010)

The progression of advancements in technology has allowed an audience to consume media in many different ways. For example, the gaming community online has grown considerably in the last few years with the introduction of games such as World of Warcraft (WoW). This has inspired games to be created with news stories as their theme.

By playing a game based on a news event, the user interacts with the issue. It could provoke them to find out more about the issue or it could do the opposite and take all seriousness out of the real situation. For someone who's just stumbled across the game it can be a good starting point for them to access a news story. After all, curiosity is something that strikes us all and we always want to know more. However, if you already understand the concept of the story then the game can become simply just a game as you interact and get involved in the game without thinking.

Many of the games that I have found have been biased. For example, there are many games circulating the internet opposing George Bush. These games allow people to express their views via the creator. This is somewhat safer than actually hitting George Bush with a shoe yourself (as one of the games allows you to do!)

So, are these games a good way of getting news across to various audiences? Yes and no.

Much of the gaming community is comprised of young people- often teenagers. Therefore, they'll be the ones much more likely to stumble upon these games. These games can then become viral as they're shared via social networking sites such as facebook. Furthermore, these games can then go on to reach an older audience if, for example, the gamer's parents are aware of the games that they're playing. So, these games can then reach a variety of people.

Are the advancements in technology pulling us into a "Big Brother" society?

According to the BBC “There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people.”  Is this a necessary amount to have or are we heading for a world that George Orwell portrays in his book '1984'? 

The progression of technology over the 20^th and 21^st century has allowed people to be observant of other people’s actions in an increasingly detailed way. We can now find out what people are doing every minute of the day through the likes of twitter and facebook.

 

The main force behind these advancements has been the military. Wars have prompted them to make new technology to try and find out where the other side is. For example they’ve created many different ways to survey people. The introduction of radar in 1940 and satellites in 1957 has today become detailed ways to identify where people are. A ship can tell if there’s a submarine near and an air base can tell if enemy planes are approaching. However, is the military using these advancements for a country's defence or do they have other agendas? With technology that is so accurate at pinpointing where someone is, is it really just used for spotting the enemy?

But, it’s not just the military and hierarchy who can watch people. The introduction of social networking sites has allowed normal people to track each other. Facebook is an example that can be used because it has the options to include details about your address and phone numbers along with various other things. Furthermore, the recent launch of facebook places has meant that users can pinpoint their own location.

By being a part of a social networking site we are becoming a part of the ‘Public Sphere,' a term coined by Habermas.  This means that we're all interacting with each other and become a part of a place where anyone can talk to anyone. This is more commonly known as hyperspace. 

Facebook, myspace and other sites are a great way of keeping in touch with our friends and family but are we really sure that we’re safe on these sites? When we put up all our information do we really know who’s looking at it?

The real question is, at the end of the day- are we submitting ourselves into a 'Big Brother' society by letting anyone and everyone access our information on the internet? With the amount of surveillance and technology that is now at our fingertips, it is almost certain that we can be tracked wherever we are.