One of the buzz words that are thrown around a lot is that the social web is making the web more “democratic”.
It’s easy to think so and from a limited perspective one can entertain this thought with little threat to the conscience.
The problem is that it’s somewhat of a cloaking mechanism for a much larger endeavor by the developers of applications that we readily (and voraciously) use every single day of our lives.
You see, Facebook, Google, Twiter, and all of the rest (and growing) social networks and behemoths of social change are constantly reconstructing their algorithms, pracmatica, and tactical deployments of engagement so as to better farm information to one strategic end: To increase the bottom line.
The fact is that the more they can know about you and how you use their software the better they can monetize, capitalize, and mobilize their message (or others) into the experience.
This institutional framework must be at least recognized before effective advancement can occur, and before we can take advantage of the limitations and boundaries we have to know that they first exist.
Most people, I imagine, haven’t even thought of this type of paradigm, but from a pure-product and business perspective this is everything. And that’s what I’ve been doing all my life, as a software programmer and product developer.
Don’t let anyone “pull the wool over your eyes”, sotospeak. See software and web technology in light of the large corporate giants that build and construct them, and then start a revolution.
[Image from Locace]
Josh Wagner says
The social web is closer to a "free market" I think. Simply saying "I don't like Google" can't vote them down by itself, even if you get lots of people to say the same thing. But if everyone refuses to use Google for a time because of something they did, then Google will listen because they have to make a living somehow. We have the power of NOT using something to voice our opinion.
human3rror says
very good point here josh, love it.