Another topic I found interesting and helpful is blogging.  I will admit that I was afraid to blog at first.  The thought of my words being “out there” for anyone to see was a little intimidating.  But I’ve become more comfortable with the idea, and now understand the impact blogging has had on our society.  Many of our readings discussed the idea of blogging as the new era of journalism and how bloggers are changing the way “old media” works.  In our society today, people are being given more of a voice – and businesses are listening.  Blogs can be very powerful and influential.  Our readings from this class included books and articles on the influence of blogs on everything from newspapers (online blog articles) to politics (the Dean campaign) to bike locks (Kryponite).  As we have discussed in class, people listen to and trust their family and friends more than big businesses.  The popularity of blogs demonstrates this.  I plan to use this knowledge of blogging both now and in my future career.

A topic that was covered briefly, but I would like to know more about is security and copyright issues.  I understand that copyright is a large issue with digital technology.  Some of the lines and rules are blurred online in what appears to be quite often an open-source community.  I thought the idea of open-source we discussed in class was very interesting.  I would have liked to discuss it more, along with its implications for the future of copyright laws. 

The authors claimed that the public desires corporate webpages to have a human feel.  Web 2.0 allows corporations to create sites that give a voice to both the corporation and its customers through tools such as blogs, user-created pictures, podcasts, and more.  It is a two-way medium in which people are both readers and writers.  The blog Squidoo explains that social software, a main characteristic of Web 2.0, allows for collaboration between two or more people.  According to the post, some people may even argue that user participation is what is driving Web 2.0 rather than the latest tools and software.  I think it’s a combination of the two, but user participation is definitely a driving force.  I agree with the authors that people desire to have a voice and participate.

Some businesses are based on the concept of Web 2.0.  Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and eBay were original Web 2.0 companies.  Others that have joined them include Flickr, Del.icio.us, Digg, and YouTube.  Large corporations such as GMhave seen the benefits of blogging and other Web 2.0 tools.  One area that I think could benefit from Web 2.0 applications is corporate social responsibility.  This is a relatively new term, but one that is catching on in the corporate world.  It is similar to the concept of Web 2.0 in that people want corporations to be open and honest.  They desire a human feel in websites and want companies to hear what they have to say about issues important to them.  Corporations feel the pressure to be socially responsible, but are not always clear in communicating their practices.  I think the incorporation of blogs and interactive sites that allow for collaboration between users and businesses would lead to greater awareness of socially responsible business practices and a feeling of participation among the public.  For example, Starbucks is fairly well-known for its socially responsible business practices.  They provide information on brochures, in newsletters, and on products like water bottles and coffee cups.  The company’s website provides further information, but lacks interactive applications.  They report the activities they are involved in with communities, but stop short of telling you how you can get involved in your specific community or letting you contribute to the conversation.  A site that allows users to contribute stories, pictures, video, etc. would give the public a voice in the conversation - a fundamental component of Web 2.0.

There are other definitions of Web 2.0 that make the term even more confusing.  According to Paul Boutin in his article Web 2.0: The new Internet “boom” Does Not Live up to its Name, web developers use the term to refer to the software and languages used to build collaborative websites.  These tools define Web 2.0 because they are “free, easy to master, and easy to interconnect.”  Boutin went on to say that Web 2.0 has also allowed people to make money by funding a “bring-your-own-content site” such as Dodgeball and Digg.  He argued that the term is being used for things that are not really Web 2.0, but are seen as the latest cool, new, or undiscovered thing.  He sees Web 2.0 as simply a technology upgrade “that finally does what they’d said version 1.0 would do.”

I think Web 2.0 is a combination of many things, including open source sharing, cooperation, remixability, integration, and service.  I don’t necessarily see it as the new Internet “boom” or “bubble” that is in danger of bursting like the first.  I see it as the evolution of the Internet.  This is the way the world is changing.  We rely on the Internet for an increasing number of things from local search to entertainment.  Businesses are becoming more transparent in their communication with the public, and the public wants to be able to contribute.  Web 2.0 is based on collaboration.  To me, it is a natural progression that will continue to grow and change with time rather than grow and simply bust.  It may seem “hyped”, but in the basic sense, Web 2.0 is simply the latest phase of growth for the Internet.       

Another article I found interesting was from November 2005 about the first ever text message referendum in Britain.  The idea was to encourage political participation, particularly among young people who favored that type of communication.  This is another example of mobile communication devices being used to form smart mobs.  Rheingold gave the example in Smart Mobs of “People Power II” in Manilla.  Another example of SMS used in political matters was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, mentioned in the article.  The referendum in the Welsh campaign did not have legal status, but it did give people the opportunity to let their voices be heard.  A smart mob holds tremendous power, as Rheingold discussed in Smart Mobs.  I wonder when we will see something similar to these campaigns in the U.S.  Perhaps we already have.  American Idol uses mobile phones and text messaging to let people vote, and has shown tremendous success.  I would say it is an example of a smart mob in action.

A recent PEW research study on technology and media use in the U.S. described cell phones as “the communications swiss army knife.”  I think this is a good description.  We no longer use cell phones to simply call a friend or family member.  According to the study, 35% of cell phones owners use their phones to send and receive text messages.  An additional 13% would like to be able to.  Users are taking pictures, playing games, accessing and searching the internet, sending and receiving email, instant messaging, playing music, recording video, accessing maps, and watching TV programs – all on their phones.  With the younger demographic growing up using mobile phones and all their capabilities, it appears use will to continue to grow and expand.  I recently read an article stating cell phones have had the most impact on the world in the last 25 years than any other technology.  I think this is a valid argument.  Mobile communication devices have influenced politics (examples above), created celebrities (American Idol), changed the television and entertainment industries, and eliminated in many areas the use of landlines.  There is no doubt mobile phones will be a big part of our lives in the future, if not already.  

Second Life has blurred the lines between the virtual world and reality in ways other than big business.  Last weekend, Relay for Life was held in the virtual world, collecting thousands of dollars – real money – through donations of virtual money that was converted.  It was interesting to hear this podcast on the fundraising efforts of residents.  An actual Relay for Life event took place.  As seen in New World Notes(a blog about life in Second Life), residents ran and walked on a track for the event.  The event was very detailed, including the lighted candles in bags around the track as seen in the real world event.  I think this is a very creative and successful way to raise money or awareness of an issue.  If the topic is something you are passionate about, it would easily translate to the virtual world.  Your friends or group(s) there can help spread the word farther than you ever could have by mailing letters that will go unopened to people you don’t know.  It has implications for the communications efforts of agencies such as the American Cancer Society or the American Red Cross.  I think the virtual world could add valuable contributions to agencies from money to volunteers to donated goods. 

At first I thought Second Life and other programs like it were simply games played to pass idle time.  I’m beginning to see, though, the real-world applications.  Online you can meet people around the world you may never have had the chance to meet.  You may find your new job or an entrepreneurial opportunity.  Opportunities abound for advertisers and communication professionals.  I will definitely be watching to see what the future holds for virtual worlds.  It seems the younger generation that now uses instant messaging and text messages more often than email to communicate may find virtual worlds an ideal place to communicate with friends and conduct business in the future.  

BusinessWeekreported that advertisers are finding new ways to track customer behavior, allowing them to target specific audiences.  According to the article, advertisers are able to group people in new ways such as by zip code, age, or reading habits – based on online behavior.  Advertising executives argue that a better understanding of the audience will lead to better quality ads.  These better quality ads will focus on “elite” websites that have a dedicated customer following.  Blogs and other niche sites will have a harder time competing for ad sales, but can join the “elite” by proving reliable audience numbers.  Some behavioral agencies are now able to track an Internet user’s journey from site to site, gaining insight on what the user is searching for and where he or she is likely to go to find that item.  This information tells advertisers what ads are most effective and where to place those ads.  Advertisers will learn where to place ads based on competition from other advertisers and price.  Niche markets, because of their lower advertising costs, may see a growth in advertising as a result.   

I don’t think niche sites should be counted out in advertising.  It may seem like blogs and other niche sites have a small following right now, but they have the potential for tremendous growth.  Our readings from this week demonstrated this potential.  If a respected blogger has an advertisement on his or her site and endorses the product, the effects could be widespread.  Hewitt noted that the blogosphere is an environment in which individuals encourage others to participate in the discovering and sharing of truth.  The growth of Firefox is an example of one blogger’s influence, and the power of word-of-mouth advertising.  I think companies will develop new ways in the future to cater to specific audiences when those audiences will be most receptive of their messages.  Rather than creating ads that pop up at inconvenient times, agencies will develop catered messages to a very specific demographic.  Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I can imagine a future without annoying pop ups and the need to “fast-forward” through commercials.                

Scoble and Israel argued that “the world has become a faster, smaller place” and blogs are more effective means of reaching the public.  This sounds like Rheingold’s idea of “smart mobs.” New technologies and what we are able to do with them has brought people together around the world.  The Internet has enabled people to form groups, or social networks, that are connected globally.  These groups can help a business or seriously hurt it.  In this era of consumer generated media, customers can have tremendous impact on a product – if the companies will listen.  Scoble and Israel argued that companies mustlisten, or they will loose business.  “Blog or die,” they argued.  I’m not convinced, though, that most companies are listening.  A few companies have caught on to blogging and embraced it.  Blogging, in turn, has positively effected their business.  I think most companies, though, are still wary of being so public.  It will take a while for company blogging to become so mainstream that a lack of blogging will ultimately lead to the death of the company.

I think a company blog is a good thing, if done correctly.  There are some instances I can think of, though, where a blog might not be necessary.  It depends on the audience you are attempting to reach.  If most of your customers are bloggers, definitely blog.  If most of your customers aren’t even online, I don’t think it’s necessary to the survival of your company.  There is still a large part of the population that is not online or has never read a blog.  I do agree with Hugh Hewitt’s opinion, though, that this is the reason why now is a good time to start blogging.  It’s free, there is little competition, and it may benefit your company.  I just don’t see it as necessary – yet.   

Open source licenses are currently available for computer software that allow for modification of a code under certain terms and/or restrictions.  These licenses do not apply to other areas of open source sharing such as journalism or agriculture, as described above.  This is where the organization Creative Commons comes in to the picture.  Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that provides licenses to copyright creative works.  The flexible licenses they provide allow you to keep your copyright while offering some of the rights to the public on certain conditions.  The licenses cover both online and offline work in a way not previously covered by traditional copyright laws.  Their licenses allow for open source sharing in which the creative work of an individual can be used by someone else without the fear of someone “stealing” another’s work.  It does not cover ideas or factual information, though, similar to traditional copyright laws.  A license such as this would be beneficial to the open source community described above.  With a creative commons license, the entrepreneurs would be able to protect their work while allowing members of the community to be involved.  It is a good solution to a potential problem.  I don’t think it is the ultimate solution, though.

In the digital age, there is a lot of information and idea sharing.  The Internet has made communication available across the globe.  As technologies continue to improve, I think the issue of copyright will become more complicated.  For example, a few weeks ago I wrote about DIY Fabrication in the future.  Copyright law will be tested once home production is available.  No one will know that you didn’t pay Nike for the new pair of shoes you created based on its design.  Or will they?  The recent lawsuits that came out of music file sharing demonstrated the power of copyright laws.  I think copyright laws will have to adjust to the digital age.  A more flexible approach, such as the licenses provided by Creative Commons is a good example to follow.              

Raymond’s idea of open-source sharing reminds me of our reading from the other week, Rheingold’s Smart Mobs.  Digital technology has allowed us to come together forming social groups that create change and influence societies.  Smart mobs are social groups linked together through mobile communication devices, communicating over distances and organizing events.  In the same way, users of open-source sharing work together, communicating on issues related to projects, and develop new programs.  The idea of user-generated media as discussed earlier in the semester in regards to blogging is also similar to open-source sharing.  Citizens are able to communicate to members of their communities and around the world on topics of interest to those communities.  Collaboration and communication are important in the digital age.  As people find new ways to work together, new ideas are formed and new solutions are created.  In the world of open-source sharing, this has lead to the faster creation of better software programs.    

The website wikipedia is an example of open-source sharing that demonstrates the collaboration of many individuals working on a project.  The site is constantly changing, as evidenced in a recent CNN.com article.  The article discussed the ”challenges” of such a collaboration, citing the numerous times changes were made to Lay’s biography on the website due to contributors’ differing opinions on the cause of death.  I think this is a good example of the success of open-source sharing.  Incorrect information was changed quickly, and clear details began to emerge as users continued to contribute.  The true information was eventually entered and has since remained.  Through the work of many individuals contributing, false information was easily identified and deleted.  Valid contributions were expanded upon until a satisfactory conclusion was reached.  I agree with Raymond’s opinion that two (or more) heads are better than one.  A different pair of eyes will notice different problems and different solutions.  Working together on problems will lead to the creation of the best solutions.  I think we will notice this even more in the future as digital technologies continue to allow for collaboration around the world.          

The idea of home fabrication is exciting.  It does bring up serious questions, though, about copyright and trademark laws.  It does not seem to me that it will be as easy as wanting to create something, and voila, there it is, new and shiny and – free.  It couldn’t be that easy.  Worldchanging.com discussed the creation of nano-factories, or desktop appliances used for personal fabrication, as being available within the next 10 to 15 years.  Our society and economy would dramatically change with the introduction of such “factories.”  Traditional manufacturing companies would loose business, along with raw material providers as more effecient use of materials becomes possible.  The way we work, live, and play would change as objects become instantly available. 

Such a change could be very beneficial to the developing world, as one blog points out.  When disasters strike, mobile fabrication devices could create the supplies needed to sustain an entire village.  Objects such as buckets, pipes, and faucets could be fabricated out of available resources such as mud and grass to use and transport water.  Fabrication devices have the potential to save lives, though it also has the potential to destroy lives.  One example noted is the ability to fabricate weapons, which placed in the wrong hands, could have devastating effects.       

The ability to create something based on one’s own concept and design is powerful and would, as demonstrated here, change the world.  I’m not a futurist, but there is a task force of futurists, technology specialists, environmental scientists, and others working together to examine the possibilities of a fabrication future.  It will be interesting to see what they envision and what actually takes place.