HELP! My first assignment...

Ally-Marie Corliss
COM 170 October 15, 2009
Macro Assignment #1


Wisdom of the Crowd versus Collective Stupidity:
The Issue of Morality on Web 2.0

Most of our readings have discussed the vast and innovative ways to monetize Web 2.0 applications. However, looking beyond a purely economic understanding of the World Wide Web one has to question were does pure human morality belong on our modern information super highway? Is morality on Web 2.0 safely defined by ‘wisdom of the crowds’? As explained by Wikinomics, ‘wisdom of the crowds’ describes the rules and regulations of each and every online forum. Very different online community has their own rules of acceptability. Concurrently, ‘collective stupidity’ is used in the same exact capacity, but describes the effect of a collective ‘dumb-ing down’ of rationality. ‘collective stupidity’ arises because most web users are average people not rocket scientists or saints or sinners. Therefore, is ‘collective stupidity’ leading to the moral corruption of Web 2.0? Furthermore, does morality even have a place on Web 2.0; does Web 2.0 provide a space outside of societal conventions to provide individuals with the keys to form their own visions of morality?
As mentioned above much of Web 2.0’s constructions of normalcy is defined by the users in a particular network. Conventions on one social networking site take a completely different context on another social networking site. For example friend-ing an individual on Facebook would have a completely different meaning then friend-ing an individual on a social networking cite like Match.com. However, how face can ‘wisdom of crowds’ be trusted to regulate social meanings on online communities. In an online community of pedophiles lewd images are passed back and forth without judgment. A grotesque example that points out the errors of the free market political philosophy supported by Wikinomics, that assumes users always make sound collective judgments. Wikinomics seems to supports utopian idealization of the internet that while may represent humanity at its upmost idealization neglects the fringes of society that seek to extort the system. In this example of crowds being the guide of morality it’s clear that a break from conventional wisdom equates to exploitations. In the example of this community an image of an underage girl in a compromising position is not frowned upon, but it is glorified.
Obvious to the greater society is the fact that the image is a crime, however within the context of a this specific community such sharing is perfectly within the code of morality created by the community. Morality on Web 2.0 leads to the sense that each online community exists in a vacuum of cyberspace, however the reality is that virtual worlds are an extension of real people who should be held to the lass of the real world. The example is very specific and most Web 2.0 users would find this community morally objectable.
Concurrently, there is a huge online community of music listeners who trade, download, and share music files illegally. The collective wisdom of music peering and sharing on the internet deems this form of sharing morally acceptable. One form of peer to peer sharing is deemed acceptable by wisdom of the crowds. The web morality defined by users dictates that sharing lewd photos is wrong, however sharing illegally downloaded songs is not only fair but shrouded with a sense of entitlement- the crowd’s wisdom creates the notion that people deserve free music.
Within, the morality created on social networking site this is not viewed as a crime but as an extension of individuality and represents a the changing ethics of social interaction on the Web 2.0; “The Web us no longer about idly surfing and passively reading, listening, or watching. It’s about peering: sharing, socializing, collaborating, and most of all, creating within loosely connected communities.” (45) The ‘new ethics of openness’ on cyberspace dictate that this form of sharing is morally correct. Interestingly, both sharing music and sharing lewd images are illegal, however the crowd dictates that one form of sharing is acceptable while the other is not. In addition, N-Geners are greatly concerned with ‘sincerity’, as explained by Wikinomics, “Only the smartest and most sincere companies stand a chance of becoming meaningful participants in the networks theses N-Geners are forging”(50). To my generation there is a clear dichotomy between the two different types of sharing. Sharing lewd images is clearly an issue of exploiting individuals, however sharing music becomes about exploiting the big-business machine. Free Culture highlights this point stating, “This is not a protectionism to protect artists. It is instead protectionism to protect certain forms of business. Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them”( 9).
It seems to me that the problem of collective stupidity doesn’t require a solution, because for the most part Web 2.0 is a self correcting entity. For example, the same community of online predators spurs the emergence of other online communities that act as watchdogs; a form of vigilant web justice. In addition, there are now organizations that have found a way profit from web immorality. This can be seen in the host of new industries that have been created to offer customers web protection in the form of virus protection, identity theft protection, and software that allows people to censor web searches. The problem it seems is that unlike actual law, Internet software has no capacity to punish. It doesn’t affect people who aren’t online (and only a tiny minority of the world population is). And if you don’t like the Internet’s system, you can always flip off the modem. The Internet has unleashed an extraordinary possibility for many to participate in the process of building and cultivating a culture that reaches far beyond local boundaries. That power has changed the marketplace for making and cultivating culture generally, and that change in turn threatens established content industries