Virtual communities allow groups of people to act affectively. But here’s the rub: the technology that supports community is critical, but not as critical as the consciousness and intention of people using the technology.
In his introductory chapter to The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Howard Rheingold makes the following observations:
The beauty of the Internet and World Wide Web is that it is still relatively fast, cheap, and out of control. But, to paraphrase Rheingold, it has the potential to be seized, censored, metered, and sold back to us.
The technology that makes virtual communities possible has the potential to bring enormous leverage to ordinary citizens at relatively little cost—intellectual leverage, social leverage, commercial leverage, and most important, political leverage. But technology will not in itself fulfill that potential; this latent technical power must be used intelligently and deliberately by an informed population. Most people must learn about that leverage and learn to use it, while we still have the freedom to do so, if it is to live up to its potential. The odds are always good that big power and big money will find a way to control access to virtual communities; big power and big money always found ways to control new communications media when they emerged in the past (xix).
Rheingold warns:
I am still trying to wrap around what we, the people, can do to maintain our current freedoms. What if one or many of us were to create a virtual summit dedicated to virtual freedom. What would be our mission statement? What would our agenda look like? Who might we attract? Is somebody already working towards this? Could such a community sustain itself? Will such a community only come into existence after the proverbial shoe is dropped (and we find ourselves reacting rather than being proactive)?
The future of the Net has become too important to leave to specialists and special interests…. We need a clear citizens’ vision of the way the Net ought to grow, a firm idea of the kind of media environment we would like to see in the future. If we do not develop such a vision for ourselves, the future will be shaped for us by large commercial and political powerholders. (xxi)
I’m curious to know what other people think.
Reference:
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Keywords: Internet, leverage, power, Rheingold, technology, virtual communities
Comments
I think that we already have at least one organization dedicated to keeping the net free (along with other things) -- the EFF. Although they seem to be a bit kooky at times, in general, I strongly support what they do.
I that maintaining network neutrality is the best way to keep the net free. People seem to have a mindset that "The Internet" is no different from the network providing your cable. Instead, it is really a loosely connected group of networks operating on a common protocol. As long as providers are not allowed to discriminate against particular sites or protocols, I think that the network's very essence will keep it free. However, with the increasing consolidating of DSL / Cable Access, I'm afraid that the few companies controlling access will begin to start cutting back on the unrestricted access the net is built upon. Hopefully, the legislation in the US today will pass, and we'll have those free access abilities secured for a few more years.
my 2 cents;
Nathan
I am still trying to wrap around what we, the people, can do to maintain our current freedoms.
I've always thought it was important to find a way to reach the masses. Taking the US as an example, how can we communicate the importance of these freedoms (and the various threats) to the 100's-of-millions between the coasts? The early-adopters of new technology or cultural trends shape ideas, but the masses shape policy.
Great post Chris. Thanks
--
Michael Rolph
http://www.leverageblog.com