Digital Media & Culture: Collaborative Essay Collection 2018/Collective Intelligence/Research Question 1: The Sum of Parts

=Does the concept of Web 2.0 and the collection of data impact on millennials’ use of social media?=

Does the concept of Web 2.0 and the collection of data impact on millennials’ use of social media?

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 11:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Introduction
Interacting with family and friends across long distances has been an interest of human nature for centuries. The quick development and inventions in the technological aspect of long distance communication made it available to people to connect simultaneously with their beloved ones across long distances. In the late 20th century the Web 1.0 arrived an made an immediate impact on social media. However, it was a decade later when the real change surfaced. The successor differed in almost every aspect, it was the change that humans needed at the time. The generation Y or simply known as the millennials grew up whilst Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 was introduced, it was highly unlikely that they will not join social networking. As an adult they have the possibility to behave rationally while using any social media web site. It is also notable that the millennials are today in their 30s with the possibility of being a parent. Their impact on social networking can be seen on most of the sites, especially on those ones where you can share pictures. Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

History
Generation Y/ Millennials

Millennials are also known as the Generation Y are the generational group of individuals following Generation X. The precise date for when this cohort starts or ends is yet not revealed, but demographers and researchers typically use the 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s as ending birth years. This generation is generally marked by an increased use of media, communications and digital technologies.Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Social media

The roots of social media stretches far deeper than one might imagine. It is a common mistake to think it is a new trend, but sites like Facebook is the natural outcome of many centuries of social media development. The earliest methods of communicating across enormous distances known to mankind are letters. The earliest form of a postal service can be traced back to 500 B.C. This primitive system which connected people across great distances would become more widespread and streamlined in the future for centuries.Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Social Media Today

Shortly after the invention of blogging, social media became popular day-by day. Sites like LinkedIn and MySpace gained distinction in the early 2000s. A website which focuses on videos, YouTube, came out in 2005 that created an entirely new way for people to communicate and share with each other across long distances.Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

By 2006 Facebook and Twitter became available for the public and in took the internet by storm. Ever since their unexpected appearance these sites remain one of the most popular destinations for websurfers. Other sites like Flickr or Spotify began their surface to fill specific social media needs.Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nowadays, there is an incredible variety of social networking sites, and most of them allow cross-posting, therefore enabling their users to connect with each other via different sites. This creates an environment where people can avoid actual human contact by sacrificing the intimacy of person-to-person communication. As social media has been always around, one can only speculate about the future of social media may look in the next century.Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

World Wide Web 1.0

Web 1.0 is referring to the first stage in the World Wide Web, which was completely made up of Web pages which were connected by hyperlinks. Even though the correct definition of Web 1.0 is still a cause of debate, it is believed that it refers back to the web when it was set of static webpages which were not yet providing any kind of interactive content for visitors. Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

World Wide Web 2.0

The next generation differs from its predecessor in almost every way. Web 2.0 is the term given to define the second generation of that World Wide Web which sole purpose is to equip people with the ability to share information online and collaborate. It is also notable that the other improved functionality of the second generation includes a new open channel communication which emphasizes on the Web-based communities of users. Not to mention that it is more open to sharing information.Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ushahidi

Ushahidi translates to witness or testimony in Swahili, was developed following the uproar and chaos in Kenya after the elections in 2008. Its sole purpose was to report acts of violence. Since then, spread across the world helping troubled families to reassure their beloved ones are safe. The headquarters is in Nairobi with a diverse global team. Ushahidi is a social enterprise that supports software and numerous services to civil societies to improve the bottom up flow information. Nowadays, the network created by the website alarms visitor in case they would like to visit a foreign country, or an incident took place near them.Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Crisis mapping became uncommonly popular due recent attacks and natural disasters such in Haiti were the reasons behind Facebook’s incredibly similar idea. When something occurred nearby a user, it allows the user to inform their family and friends about their well-being. The similarity between the two sites is uncanny, yet there were no legal actions towards Facebook. This act only assures the true goal of Ushahidi. Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Collection of Data

Recent events made it clearly that everybody suspected for a while; everything we post, share or send is most likely going to be archived. The collection of data should not be unfamiliar to social networkers because in the websites warns the user that their data is going to be saved. The perfect example for this is Facebook unique daily update. It allows the user to scroll back on their feed reveling old post and shares. Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Main Concepts
In terms of relevant case studies regarding the status-quo of data collection in social media spaces, none have been higher-profile and egregious than the recent scandal involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. The former being the hegemonic social networking site and the latter being a data collection company sourced by political parties and campaigns, tasked with utilising the available data in order to influence said campaigns. Early indications suggest that Facebook may have compromised the data of almost 90m people.

In March 2018, journalist Carole Cadwalladr, working for Channel 4 News, released the results of an in-depth piece of investigative journalism, featuring a whistle-blower who lifted the lid on Cambridge Analytica's connection to both the Brexit campaign and Donald Trump's election in the United States. The exposé initially focussed on a more explicit form of election-rigging which was now suspended CEO of Cambridge Analytica Alexander Nix who was caught on camera, ironically suggesting that his firm could use secret video footage of opposition politicians in compromising positions in order to influence a campaign. What followed was the data-mining genie well and truly leaving the bottle. Cambridge Analytica stood accused of using data bought from Facebook to affect the results of two of the biggest and most controversial votes in recent history.

The key aspect of the story pertaining to data usage was Facebook's role which was, in effect, them offering Cambridge Analytica the keys to its huge vault of user data. This allowed them to create targeted advertising based on a user's 'likes' and activity and thus forming a profile of an individual to ensure they were reached by the correct and most effective campaigning. Facebook has now suspended all companies linked to the investigation however huge questions remain as to how this was allowed to happen. The short answer is apathy. People are largely apathetic toward the dreaded terms and conditions and as such, perhaps understandably trust the sites they use to look after them in online spaces.

Some such as Common (2018) have suggested that the current scandal is an insight into propaganda for the Web 2.0 generation and has compared the use of this type of analytics to Soviet Agitprop or Radio Rwanda, the state radio station of Rwanda which broadcast misinformation in 1992 which contributed to a genocide taking place. Whilst this is, as intended, a pair of extreme examples, it gives food for thought to individuals who may have hitherto existed in a position of blissful ignorance. After all a Guardian test in 2017 suggested that fewer than a quarter of students bother to read the terms and conditions of a website. Furthermore, another study by National Public Radio in the US found that it would take the average internet user around 40 minutes to read the average website terms and conditions.

An investigation by the Atlantic back in 2012 entitled "a guide to data-mining" highlighted many of the key issues causing outrage today so it cannot be said that such information was entirely unknown. Indeed, Barack Obama is considered to have won the first US Presidential Campaign in which 'Big Data' was pivotal which possibly begs the question of whether the issue is the process of data mining or the result? In this sense, it is important to factor into the question of what happens next, whether the result will be a moratorium on data usage or simply a free-for-all in which we accept that data we provide in any online spaces will be used to form campaign data. It is this quandary that leads us to question the future of Web 2.0 and data collection.

With the above in mind, we must question: will it make any difference? Will younger people actually decide to shun social media sites such as Facebook so long as they continue selling data or will they join the lobby for such companies to change their ways? Understandably, evidence relating to the most recent scandal is thin on the ground but there have been several studies in the past few years which tackled the question of the use of data in a Web 2.0 environment.

In 2015, The New York Times, explored the topic, prompted by an after dinner speech by Apple CEO Tim Cook in which he argued that enjoying the use of a social media site does not justify them collating and selling your data. The paper cited a study by Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania showing that 55% of people they polled were disapproving of sites collecting their data, even if they received personalised content in return. Even lower numbers of approval were found regarding trading free WiFi for data (7 in 10 disagreed) and discounts in return for data (91% against). The consensus reached by the NY Times article is essentially that most people are aware of but not in favour of their data being collected, even in a quid pro quo scenario. This sort of reaction is unlikely to have been quelled in light of the Facebook scandal.

Additionally, in 2017 Forbes magazine expanded upon a survey by Gallup which showed that millennials were "more aware of potential data security risks than other generations but are less likely to be concerned about them" and generally found that whilst millennials are the most frequent users of sites which collate their data and as such, most at risk, they were also the most cynical. The conclusion to draw from this information is that younger people are stereotypically savvy in regards to data mining but ultimately likely to choose to ignore the concerns and proceed with using the sites. The article suggests that the results of the survey convey a sense of optimism and cynicism which translates to millennials' relationships with other businesses and companies outwith the context of data. This is notable in the sense that it strongly supports the assertion that millennials are the "Web 2.0 generation" and suggests that they will find their own unique solutions to the question of data mining.

Perhaps in years to come, we shall all come to adopt the millennial view that data mining is a necessary evil which allows us to enjoy the benefits of social media for free however there has, in this instance, been widespread outrage and condemnation. A sense of trust between internet companies and consumers has been broken and the future is in a state of flux. In the meantime, it would appear likely that seeing the motives of large tech companies as potentially ulterior and adopting the millennial attitude of cynicism is no bad thing.

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Introduction References
Horovitz, Bruce (4 May 2012). "After Gen X, Millennials, what should next generation be?". USA Today. Retrieved 06 April 2018.

Ushahidi. (2018). Retrieved 04/06, 2018, from https://www.ushahidi.com/

Wolpert, David; Tumer, Kagan (2004). "Collective Intelligence, Data Routing and Braess' Paradox"Volume=16". Journal of Artficial Intelligence Research. pp. 359–387

Main Concept References
Cadwalladr, C. (2018). The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy [Accessed 9 Apr. 2018].

Forbes.com. (2018). Forbes Welcome. [online] Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahlandrum/2017/06/28/millennials-trust-and-internet-security/#73f6bf905555 [Accessed 9 Apr. 2018].

Furnas, A. (2018). Everything You Wanted to Know About Data Mining but Were Afraid to Ask. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-data-mining-but-were-afraid-to-ask/255388/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2018].

LSE Business Review. (2018). Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: let this be the high-water mark for impunity. [online] Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2018/03/22/facebook-and-cambridge-analytica-let-this-be-the-high-water-mark-for-impunity/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2018].

NPR.org. (2018). Do You Read Terms Of Service Contracts? Not Many Do, Research Shows. [online] Available at: https://www.npr.org/2016/08/23/491024846/do-you-read-terms-of-service-contracts-not-many-do-research-shows [Accessed 9 Apr. 2018].

Singer, N. (2018). Sharing Data, but Not Happily. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/technology/consumers-conflicted-over-data-mining-policies-report-finds.html [Accessed 9 Apr. 2018].

the Guardian. (2018). Click to agree with what? No one reads terms of service, studies confirm. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-service-online-contracts-fine-print [Accessed 9 Apr. 2018].

the Guardian. (2018). Click to agree with what? No one reads terms of service, studies confirm. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-service-online-contracts-fine-print [Accessed 9 Apr. 2018].

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)