The archive and the processor: The internal logic of Web 2.0

Abstract

In Web 2.0, there is a social dichotomy at work based upon and reflecting the underlying Von Neumann Architecture of computers. In the hegemonic Web 2.0 business model, users are encouraged to process digital ephemera by sharing content, making connections, ranking cultural artifacts, and producing digital content, a mode of computing I call ‘affective processing.’ The Web 2.0 business model imagines users to be a potential superprocessor. In contrast, the memory possibilities of computers are typically commanded by Web 2.0 site owners. They seek to surveil every user action, store the resulting data, protect that data via intellectual property, and mine it for profit. Users are less likely to wield control over these archives. These archives are comprised of the products of affective processing; they are archives of affect, sites of decontextualized data which can be rearranged by the site owners to construct knowledge about Web 2.0 users.

‘It Just Gives Me a Bit of Peace of Mind’: Australian Women’s Use of Digital Media for Pregnancy and Early Motherhood

“…The dominant norms of sharing on social media often expect reciprocity of information sharing and self-disclosure [47][48][49]. While these practices featured strongly in women's accounts of their digital media use, particularly in relation to social media like Facebook and online discussion forums, information in some apps, and platforms like YouTube acted as repositories of information about pregnancy and parenting, provided both by experts and by peers.…”

Beyond ‘pseudonymity’: The sociotechnical structure of online military forums

“…Indeed, it is the latter data that is economically valuable, and returns us to the socio-technical and techno-economic conditions of the forums (see also van Dijck 2013: 164;Gehl 2011Gehl , 2014Gillespie 2010). What makes them unique however and in turn targetable -is their location and reach within the boundaries of the forum itself offering discrete opportunities for advertisers to display, link and sponsor products and services within the discursive content generated by the users.…”

“…This latter issue not only points to the wider capitalist power relations inherent in technological mediations and online creation/consumption (see also Gillespie 2010, Gehl 2011. It also suggests that particular discourses are endemic to such sites and operate as powerful identifying features that have economic and political merit within a capitalist and consumerist framework 'FEELING' PSEUDONYMOUS Anonymity is an increasingly slippery term (Kennedy 2006) that today speaks more to the feelings and imaginings of the user than it does to information or data privacy (Quian & Scott 2007, Nissembaum 2011, Gerlitz & Helmond 2013.…”

“…Of course, as many theorists have noted, this is a minor element of data sharing practices as terms such as the like economy hit and link economy Gerlitz (elmond -4) or techno-economy van Dijck 2013: 164) suggest. These are all terms that direct us to a deeper understanding of the economic and political processes of data sharing online that occur within the discourse of anonymity beyond intentional information sharing at a user-end (see also Gehl 2011, Berry 2011, Gillespie 2010.…”

“…This work draws on critical software studies and science and technology studies (to name a few) to interrogate techno-social systems (such as social networking sites and online forums) in terms of their power relations (see Andrejevic 2011, Nissembaum 2011, boyd 2010, Gehl 2014, and comparing these power relations with the discourses of the sites themselves (van Dijck 2013, Hearn 2010, Gillespie 2010). This latter approach seeks to understand how the design of, and discourses within, online spaces are able to/work to configure Suchman 2011, van House 2011) action, not in a straightforward or transparent way, but in terms of the socio-technical conditions within which users are invited to participate -and in so doing perpetuate, generate, alter, negotiate them (see also for example, Berry 2011, Kitchen and Dodge 2001;Gehl 2011;Manovich 2013, Steigler 2009). We consider these issues here by focusing on the anonymous online spaces of military forums -where individuals are invited to obscure identity -to explore the wider power relations inherent in online technological mediations.…”