Geekly Articles each Day
📜 ⬆️ ⬇️

WEB 2.0, collectivism and where we live



For several years I had “itched in one place” and the thought that something was missing in my life, but something that was incomprehensible, was haunting me. I looked on the Internet, studied forums, blogs and other technologies WEB 2.0

Recently I realized what was missing. Then I realized that this is somewhat beyond the scope of the web 2.0 model and can have significantly greater social consequences than what the web 2.0 services have brought. Understand what consequences this may have for society. Wrote an article. It is, of course, damp, but I still invite you to discuss it.
')

Content:


  1. Principles of public associations
  2. Is the Internet an information revolution?
  3. Social order and its core values
  4. Meet again: "the team"
  5. The disadvantages of the now existing "teams"
  6. Key features of Web 3.0 services
  7. WEB 3.0 definition
  8. Informational revolutions and changes in the social system
  9. Afterword




Principles of public associations


For centuries, people have united themselves or under duress. In different eras, with different social systems, there were different groups. What united them, or more precisely, on what principle did they unite? For each period of time, one can identify a number of principles of association, which are characteristic and, of course, prevailing for this era. For example: uniting in order to achieve the goals of a specific person is characteristic of capitalism (moreover, this is the main unshakable value of this period: “individualism”). For the sake of increasing the probability of survival, they united in the primitive communal system. The territorial association is characteristic of feudalism, whose main unshakable value is the regalia of the nobility (ranks, titles = lands = social status).
There are many other principles and ideas around which people are united, but in most cases they are variations on the subject of the examples given. For example, in the era of feudalism, the universal religion was the one god who supported the current order. With the advent of capitalism, this idea ceased to be relevant, but its adherents, for the sake of preserving status, decided to simply isolate their association from external influence, sacrificing something: thus, the church from the main body became third-rate, losing all its influence and power, but preserved itself. There is a more vivid example, but less obvious: communism in the USSR (a variation on feudalism with the rigidly embedded religion of one god).
Those who want details or evidence will find a huge amount of literature devoted to the discussion of such issues, but in this article I would like to draw attention to the technical side of the issue, namely due to which there was a change of ages? I will not reveal a great secret saying that in order to move from a primitive communal system to feudalism, it is necessary to invent writing (means of preserving information and transferring information from one elected to another elected). A transition to capitalism contributed to the printing press (a means of replicating information: the transition from one elected to many not elected). Without these inventions, the transition to a new system would not have taken place. And what is characteristic, both of these inventions (which entailed the change of the social system) are directly a “revolution” in information
technologies.


Is the Internet an information revolution?


It was repeatedly noted that we now live in an era of change - many argue that now there is a change of ages. So probably there should be an appropriate invention, which can be called a "revolution" in information technology? It is quite natural that everyone at that moment thought about the “Internet”. But is it?
First, let's consider the period before the appearance of the so-called. "Web 2.0". What was the Internet during this period? The ideal “printing press” is a means of instant and free replication of any information in any volumes with ubiquitous access. Those. in fact, there were no changes compared to the printing press. The Internet has become the pinnacle of the evolution of the printing press, but by no means a revolution in information technology that can cause a change of eras.
What, then, could be the very “revolution”? I propose to look at the two previous “revolutions” just like this: The invention of writing is a way to fix information by one person for another (the author wrote a manuscript book). A printing press is a way to spread information among many (the publisher has printed a circulation). But at the same time, it is not at all necessary that the author will be able to replicate it. It turns out that the publisher "holds by the throat" of the authors and decides for itself what should be printed and what should not be printed.
So maybe the emergence of opportunities for the author on their own and spread their information among all (Web 2.0) and is that very “revolution”? Yes, it will be obvious to someone that the current changes are caused by the emergence of a new way of not so much disseminating information as the full availability of its creation (blogs, social networks and other Web 2.0 services). However, for me it is not obvious. Rather, the current state of affairs with Web 2.0 makes me associate with the “nail-in-microscope” image.
Or, if, in a modern way and closer to the topic of the article: “it sits down as a fifth point on the copier and replicates it”. This process will undoubtedly seem amusing to the majority, but no more than that — no benefit from it. In other words, I believe that modern services provided by Web 2.0 are nothing more than a momentary “fun” and have no benefit and are not able to accomplish any revolution.
And then what to do? It is enough to utter the magic phrase “Little Hut-Hut, stand in the woods behind, and come to me in front”, to cross, face east and: write other services for the Internet. What others? About this in the second part of the article.


Social order and its core values


In order to determine what we need in the future, we will have to look back into the past. As previously mentioned, the main value of the era of feudalism is “status”, the main value of the era of capitalism is “individual” (not everyone, of course, but an individual capitalist as a producer and individual-consumer). On the border of these two epochs, anyone who clung to the outgoing "status" was left with nothing. Who focused their actions on the new value of the "individual" was "on horseback". Modern Web 2.0 services also cling to the “individual” leaving value: almost all of them are aimed at a specific individuality. And do not be confused by the name “social networks” - contrary to their name, they are aimed at solving the problems of a particular person.
To be more precise, they do not solve the problems of the “individual” at all, but rather spawn new problems around the “individual”, amuse its ego: individualism-> egocentrism-> the whole world revolves around me - can you imagine how many “individual glitches” pile up on such fertile soil? Commercial enterprises and political parties use just this - all their advertising / propaganda can be reduced to one thing: “you are the center of the universe, you are the most important, you are god, and we will help you to become even more important — buy our product / service / idea and you will be "well, yours."
The current social networks do the same thing, only they do not receive particular benefits themselves (except for advertising) and do not benefit either the individual or society as a whole. And the whole "society" in these social networks begins and ends with the fact that you can somehow somehow chat with someone / exchange ideas / ideas / videos or something else to brag about.


Meet again: "the team"


And what will happen if the “collective” is presented as a new value? Do not rush to postpone reading with the words "Collectivism - this we have already passed." I propose to look at the team on the other hand, or rather give a different meaning to this term. What was meant by this term earlier to this moment? A group of several people, deprived of individualities (their own goals), acting for the good of some (declared by someone else) “collective values” forgetting about themselves and their interests. Typically, members of such groups are geographically linked — placed in space next to them (territorial dependence is an atavism inherited from feudalism, typical of the USSR collectives - “the design bureau’s staff”) or linked by one individuality (a feature of capitalism - “our boss’s collective”) often and so and so.
As you can see, collectivism is very often around us - wherever you spit, your team is everywhere, which acts in the name of someone's good, but not his own.
What I propose to do is: deprive the team of communication on a territorial and individual basis and organize a team on the basis of a single goal. Those. to unite those people who have the same goals: whether in life, at work / business, or whatever. Such an association of people will not go in the wake of the leader, since he does not exist and will not solve the problems of one person. Such an association will not depend on its territorial neighbors, for they do not exist, and no one can interfere with each other. Such a union will be very efficient and organized by itself, since they have the same goal.


The disadvantages of the now existing "teams"


The Internet will successfully allow to deprive the dependence on the individual and territorial dependence - at the moment it is obvious. It remains to create Web 3.0 services that will be aimed at teams of people united by one goal. Undoubtedly, attempts to create such associations of people were undertaken repeatedly and many very successfully, but they did not make revolutions. Let's consider such projects with an eye on the above points.
Fido-net has grown into newsgroups (aka conferences) gathered a huge number of people united by one goal. Here everyone could be the author and replicate their information without restrictions. But, first, this phenomenon allowed only to unite people and only - no more services were provided. Secondly, the group was joined not only by people united by one goal, but also simply by lovers to chat, to approve themselves at the expense of others, to mock at the still green members of the community. Thirdly, the association on a territorial basis was largely present - messages at conferences spread slowly at that time: sometimes it took several days before a message from a user from Ukraine reached the United States and back. Agree, who wants to work in such conditions? Who will be able to effectively solve problems in such conditions?
Then came themed websites. But at that time they did not have the means to freely publish any information - the site had its own editor who worked for the owner and solved his tasks - there was no freedom to publish any information. Often, such sites sooner or later became advertising sites and then in general there was only one priority task “attendance”, which, you see, has nothing to do with the task of collective work of people united by one goal.
Broad functionality has specialized systems made on the basis of web-services, such as CRM systems. Well, everything is obvious here - although the functionality is at the highest level, these systems are designed to bring people together to solve the tasks of a specific individual (s) - the owner (s) of the enterprise.
Blogs are even simpler - the basic principle of association: “it is interesting / useful to read”. The toolkit is limited only to the search for interesting material and in commenting thereof.
Social networks of the type of "classmates" and "in contact" - the basic principle of combining territorial and for the purpose of "for fun".
Wiki Free Encyclopedia: works for the benefit of “all Internet users” i. no one specifically. The benefit of the individual brings, but rather by chance than systemically.


The main features of Web 3.0 services, they differ from 1.0 and 2.0


As you can see, no project meets all requirements at once. I repeat: in my opinion, the next step in the development of both society and information technology is the emergence of services (websites) that are created by a society of people in the interests of this very society. Those. each member of society “works” on society, and thus society “works” on each of its members.
I will try to describe my view on what the list of basic requirements for a new generation service should be:
  1. The absence of any mention of the territorial binding of participants and dependence on it. Possible solution: we forget about the data such as "country / address of residence" in principle.
  2. Lack of individual dependence: no moderators, owners, administrators, any technical method of “usurping power” on the service.
  3. Because content is generated by members, it needs to be filtered.
    and ranking - modern systems successfully cope with this
    various methods. On the other hand, it is required to restore order, systematize the accumulated information, solve the problem of spam. Possible solution: anyone who wishes (except novices) becomes a temporary administrator for a fixed period (for example, one month). If the number of people willing is more than necessary, then they are limited to voting or chosen randomly. The accumulation of a critical number of complaints about the actions of the administrator automatically deprives him of the rights of the administrator. Offtopic: what kind of silk our deputies would have been under such a system: I received 10 thousand "minuses" (not anonymous, naturally, reasoned) on the site are happy - get out of parliament for the next 5 years. In their place - anyone who passed the exam on "political and economic training." By the way, I wonder how many of the current deputies would pass such an exam? :. A complete mess in parliament for a year or two, but then everyone would work in the interests of society, and not individual individuals.
  4. Since this is an association of people with only one purpose, the presence of other people, whose real goals differ from those declared, will interfere with society. How to get rid of these? For example, everyone can put him and his "information product" in the "ignore". Will pick up such a "misleading Cossack" 50% of the ignorer - automatically exhibited from society.
  5. Functional tools for solving specific tasks that may be faced by a team should be able to be replenished / expanded / improved either by the team or by attracting other people from the outside who will extend the functionality as needed.
  6. No decorations, avatars, signatures and other distracting elements - it does not contribute to the achievement of the goal, but only slows down.
  7. The service should provide the possibility of any convenient way of communication both personal (chat, forum, blog) and collective (systematized knowledge bases, like wikis, news aggregators, etc.)


Well, why is the same thematic forum or blog, even the collective one? For many reasons, bad:
  1. There is an owner (or a group of owners) who (e) is “the most (e) main (e)” and can / can decide for everyone, is the “last resort” whose decisions are not subject to appeal.
  2. Significant problems with the expansion of functionality and the addition of new tools.
  3. Advertising, decorations.
  4. There are other reasons, but these will be enough


But for these reasons it is not effective compared to the proposed model:
  1. Content providers are a limited group of individuals, and consumers are a much larger group of individuals.
  2. Not very effective / convenient way to store and organize information.
  3. There are "random people" whose presence can unobtrusively, but significantly slow down the movement on the way to the goal, or even lead away.



WEB 3.0 definition



So, what I propose is that there is no need to invent something essentially new. It is enough to take the already existing developments, remove unnecessary ones from them, and combine them in the necessary order, putting at the forefront the common interests and goals (!) Of each individual group, which will be the interests (and goals) of the group. Well, to provide the necessary and effective tools for communication and storage / processing of information. In my opinion, this is exactly what will be the definition of the Web 3.0 service - after all, only such a service will introduce something fundamentally different and will be able to deeply, fundamentally change the society.

WEB 3.0: public services serving voluntary associations of people
with a common goal (which becomes a community goal ) , and providing them with means of communication, means of storing, processing and using information, other means depending on the specific goal of this community (all means - on the Web 2.0 technology platform).
The mentioned community exists exclusively within the framework of the WEB 3.0 service. Actions (to achieve the goal) of both the community and its members are an order of magnitude more effective than similar actions performed outside the team united by the Web 3.0 service.


Informational revolutions and changes in the social system


Let us return to the information revolutions and the change of epochs. Summarize:
  1. Initially, there was a primitive communal system: the interests of the group, but not of the individual, were pursued with a territorial link.
  2. The transition to the feudal (a group of people acts in the interests of one individual, geographically linked) took place thanks to the emergence and wide dissemination of writing (transmission of information from one elected to one elected)
  3. Communism was not. Socialism is the same feudal system.
  4. The transition to capitalism (the main value is the individual: as if everyone acts in their own interests, no one helps each other, groups of people are united for the sake of the individual interests of the owner, there is a territorial link), thanks to the appearance and wide distribution of the printing press (transmission of information from one elected many not elected)
  5. The current time is globalism. Everything is the same as under capitalism, the difference is only in the absence of a territorial linkage and the elite are united in groups for more effective actions. The transition took place thanks to the help of the Internet and the wide distribution of media: the transfer of information from many elected to many not elected (Web 1.0), the transfer of information from many not elected to many not elected (Web 2.0).
  6. The transition to the information society is coming (many say that we already have an information society, but I showed above that this is not the case), which is characterized by the fact that a group of people acts in the interests of a group of people without a territorial link, will be due to the Web 3.0 services (transmission information from many elected to many favorites)

The aforementioned “favorites” differ from “not elected” in that the former act in their own interests, and the latter act in the interests of the former. These steps are illustrated in the diagram below.




Afterword


It should be noted that with the advent of the new social system, the old does not disappear automatically. Changing the system can take a very long time, and maybe quickly. Elements of the old system (for example, kings, dukes and other nobles in the feudal system) continue to exist in the new capitalist system, but the attitude of society towards them is changing dramatically. What is the attitude of kings and other nobles in the capitalist system? As a means of self-affirmation: “and we have gas in the apartment” - “and we have our own queen” - something akin to a beautiful picture on the wall of a house. Similarly, in the new system, enterprises, world consortia and other associations will not disappear, people will also go to work. But in the lives of people (not everyone, of course) cardinal changes will occur in the awareness of what is happening and life values ​​and priorities will change. For the “elite of the new society,” the money will no longer be as important as belonging to its group (or several groups at once). They will exist and act in the name of their goals, which is equivalent to acting in the interests of the group. Therefore, their effectiveness will be an order of magnitude greater than the actions of a single person.
It is important to note that there is a significant difference between associations for
principle of common purpose, common interests, common dreams. Now there is a huge number of
quite successful interest / dream associations, and there is no need
something to change in these associations. On the other hand, I did not find associations
people with a common goal.

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/75539/

More articles:


All Articles