Category — Mod04: Social Technologies

I thought you might find this article that was published yesterday intesting, now that we know all about Mobile technologies thanks to the Module 5 team. It is full of financial trend graphs that constrast the economic situation and the tremendous growth potential Morgan Stanley is seeing in Social and mobile technologies:

http://mashable.com/2009/10/20/mobile-web-presentation/

I have come across some podcasts at iTunes U.  Look up the Oxford Internet Institute and under that a podcast with Bernie Hogan (Sociologist and Social Network Analyst) on “Facebook: The Strength of Weak Ties”.  It looks at and perhaps offers a different view of Facebook and the relationships we have there vs our other relationships.

Facebook is #1 in UK and Canada, MySpace is #1 in US, Orkut is #1 in Brazil and India.

He looks at what happens when people do not participate in FB (for example, within a family) who miss certain interactions because they are not engaged. He talks about how some people equate being online = not being social while others feel the are being social on the internet.

Issues of equality, context, and information overload are also addressed.  Enjoy!  Sharon

This convincing article by Mark Anderson simply explains that it is ad revenues that are driving the Web 2.0, and that these revenues are ending up with essentially seven companies. As a result the startup companies need lots of money to keep them going until one of the big seven decides to buy them. Thankfully there are seven I am wondering what would happen if their where just one. I suppose that there will alway be new comers being purchased.

What I found most interesting is that it is biotechnology, which is the prime investment target. This is where real software is being developed and purchased by real companies. Perhaps the best investment target for e-learning should be the biotechnology industry.

Hello Everyone:

After having read this article, I could not help but wonder why entrepreneurs would want to put a lot of money into Web 2.0 companies unless these entrepreneurs simply have an insatiable appetite to create a monopoly within the Web 2.0 world, thus preventing others from building web-based empires.  Perhaps it is a matter of conquering cyber space, or making a name for oneself, or steering viewers to their companies over others, or getting people hooked (so companies can charge in the [near] future).

Whatever the reason(s), it is a high stakes game, for there is little or no revenue, despite on-line ads (which I, for example, never pay attention to anyways even though they are geared towards me based on my cyber hits).

Overall, I am thankful that there are some reputable Web-based companies that require payment for their services and/or products, for I find them valuable in my teaching profession.

Cheers,

Barrie

Hello Everyone:

CrowdTrust is more than a Community of Practice (CoP) in that this Web 2.0 company calls for the collective knowledge and wisdom of everyone, not just participants from a single industry or professional arena.  Here, industry leaders could utilize the wisdom of the crowd to help explore the various issues and challenges pertaining to urban sustainability in any given community, for example.

CrowdTrust provides space where one’s personal creative commons can become more meaningful and more valuable to you and to others so that things that matter most to an organization, for example, could be explored in a much more cooperative and collaborative manner.

After having viewed the pitch for CrowdTrust, I could not help but think how profitable this venture could be for schools, for example, where the wisdom of the crowd – students, teachers, parents, community stakeholders, administration, and other staff members – could explore and solve various issues, matters, and challenges that inherently exist in any school community.

After all, as with urban issues around sustainability, for instance, school issues around operations and functionality could be deal with by way of collected intelligence, which CrowdTrust secures in its company space.

In sum, in partnership with all stakeholders, I would utilize CrowdTrust in my school because I believe that, through collective knowledge, expertise, information, experiences, and ideas, school issues and matters could be solved much more effectively.

Cheers,

Barrie

As I read Tim O’Reilly article Web 2.0 I kept thinking about traditional business models and how they just don’t fit Web 2.0 companies.  I remember when Netscape was the browser of choice. Now Google has usurped Netscape using a business model that seems to be a complete paradox. That is to provide a service to a customer without charge, at least not directly. However, this paradox seems to be the working model for Web 2.0 businesses. The successes of Napster, eBay, Amazon, Wikipedia and others rely on the concept that states, “provide the service for free and they will use it”. Not only will they use it they will help provide content and development.

Google continues to use this business approach. Introducing free software such as “Google sketch-up”, “Google sites”, “Google docs” and particularly the recent “Android phone”. I think there are many more opportunities for new Web 2.0 companies since people have become comfortable sharing everything on the web.

Finally, I like O’Reilly’s description of Web 2.0 companies when he compares them to a phone call. Companies like Google provide the network, which harnesses the collective intelligence.

Web 2.0 here we come

As you go thru all the Social Technologies tabs please don’t forget to answer the polls, participate in the discussions and enrich our collective knowledge.

Check out this interesting link that was reported on the cbc tonight (October 6):

Teens too open online: privacy watchdog

Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has filed her report that looks at 2008 privacy complaint investigations; technology and privacy issues; and the commissioner’s efforts to encourage the development of international privacy standards.

Watch the Video

Or go to the address below and click on the QuickTime or RealMedia links.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/10/06/youth-privacy-commissioner.html

Regarding the link to Dick Hardt of  sxip, Inc., delivering his introduction to Identity 2.0 and how the concept of digital identity is evolving.

Simple eXtensible Identity Protocol

I mentioned in a previous post here in Module 4 that I have always been trepidatious about putting my personal information on the internet.  My facebook page is an exercise in watching what everyone else is doing…not very valuable in terms of getting any information about me.  I am not part of the twitter movement so that people won’t know exactly when I am going to Costco   (as mentioned in the comment by Ed on their module 4 ning)
I like Dick Hardt’s  analysis that your virtual identity is what a website knows about you. But another website doesn’t have access to that information. So your identity is site centric. This means that you are entering information about yourself to an infinite number of website registry pages.  Not an efficient use of time for the user, nor is it an efficient use of your identity information.
So in the end we aren’t really anonymous in terms of our personal information or identity, so why don’t we have a user centric model where my personal information exists and intersects with the various websites that I interact with?
In our world operating under Web 2.0, Identity 2.0 is inevitable.  I agree with him.
And I know that after signing up for a series of networking sites in the last month, that a better way of navigating my way through the internet HAS to exist…and people will seek it out.