Quick Summary: In Chapter 8, Gauntlett expresses some concerns about how the Web 2.0 functions in our world. A central concern is preserving content producer agency and individuality in a system which relies on advertising to generate revenue. Gauntlett acknowledges the validity of Marxist critiques of the Web 2.0 on a “macro level,” which view content producers as workers who receive no compensation and instead provide raw data for advertisers. However, he argues such critiques miss the point, as web contributors don’t consider their activities “work,” nor do they expect to receive any financial compensation for their benefits. Rather, content-producers are creative artists who produce content simply to be shared and heard. Gauntlett says Web 2.0 users are more like scrapbookers than coal-mine workers. He references a number of critics who raise variations of this same concern over the relationship between content producers, hosting services, and advertisers. I find Lanier’s discussion of templates and the loss of individuality particularly interesting. But, since we haven’t all read the chapter, let’s leave these Marxist-ish arguments aside and look at some problems Gauntlett doesn’t raise here that may be relevant to other chapters:
1). Gauntlett uses Wikipedia as a prime example of a website that functions on both a macro- and micro- level. Wikipedia rewards collaboration, is supported ad-free by its foundation, and works to advance human knowledge. Gauntlett doesn’t share another critics concern that Wikipedia could become “the overarching, primary text of the human experience.” However, Wikipedia has recently drawn criticisms for its largely white, male editor base. While events like Emory’s Wikipedia Editathon have sought to broaden the knowledge base by including more diverse editors, are such corrective measures really enough? Where else on the Web 2.0 can we see the damaging effects of a hegemonic base of content-producers? Gauntlett doesn’t seem particularly concerned with this issue, but I think it’s an important one.
2). Gauntlett, like other scholars we’ve read, paints the web with a really broad brush. He views online communities as inherently supportive, kind-spirited, and generous. Given his frequent use of YouTube as an example of a thriving Web 2.0 community, this seems like an especially problematic oversight (one doesn’t have to look far for cruel video commentary). Beyond YouTube user comments, morning news shows are constantly in a panic about cyberbullying, and Yelp reviewers are being sued for slander. In chapter 1, Gauntlett mentions the “hive-mind” effect that the Web 2.0 can produce on websites that serve a select interest group, but doesn’t really take this up in his chapter 9 discussion. Cyberfeminism has problematized the idea of the internet as a supportive, egalitarian, and utopian space, and I find Gauntlett’s wholesale idealism strange. Would a discussion of the social (rather than economic) problems of Web 2.0 completely undercut the book’s argument? In other words, why does Gauntlett focus exclusively on Marxist critiques?
