ENG1710 Intro to Language and Technology, SP2019
Prof. Ellis, Namm N520, jellis at citytech.cuny.edu
After today’s class, write at least 250 words summarizing your reading of McNeill and Zuern’s “Online Lives 2.0.” Of course, highlight those topics that we discuss during the first phase of today’s class before we shift to studio time to work on your projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The OpenLab is an open-source, digital platform designed to support teaching and learning at City Tech (New York City College of Technology), and to promote student and faculty engagement in the intellectual and social life of the college community.
Since the creation of the web, or the internet as we know it, things have changed in terms of creating an online identity for yourself. Back in the day, we didnât have so many social media platforms to worry about or so many news websites that we couldnât choose where to read from. This era of the web was most likely during the Web 1.0 era. At this point in time, online discussion was a one-way lane, where nothing would influence, or get in between you and the information you wanted to access. This was a server-based system, where there werenât algorithms created to influence what you saw on the screen. If you wanted to read what someone else has posted on the web, you can do so without the influence of any other web sources. Creating an online life back in the day was simpler, but McNeil and Zuernâs âOnline Lives 2.0â discusses how a literal change on the web-based services we get now influence the online profile we create for ourselves in the present day. Web 2.0 is what most, if not what all of our online lives is based on today. Regardless of what we post online, our online profile is now influenced by the things we look up, the things we engage with online, and the resources we use on the daily. One can now give away their political beliefs, their hobby or even their at home life without ever explicitly saying so, based off of what media site we use, what we purchase online, or services we search for. Compared to Web 1.0, Web 2.0 tracks our every move, and even though we think we may not know it, our online life may be a more refined version of what people in our daily lives know of us.
After today reading, I learned the difference in compare and contrast when it came to web 1.0 and web 2.0. Being of earlier existence it would make since that web 1.0 offered up and experience of simplicity. Being in a way one-dimensional webs 1.0 portable based theme had its limits when compared to 2.0. Web. Web 2.0 interactive qualities have made it a consumer of our time instead of us being its consumer specifically. With the option of engagement, it is like the experimental idea of observation and its influence in altering your behavior. Being online and the possibilities of censoring whether by outer pressure, peer/social pressure or even out of respect for the people that can see, web 2.0 has challenged the possibility that you can be true to yourself and your identity online. In order to be successful in navigating your online existence for your best experience of the web, you need skills set aside and specifically generated in reference to the webâs interaction base. This new form of the web has also offered up influence when it comes to language engaging and defining new behaviors now recognizable due to our interaction with this new technology.
âOnline lives 2.0â by. Macneill and Zuern has brought a discussion to technology. Through previous centuries websites were not as useful as they are today. Macneill and Zuern broke it into two main aspects. The first one is Web I.0 which is the old media that has been used before the development of technology which used to be limited and basic. The Web 1.0 had a limited use due to the fact that it was so simple because it was âpassiveâ as discussed in class with Prof. Ellis. It was passive because it has been unable to change since it was just readable rather than writable. Unlike The Web 2.0, referring to nowadaysâ media which has developed and improved within the recent years. Web 2.0 is the opposite of Web 1.0 or in fact itâs a collection of both with more improvements. The new media has differed because we are now more able to interact with one another by using these medias since we are able to not just read but as well as write. Thus, we feel more connected to the internet and closer than we ever been. Nevertheless, having these developed technologies and medias might affect us due to the use of it. One of the reasons how it could be manipulative is as mentioned in class the âArab springâ. With the creation of Twitter, it has made it easier to contact with other people and encourage them to do certain things by tweeting. As a person who came from a country that went through all thatâ I personally agree to this essay; since it could be used in a manipulative way and fool people online.
âOnline lives 2.0â by. Macneill and Zuern has brought a discussion to technology. Through previous centuries websites were not as useful as they are today. Macneill and Zuern broke it into two main aspects. The first one is Web I.0 which is the old media that has been used before the development of technology which used to be limited and basic. The Web 1.0 had a limited use due to the fact that it was so simple because it was âpassiveâ as discussed in class with Prof. Ellis. It was passive because it has been unable to change since it was just readable rather than writable. Unlike The Web 2.0, referring to nowadaysâ media which has developed and improved within the recent years. Web 2.0 is the opposite of Web 1.0 or in fact itâs a collection of both with more improvements. The new media has differed because we are now more able to interact with one another by using these medias since we are able to not just read but as well as write. Thus, we feel more connected to the internet and closer than we ever been. Nevertheless, having these developed technologies and medias might affect us due to the use of it. One of the reasons how it could be manipulative is as mentioned in class the âArab springâ. With the creation of Twitter, it has made it easier to contact with other people and encourage them to do certain things by tweeting. As a person who came from a country that went through all thatâ I personally agree to this essay; since it could be used in a manipulative way and fool people online.
After reading McNeill and Zuernâs âOnline lives 2.0â there has been really big changes in the webs. In the past it was really easy to trick people into thinking that was the real you and there were different ways people use the web to manipulate others. The web wasn’t really a safe place for young people to being around in the past. But as time has gone by the web started to have more improvements on the security and being able to track down people and knowing if this person was real or not. The web started to change over time and that it became more important to everyone around the world because they all use the web to either communicate with each other or look through the media to see if there was something new they needed to catch up on. The web also started new languages for others too because they would create new words and it become a part of the web and people would start to make them in to trends where it will be spread around the world for everyone to know.
Macneill and Zuernâs âOnline lives 2.0â talks about the web based services and how much influence it has over our everyday lives. Web 2.0 is second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online. This is something that is familiar with kids, teens, and adults where they constantly utilise blogs, media post, and online updates. Online websites such as instagram, twitter, facebook, and linkedin in order to share certain information which can be public at times, based on your sharing preference. What we post online and share on our online profile influences what advertisements show up on different websites. The first one is Web I.0, is considered âold mediaâ that has been used before the development of technology which used to be limited and basic. Web 1.0 had a limited use due to the fact that it was so simple because it was âpassiveâ. Unlike the Web 2.0, referring to ânew mediaâ which developed in the recent years. With new media we have the rights to express ourselves more than before and show it in multiple platforms. Even though we have the ability to present our thoughts in multiple platforms, we might not have as much freedom. Our voice on the internet tend to be censored, tracked, and at times restricted. With that being, what we post online can also affect us negatively or positively meaning be mindful of what you share on social media because it can always trace back to you. For instance, if you were to post something inappropriate and âillegalâ a workplace, educational institute, law enforcement can have the ability to use that against you. So since the new and updated version (from 1.0 to 2.0) it has became harder to create an identity of ourselves online especially because every move we make is constantly being tracked and monitored.
After reading Laurie McNeil and John David Zuern, âOnline Lives 2.0â there is much understanding to consider when you look at how web 1.0 and web 2.0 changes the way it has influenced our lives. In the creation of web 1.0 it is developed using HTML, homepage, having portal directories and its paradigm is solely based in the server. In the advanced web 2.0 version it has emerged through the creation of blogs, sharing of data and ideas, social networks and the tags that are used through the different websites, and the paradigm associated with web 2.0 is the cloud which is used as our storage of online data. This paradigm concept is based on the idea of Thomas Kuhn, an American philosopher, and he believed that this is the change of two concepts within a scientific discipline. In this idea, these concepts involve technology where if we were to assess the cloud everything is disperse; whereas through an individual server it is being distributed. Another paradigm is the portal for example which must deal with a broader set of variables that give you content to help with marketing. Some social media platforms such as YouTube, are now incentivizing more radical videos. However, we do find ourselves in a position where we have endured this online life, and it is becoming more difficult to manifest, as well as maintain a stable online identity. In the web 2.0 technologies, it has been very easily attacked by other people. Much of this change has been based around social interaction, weaponized bots, and sharing images back to others. The world where we have thousands of people attacking back by responding to a tweet for example through twitter, or a posting on Facebook.
Summary of McNeill & Zuern’s Online Lives 2.0
Laurie McNeill teaches at the University of British Columbia on digital narratives and Dr. John David Zuern focuses on literary criticism and life writing at University of Hawaii. In their article they discuss the impact of web 2.0, and the differences compared to its predecessor web 1.0. They start by discussing how popular the internet has become since people have begun documenting their activities on the web, which has only been possible with web 2.0 technology. Currently people seem to be creating autobiographies online with this interactive media.
Web 1.0 empowered many, and was certainly an astounding innovation of its time. However, McNeill and Zuern describe web 1.0 as passive, static, and universal, What one individual created and uploaded as a web page, everyone that visited saw the exact same product. There was very little, if any interaction between the web page creator and the users. The experience was curated by the web designer for a specific purpose. The paradigm relied on big servers that centralized the experience, often through portals.
Web 2.0 revolutionized how we could use the web. It is active, writable, and dynamic. Pages are tailored by users for personalized needs. There are social outlets that exchange social knowledge. The paradigm here uses the cloud offering dispersed access to information. We can navigate by searching rather than a portal. This offers a two-way, more interactive experience for users.
Laurie McNeill and John David Zuern published what is known as âOnline Lives 2.0.â âOnline Lives 2.0â is about certain devoted writing on the Internet or what is known as the World Wild Web. The first contribution of what is known as Web 1.0. Web 1.0 consists of HTML/static, the homepage, owning, portals/directions. Web 2.0 consists of active, writable, dynamic, tailored, social knowledge, cloud, decentralized, and search.
In the article âOnline lives 2.0â written by Laurie McNeil and John David Zuern, has explained the difference between web1.0 and web 2.0. Most of the changes are the social part of the usage of web platforms, the advancement of technology development that helps save time and convenience of storage. Web 1.0 is passive and individual which means it is more one-sided and that is the writer and people canât respond to one another like web 2.0 which is more active that people can respond to each other and it’s now social people share their knowledge with each other. It can also be thought of web 1.0 is a one-way street while 2.0 is a two-way street. Web 1.0 is universal since it is only told in one perceptive and that no matter who or where you look at the page it will be the same while 2.0 is more tailored to an individual’s interest. For example, the tracking of one’s search about dogs the advertisement that pops up will be tailored to dogs either it is dog products or helping dogs since the technology knows that you are a dog lover you are more likely to donate to an animal shelter. With improvement also comes with new challenges! With the increase of social media, one will create oneâs online identity and since web 2.0 has no limit on how much social media one can have an individual could have multiple identities online. Since web 2.0 is a two-way street the increase of conflict of perspectives will meet with each other. Sometimes it is a good thing but sometimes it could go the negative way depending on the kind of person behind the screen.
Laurie McNeill and John David Zuernâs âOnline Lives 2.0â is an interesting, thought provoking read. There are great differences between the internet we know today and the internet ten years earlier. Our online lives and identities change but the platforms that these identities exist on are different. The static, centralized, one-way communication McNeill and Zuern refer to as âWeb 1.0â was a very different place for someone having an online identity today. The âWeb 2.0â is a much more active, dynamic, and tailored place. The two-way communication the âWeb 2.0â offers makes having an online identity a much more time consuming task. The âWeb 2.0â can be a much more fictitious place than its predecessor. Things like tailored content and heavy user analytics cloud our identities on the web. The emphasis on networking and sharing in the modern day web has its affordances and constraints. We have more access to information and opportunities with a more dynamic world wide web but we are also connecting services to our lives and giving them access to our devices, the devices and networks our devices interact with, the places we visit and the content we see. In hindsight, the differences between these two versions of the web McNeill and Zuern mention are huge. The âWeb 2.0â utilizes features from its predecessor but it emphasizes sharing, accessibility, customizability, and interaction, which brings us information faster. This new web has its affordances and constraints like everything else. It is up to the users to be responsible.
In Laurie McNeil, and JohnZuerns, âonline Lives 2. Can see the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. In Web 1.0 it is more of a passive program where as Web 2.0 is more into New Media. While using Web 2.0 we are able to easily express ourselves on many different platforms. There are so many mor ways in which we can interact and communicate with others. There comes social media where we are able to comment and post so that others are able to know what you know instantly.
McNeill and Zuern introduce the work of ” introduction of Online Lives 2.0âł, both of them discussed how web 1.0 has taken a step further and transformed into web 2.0. Considering web 1.0 has turned old media to new media, web 2.0 becomes the “new new media” in this era. Laurie McNeil and John David Zuern talk about how web 2.0 and how web 1.0 differ from each other. McNeil and Zuern say that web 1.0 is more passive, static, and you have more control over it. web 1.0 was simple it didn’t change much, it stayed in one place and people had control of things. The authors plot repeating topics in the expositions in Online Lives 2.0, which join the converging of open and private life, online self-education, the financial measurements of online self-introduction, and the separating and misrepresentation of lives in web-based social networking, and they investigate the ramifications of these issues for online/history contemplates. During the new media era or Web 1.0 era, it was possible for a user to have a separate online and offline identity whereas the 2.0 era seems to have no boundaries between the life of a user online and offline due to the nature of having the contents tailored to the users, usually to be able to sell advertisements. As technology continues to develop, the users seem to gain less control over it, surrendering our control to the creators of the applications that we use. McNeill and Zuern have, with their writing, helped along a thought provoking discussion on online lives.
Laura Mcneil and John David Zuren âOnline lives 2.0â draws distinctions between web 1.0 and web 2.0, focusing on HTML / static, homepage, owning and portals, active directories. While web 2.0 has evolved into CMS/dynamic, blogs, sharing, and social networks, tags, cloud, two-way interactive and less control, Mcneil and Zuren argues that web 2.0 is the boundaries between online and offline life, and as a consequence, boundaries between private and public life.