Comments on: Who needs social networking? http://libraryrevisited.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/who-needs-social-networking/ Laurie's Library 2.0 Weblog Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:11:32 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: lkrivitz http://libraryrevisited.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/who-needs-social-networking/#comment-5 lkrivitz Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:17:10 +0000 http://libraryrevisited.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-5 I think access for rural areas may need be incentivized by government, much as rural electrification was. Where population density is low, the economics of installing the infrastructure will not play out. Satellite and wireless also have infrastucture costs. 2.0 is about more than technology. It is about new economic models, educational models, social customs. But the manifestation of much of it is through technology. Our government thought that bringing electricity to all citizens was an important factor in making the US a modern nation. I believe that internet connectivity is as important in this century as electricity was in the 20th. Is there the political will to make it the WPA project for the coming recession? I don't know. The concept of the public good has been so maligned that it may be a hard sell. I think access for rural areas may need be incentivized by government, much as rural electrification was. Where population density is low, the economics of installing the infrastructure will not play out. Satellite and wireless also have infrastucture costs.

2.0 is about more than technology. It is about new economic models, educational models, social customs. But the manifestation of much of it is through technology. Our government thought that bringing electricity to all citizens was an important factor in making the US a modern nation. I believe that internet connectivity is as important in this century as electricity was in the 20th. Is there the political will to make it the WPA project for the coming recession? I don’t know. The concept of the public good has been so maligned that it may be a hard sell.

]]> By: wkeillor http://libraryrevisited.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/who-needs-social-networking/#comment-4 wkeillor Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:33:49 +0000 http://libraryrevisited.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-4 You end with a rather weighty question. The answer, I suppose, depends on the degree to which form follows function, to which the "thing itself" is mediated through context. Proponents of the internet from its early conception have considered the computer an extension of the mind; in this sense, those of a generation who use computer technology through social networking may end up having differing notions of social interaction and friendship than those without. However, one wonders what the influence of physicality will remain to be upon our psyche--i.e., will our conception of social relationships be essentially shaped by the "form" of relationship taken from the tradition of physical proximity? Or will the function of technology be to transpose and transform these notions. Part of the difficulty here is in ever distilling a formal conception of freindship, relationship, society, and physicality at all. I've been waiting for the digital divide issue to really enter the discussion here. I've noticed several posts recently from various classmembers in which the concept is given play. I wonder what you think about the potential impact of such things as wireless access provided by the city/state/nation (is this a reasonable function of government, for example). I also wonder how the suggestion that library 2.0 is about more than technology strikes you. Can the 2.0 mentality encompass the Amish/rural/computerless? You end with a rather weighty question. The answer, I suppose, depends on the degree to which form follows function, to which the “thing itself” is mediated through context. Proponents of the internet from its early conception have considered the computer an extension of the mind; in this sense, those of a generation who use computer technology through social networking may end up having differing notions of social interaction and friendship than those without. However, one wonders what the influence of physicality will remain to be upon our psyche–i.e., will our conception of social relationships be essentially shaped by the “form” of relationship taken from the tradition of physical proximity? Or will the function of technology be to transpose and transform these notions. Part of the difficulty here is in ever distilling a formal conception of freindship, relationship, society, and physicality at all.

I’ve been waiting for the digital divide issue to really enter the discussion here. I’ve noticed several posts recently from various classmembers in which the concept is given play. I wonder what you think about the potential impact of such things as wireless access provided by the city/state/nation (is this a reasonable function of government, for example). I also wonder how the suggestion that library 2.0 is about more than technology strikes you. Can the 2.0 mentality encompass the Amish/rural/computerless?

]]>