Here Comes Everybody…

In Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, author Clay Shirky examines the development of interactive media such as Facebook, Flickr, Wikipedia, Twitter, blogging, and open source software and the societal effects of these modern phenomena. Shirky discusses this evolving media through a variety of lenses, and shows the reader a complex society that is quickly transforming before our very eyes. He examines the social media exchange from a philosophical standpoint (how has blogging changed the traditional definition of a journalist, and what does that mean for society?), a historical framework (why and how have websites like Wikipedia come about, and how are they changing the way humans interact?), a political frame (how are activists using sites like Twitter to subvert governments, police forces, and other institutions?), and an economic standpoint (how is the Internet changing traditional business models, professions, and relationships between people and organizations?).

Shirky points to the progression of sharing, cooperation, and collective action and stresses that each rung in this “social media ladder” is increasingly more difficult to accomplish. Generating and sharing online media is relatively simple—this blog post is an example of that. Coordinating with others in the sphere of online engagement adds another layer of complexity. Finally, one must overcome even more barriers in order to transform that collaborative energy into combined social action in the real world. For instance, one must overcome differences in location, people’s ability and desire to commit to social action, and any authorities that might prevent such action, such as government. However, with the power of social media and the growing size of global networks of individuals, these barriers are becoming increasingly easy to bypass.

  The primary role of many social media sites is not to target specific people, locations, or ideas. As Shirky repeatedly states, such a model (which is based on the traditional business relationship of provider-consumer), is inefficient and ineffective. For example, it would make no sense for Meetup.com to use market research to create online social groups and tailor them to specific audiences (for instance, a “Milwaukee Ninjitzu Enthusiasts” Meetup group or a “Bostonian Bread Bakers United” Meetup group). The amount of time and resources Meetup.com would have to emit would be enormous if the organization attempted to discern and provide socializing groups for the public. Instead, as is the case with Meetup and similar social media groups, the role of the site is simply to provide users a platform to connect. The users—not the website administrators—decide what events, areas of interest, and topics to rally behind. This user generated content is the driving force behind a lot of online collaboration and organization. As Shirky points out, the Internet is not creating this desire for collaboration and social action, but merely providing a “location” (online) and tools for people to express tendencies that already exist.

Throughout his book, Shirky discusses ways in which the Internet is breaking down social, political, and economic barriers that traditionally kept individuals from organizing around common causes. This free and instantaneous exchange of information is allowing individuals from around the world to share, discuss, and act on large scale issues. Another great power of these new tools is that they allow large numbers of people to collaborate on relatively small scale issues and transform specialty niches into infinitely large efforts. Shirky uses the example of a group of Catholics who, after a large scale sexual abuse scandal, rallied for drastic reform in the Church. This in itself is not surprising. What’s surprising is that the group garnered support of over 25,000 individuals from all over the world within six months if its inception. The group’s ability to share, cooperate, and act in such a short amount of time and on such a large scale forced the Church—an enormous global institution—to listen and comply with many of their demands.

Shirky also reveals that the power of connectedness is not always to the benefit of society. He gives the example of a group of anorexic teenage girls who pool their resources online to encourage the eating disorder and share tips on how to lose weight and hide their condition from friends and family. Such networks are also available to organized crime and terrorist groups who can collaborate with increasing speed and efficiency. Furthermore, the “armatureization” of professions such as journalism (are bloggers journalists?) and photography is putting people out of work. In his epilogue, the author also stresses that the power of freedom and the ability to subvert governments and organizations will not destroy these structures and lead to anarchy and social chaos. Instead, it will push these institutions to be more efficient and socially responsible.

Here, I wish Shirky had developed the negative side of online interaction a bit more. I’m not sure that I agree with is very optimistic view of online media. Of course I believe in its ability to bring people together in new and innovative ways. The Internet is literally putting the history of human knowledge and the limit of human creativity at our fingers. I agree that, for the most part, this is a good thing. Shirky did not discuss, however, the following points:

• The socioeconomic disparities with regard to internet access and knowledge of technology. Although the power of the Internet is slowly infiltrating and greatly aiding some rural areas and the developing world, as technology and Internet culture explodes, those without access are falling behind at an exponentially greater rate. In order to truly tap into the power of human connectedness, everyone should have the ability to participate.
• The environmental impact of this modern phenomenon is missing from Shirky’s analysis. First, the environmental cost of physically building and updating new hardware is quite large. It is wonderful that so many people are now able to tap into the power Internet, but what about the resources going into the production of personal computers, batteries, and servers (plastics, mercury, silicon, tin, zinc, copper, etc.). Second, the electricity that is being consumed by Internet hardware is growing at an alarming rate—particularly as densely populated countries like China and India industrialize. I’m currently sitting in a Harvard computer lab and am surrounded by dozens of computers, most of which are turned on but not currently in use. Additionally, it takes massive amounts of energy to prevent servers from overheating and failing. Third, as technology companies continually make our current hardware obsolete, we are strongly encouraged (if not compelled) to purchase new, updated hardware. What happens to our old, obsolete computers? They end up in landfills at home or abroad. The rate at which we produce and consume hardware is astounding, and the ability to recycle such products is extremely limited and inefficient. Such a demand for technology is forcing us to exploit the Earth’s resources at an unsustainable rate and increasing the rate of climate change, which has countless social, economic, and ecological implications.
• Shirky did not address some important social costs of online media and Internet connection. It’s true that the Internet puts the history of human knowledge at our finger tips. However, such a strong dependence on technology for maintaining our history, shaping our present, and developing our future can be dangerous. For example, at the click of a button I can look up a Wikipedia page discussing the causes and effects of World Word II. I can read it, and even include my findings in a research paper. However, accessing information is not the same as internalizing and understanding it. Similarly, I can grab today’s copy of the New York Times and scan the headlines. By doing so, I will get a basic understanding of yesterday’s news. However, by not delving into the stories, I limit myself to “headline knowledge,” and likely have very little understanding of the issues of the day.
• Lastly, web surfing is increasingly tailored to the individual experience. While this has many benefits in expanding our exposure new sources of knowledge and encouraging our ability to cooperate, it can also limit our exposure to opposing views and ideas. I recently discovered that even Google searches are tailored to my individual tastes and my tendencies to click on certain types of search results. For instance, if I search Google with the phrase “How has 9/11 affected us?” my search results will be different from those of a politically conservative friend of mine. As someone who tends to read liberal media articles, my search results will be tailored to my tastes. While this may seem convenient, it is actually stunting my worldview and my ability to engage and understand opposing viewpoints. Similarly, if all I do is connect and collaborate with people who all look, think, and act like me, I will never develop new ways of thinking about the world.