Summary
Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody continuously states, “When we change the way we communicate, we change society” (17). The one thing that Shirky constantly tries to warn is that the change has already occurred, “There is never going to be a moment when we as a society ask ourselves, ‘Do we want this? Do we want the changes that the new flood of production and access and spread of information is going to bring about?’ It has already happened…” (73). It is important to learn how to adapt to the changes. Shirky uses multiple anecdotes that range from social tools such as Flickr to programs like Linux to explain the mass amateurization of professions, the ease of coordinating and sharing within groups, and the application of pressure on institutions.
People like to consume, produce, and share media (104). What technology gives people is an easy to use platform, thus the mass amateurization of professions such as journalism, photography, programming, etc. The internet toys with the idea of “professional self-definition” by challenging the professionals themselves to understand “major changes to the structure of their profession” (58). As Shirky says, “The distinction between communications and broadcast media was always a function of technology rather than a deep truth about human nature,” now that technology provides people with the right tools, broadcast and communications have begun to blend together. Radio, television, newspapers, and movies are now becoming a “many-to-many” concept rather than a “megaphone” with the use of the internet (86-87). The ease of publishing to many outlets changes the question “Why publish this?” to “Why not?” (60).
With the “publish then filter” attitude of the internet, sharing and coordinating is an almost effortless task. Websites such as Flickr, Myspace, Youtube, Wikipedia, and Meetup allow the users to coordinate and organize their material with a few minutes of tagging and editing their entries. But there are three problems with improved freedom of assembly: mass amateurization takes away jobs based on copying and distributing information, damaged social bargains, and negative networked organizations (terrorists, Pro-Ana) (209-210). Aside from the three problems, the Birthday Paradox (“a group’s complexity grows faster than its size”) and Tragedy of the Commons (“individuals have an incentive to damage the collective good”) pose significant complexities (27; 51). Yet the ease of coordinating gives big voices to groups that are not “internally organized and externally supported,” which brings people together in a way that has never been supported before (198).
Mass amateurization and coordination makes it easy for organizations to put pressure on big institutions. There were four major examples of change brought about by online organizing. The first was Evan’s StolenSidekick page, which put pressure on the NYPD to continue investigation of the stolen phone and even bring about the arrest of Sasha. Another was that the creation of Linux forced Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Hewlett Packard, and Oracle to rethink their strategies (243). VOTF forced the Catholic Church to acknowledge and punish abusive priests (146). And the social disobedience of Digg users, when they protested the site to allow illegal information to be distributed (289). As Shirky states, “The Digg revolt was one of the broadest examples of this intersection between groups and governance; it will not be the last” (292).
Response
The class had a collective negative response to Here Comes Everybody—the book did not address the “evils” of the internet. I beg to differ. Shirky touched on the downfall of professionalism, the negative impacts such as Pro-Ana, and the ease of coordinating terrorist and criminal groups. Yet what the book proves is that these obstacles do not shadow the beneficial aspects the internet provides. As of right now, the ability to patrol the internet is virtually unforeseen. Yet this is part of the chaos that Shirky explains we must expect from a revolution (107).
What wanted to be heard was more about phishing, identity theft, spamming, sexual predators, internet vandals. These issues are known on such a widespread and media oriented scale that publishing them in Here Comes Everybody would seem almost arbitrary. The thrust of the book was not to introduce the dangers of the internet, but promote the changes it brings (and along those changes, the negative aspects as well). And Shirky does so with his many anecdotes, most of which are commonly heard stories within this generation, but with fresh analysis and perspective of the situations. Using this easy to relate to method, he creates an open environment to a topic that can seem overwhelming, and at times, intimidating.
Since this is a rhetoric class, I wonder if the decline of professional journalism strikes fear in any of the students. If not, why not? Is the open-air feeling of writing inviting, or are they protective of their specialty? As a young generation that grew up with the internet at our sides, do we see the break between broadcast and communication as clearly as Shirky, or have we instinctively adapted to the change since we are the creators? I still see the break. I am territorial of my area of study, which is why I chose an online book club as my virtual community (I wanted to eliminate that train of thought). As an English major, I tend to be wary of blog entries that critique and review literature, yet I have one myself. I do not trust other’s judgment, particularly because they have not been trained in the subject, or I don’t know their qualifications. Yet, as Shirky states, “judgement becomes meaningless with transformations this large” and it would be best to swim rather than sink (207).
With my lit-blog, I face several dilemmas. One, I am always at the risk of being plagiarized. My blog is very specific, and I am still an amateur. I am not well known, and a student searching for “Jude the Obscure; Victorian literature; archetype” would easily find one of the papers I intend to publish and that I have presented at conferences. Two, I am not familiar with blog copyright policies. Once something is published online, for free, is it ethical to republish it somewhere else? Yet these are challenges I am willing to face, because without the internet as my platform, these ideas and articles would not have formed. In my personal experience, and what Shirky illustrates, is that the good can outweigh the bad.
Good and bad are relative terms. A high school student that stumbles across my blog would find this good, where I would find it bad. The Pro-Ana group brings up an obvious image of bad to our minds. Yet, as Shirky says, the group’s underlying message was for people to pay attention to them. Is it bad that they found acceptance? The fact that Digg was able to implement transaction of illegal information—none of this matters whether it is good or bad. The internet puts pressures on institutions that never fathomed threat from the public twenty years ago. The changes to religious affiliations, media industries, and government will continue to exist and flourish.
Cathefrine 