The hegemony of the couch and a simple broadcast model where a few produce for the many to consume is being challenged. The time we 'waste' apparently distracted in front of the TV, consuming, is aptly called the cognitive surplus. One way we have of carving some of this surplus is by implementing architectures of participation that will convert some consumers into users. Social networking sites, UGC structures, wikis... they all carve a little bit of all the cognitive surplus and transform it into social capital.
The broadcast model, however, is still very pervasive, even amongst architectures of participation, the reason is simple: Architectures of participation are being built around the core act of consuming. If I was made to draw it I would imagine an enveloping layer around the core consumption need that transforms consumers into users.
The broadcast model, however, is still very pervasive, even amongst architectures of participation, the reason is simple: Architectures of participation are being built around the core act of consuming. If I was made to draw it I would imagine an enveloping layer around the core consumption need that transforms consumers into users.
As
human beings we consume in order to survive. We can't really produce
our own food as plants do, so we've learned how to master life cycles,
as we plant and harvest most of what we consume.
By turning consumers into users we are catalyzing recycling as much as we are production. If I use content, rather than consuming and chucking it away, I will be creating less garbage as well as perpetuating/augmenting content value (just a little bit, or a lot, if you take an entry in the wikipedia as an example).
Consumers stop producing garbage in an unsustainable system and become users, who produce social capital.
Architectures of participation with consumption at their core
Although you may argue that SNS are architectures of participation, at their core lies the pure act of consumption.
A typical social behaviour that illustrates this, is flicking through your friends' pictures on Facebook. You can spend hours doing so. It's pure TV time (with narrative included), they might as well put a big play button and play it in slide-show mode. But they don't.
As an architecture, most social networking sites (SNS) empower users with the necessary tools so these may harvest as well as plant, i.e Consume and Produce. This means, most of the time you can pause and share a picture. Crop it, Edit it, Delete it... these tools are what I call manipulation methods and are the core enablers of this new architecture of participation.
Manipulation methods (tools) == architecture of participation
We are constantly adjusting our position, looking for ways to connect to the content we consume. Empowered we have become, to comment, to share -- to manipulate. If you take the example of the physical world, we mastered fire, then clay, then manipulated metals... For the digital construct, the same is happening. Lot's of manipulation methods have we now at our disposal. Like little tools we employ to participate and shape the world around us.
The repository of content available to us is immense and growing. Many times we employ some manipulation methods such as commenting and sharing to try and resuscitate 'dead content', make it surface again. We are successful. Images taken in the past are brought back to life with simple comments, sharing, editing.
This architecture of participation, this construct around content consumption, built out of manipulation methods, is what prevents this architecture from being a simple broadcast architecture, but one where I can participate, by reacting with systematic tools to what I consume.
By turning consumers into users we are catalyzing recycling as much as we are production. If I use content, rather than consuming and chucking it away, I will be creating less garbage as well as perpetuating/augmenting content value (just a little bit, or a lot, if you take an entry in the wikipedia as an example).
Consumers stop producing garbage in an unsustainable system and become users, who produce social capital.
Architectures of participation with consumption at their core
Although you may argue that SNS are architectures of participation, at their core lies the pure act of consumption.
A typical social behaviour that illustrates this, is flicking through your friends' pictures on Facebook. You can spend hours doing so. It's pure TV time (with narrative included), they might as well put a big play button and play it in slide-show mode. But they don't.
As an architecture, most social networking sites (SNS) empower users with the necessary tools so these may harvest as well as plant, i.e Consume and Produce. This means, most of the time you can pause and share a picture. Crop it, Edit it, Delete it... these tools are what I call manipulation methods and are the core enablers of this new architecture of participation.
Manipulation methods (tools) == architecture of participation
We are constantly adjusting our position, looking for ways to connect to the content we consume. Empowered we have become, to comment, to share -- to manipulate. If you take the example of the physical world, we mastered fire, then clay, then manipulated metals... For the digital construct, the same is happening. Lot's of manipulation methods have we now at our disposal. Like little tools we employ to participate and shape the world around us.
The repository of content available to us is immense and growing. Many times we employ some manipulation methods such as commenting and sharing to try and resuscitate 'dead content', make it surface again. We are successful. Images taken in the past are brought back to life with simple comments, sharing, editing.
This architecture of participation, this construct around content consumption, built out of manipulation methods, is what prevents this architecture from being a simple broadcast architecture, but one where I can participate, by reacting with systematic tools to what I consume.