After getting used to Netscape and Google, what can we expect from the next Internet generation?
Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 already went through some major changes. As Web 1.0 was a taxonomic system, also known as a classification system, while Web 2.0 is a folksonomy: this allows its users to find information and classify then. Not only this, Web 2.0 is a social, peer 2 peer and crowd-sourced system, where Web 1.0 is more information based, focuses on target markets and hard copyright.
Moreover, Web 2.0 describes an open source environment. It asks you to interact with today’s social media. Flickr and Wikipedia, for example, are two of many open source websites.
So, what can be expect from Web 3.0 and further when we ‘just’ got used to Web 2.0? Web 3.0 definitely will step up in the future technology. Posting to the internet, the use of big data and an upgrade in the accessibility on the web.
In this article:http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/what-comes-after-web-20/ the author is talking about virtual worlds and using 3D glasses. We already see some of that new, futuristic technology these days, but when will we see these features in the world of the Internet?
Hopefully in a couple years time we are going to see a change in the World Wide Web system!
Are we able to trust the Media ? There are so many hoaxes out there in the media that we are not aware of. In this day and age it is hard to separate the truth from the people and objects that are placed in media to persuade us. The first major known hoax was in 2006, of lonelygirl15, video blogger on YouTube. She was a scripted actress that video blogged about her life and events, but after 3 months the press found out about this hoax and outted the young company. When people/fan base found out the trust for media decreased because this was a girl the world loved and felt on a personal level with. To find out that it was a hoax shocked everyone. The goal of the company was to break into the entertainment world and it succeeded for a while, with her having one of the most subscribed channels on YouTube. After the events of lonelygirl15 It is known for people/businesses to take hidden persuaders and make them appear to be authentic or the real deal when in all actuality it turns out to be part of a viral marketing campaign, a public relations strategy, or other organized efforts. Companies use hidden persuades/hoaxes frequently to build brand awareness/equity for their business. Other people create hoaxes to become viral and become famous for it, it’s all about the love of being known and making money. So is the media trustworthy ? Hmm, I am sure that anyone would agree that it’s not.
Although I hate to admit it I am one of those girls who knows nothing about football but gets super stoked when the commercials hit. Let’s face it, who doesn’t love Super Bowl commercials? With 30-second slots costing over $4 million, and over 100 million people tuned in, companies try to go the extra yard (pun intended) to grab consumers attention, making commercial breaks during the Super Bowl just that much more entertaining.
If there is one company we can agree on who has had a lasting impression on us it has got to be Doritos. Year in, and year out, Doritos seems to continuously stand out in the conglomerate of ads, but did you know that for 10 years now these ads have been created by people just like you and I? In my search to learn more about crowdsourcing and its benefits I stumbled upon the Doritos “Crash The Super Bowl” competition which gives anyone the chance to submit a 30-second home made ad which will be aired on game day. In this year’s final edition of the competition the winner will go home with $1 million dollars and the opportunity to work with along side Warner Brother and DC Comics director Zack Snyder.
As someone who is interested in communications and marketing this story immediately caught my attention for Doritos’ bold move in letting their consumers fill a $4 million Super Bowl Slot. Not only does crowdsourcing stimulate consumer engagement in this instance, but it also creates tremendous brand awareness, a win-win for the brand. With over 4,000 submissions, three finalist now await for their chance to win.
Join the fun and cast your vote for this year’s winning ad! (Polls open until January 31)
– Yanilis Checo
Before you start reading, no I didn’t hack into their bank accounts and take money……………250 random people helped pay my way to London by donating to MY Cause. Absolute complete strangers paid my way across the pond. Strange right? They read my story online and on their phones and even on social media and they decided it was good enough for them and they gave me money. $25 here, $5 there, a whopping $250 bucks every so often, and this happen for 5 months. I took over $4,000 from 250 strangers online.
I find it weird to think of myself as a cause. Like I’m the revolution, the movement. When in reality I just want to travel and go to clubs all over Europe. Sorry for the honesty, but it’s true, and that’s exactly what I did. I traveled the world, and definitely FULLY enjoyed myself in each location. But don’t forget somehow people think that I’m a movement, a cause, something to donate to.
Crowdfunding is the newest form of media mobilization. Instead of a potluck dinner like back in the day, where you met who you were funding for, now you just read their stories online and call it good enough. Sending money for multiple causes, does that make you an activist? Say every year you donate $30,000 in crowdfunding, can you call yourself an activist, or charitable? Is it easier to pull out your phone and donate money than to send a check with a letter of appreciation, or to meet the person at a potluck dinner? We are in time where time literally is an issue, sometimes the quick form of activist and charitable titles can be attained by just clicking send on Bank of America or donate on GoFundMe. It pulls us further and further from the cause but yet we still call ourselves activists and charitable, but are we really?
My time abroad was amazing and it truly changed me, but am I really a cause, or revolution, or something worthy to be donated to? Did I sugar coat the truth enough? Or too much?
I decided to read “Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted” by Malcolm Gladwell for this weeks post. I found this reading extremely interesting and found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with some of the opinion presented. I believe that social media helps to spread information and bring awareness to many different topics and concerns. People are able to voice their opinions and ask people to help support a cause. We are able to ask others to help us in a way that we were not able to before. The article also talks about how great revolutions and movements have had a central leader to assign roles and responsibilities. Facebook groups and hashtags on twitter, though helpful on spreading the word, often do not have a leader who will take charge.
“By not asking too much of them. That’s the only way you can get someone you don’t really know to do something on your behalf…It doesn’t require that you confront socially entrenched norms and practices. In fact, it’s the kind of commitment that will bring only social acknowledgement and praise.” This quote perfectly embodies what happens on social media. People easily retweet, donate money, and repost to try to help out.
Big changes such as the Greensboro sit in that was spoken about in the article will not happen with millions of people sitting behind their computers or iPhone screens. People are willing to do a quick thing to help someone in need, but people are not willing to put their reputations on the line. I believe people put their beliefs after things like their reputation or their job. People will not protest if they are told they will lose their job or be seen in a negative light from that point on.