Public Acess Vs. Web 2.0

Ostensibly, both Public Access Television, and Web 2.0 applications such as Youtube and facebook, would allow one a platform through which to freely broadcast their ideas. However, it is clear that there has been a radical break in the tradition of community media with the policies, business plans, and objectives of many of the most popular of the Web 2.0 applications.

The corporate slogan of Youtube is 'Broadcast Yourself,' is seemingly identical to what Ms. Dane urged our class, and continually urges Williamstown, to take part in. A few key differences, though, can illustrate the conceptual divide. Most importantly, Willinet is not-for-profit, while Youtube and the vast balance of other popular (YT's founder references them with the term "killer" [link]) applications are public or private corporations with multi-million-dollar or higher net worths. Others differences include the focus on entertainment of Web 2.0 vs. the focus on community of Willinet; it should also be noted that Web 2.0 apps utilize the rhetoric of a community-based focus (eg. "Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected." [link]) and the associated ethos. That ethos is actually acted upon, and indeed one of the pillars of the public access movement. Finally, other differences include (ref. above) the high saturation of advertisements on Web 2.0 sites (often targeted to a user's various demographics through the obligatory data mining that is a contractual part of sites such as facebook [link]) versus the non-commercialism of public access (as well as the relative simplicity of its contracts).

Censorship is an area of particularly marked differences between Web 2.0 and Public access; public access near-to, or completely without, censorship of any kind in terms of both the content it airs and the access to technology is provides. Web 2.0 utilizes at least two distinct kinds of censorship, the first being user-generated and the second being application or company generated. As Newitz notes, these two modes are interlocking, so that users censor each other with the express permission, help, and encouragement of the managers of a given app (link).

Web 2.0 applications that avoid the pitfalls of misleading collaborative rhetoric, unwitting user exploitation, and a market-based approach are a rarity, but not altogether absent from the internet. One site (that is arguably a Web 2.0 app) of this genera is Craigslist.com, a worldwide classified listing and discussion board provider. However, even Craigslist, a paragon of user-oriented collaboration, utilizes the same flagging system of peer censorship seen on more conventional sites. Also, it should be noted that although Craigslist is nominally non-monetized, users working for free, as Scholtz notes, are the generative force behind its profit margins.