In his article “Between Democracy and Spectacle: The Front-End and Back-End of the Social Web,” Felix Stalder analyzes the unique differences between the “front-end,” user dominated side of the Web, and the “back-end,” owner dominated side, the back-stage area. The front-end is the side that the average user is most familiar with: user interfaces, social media profiles, the front page of your favorite blog. The back-end, however, has even more to do with the way the Web functions in our social lives. This is where what we see on our various screens is controlled, manipulated the authors, owners, and corporations behind almost everything we view online in an average day. Stadler argues that with the strength of the vast number of individuals contributing to the front-side of the web, the “organizations” at the helm in the back-end should not be in any more control of the web than the front-end users. This, however, as he points out, is just to good to be true with the current structure of Web 2.0 at large. There is simply too much money at stake, at least for now. Citing a quote from Clay Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody,” “we are used to a world where little things happen for love, and big things happen for money…. Now, though, we can do big things for love.” While that was sound a bit utopian given a Web structure that currently aligns more with the back-end of things, the individuals at the front have been working towards such a goal for some time now. Resources like Wikipedia, various crowd-funding websites and services, and the myriad of personal, not-for profit blogs that thousands of users read and contribute to every day, are making it clear that we, the common users, do want to big things for love; for the love of communication, community, and the advancement of knowledge and creativity. As the two competing sides of the Web continue to push and pull at one another as time goes on and technologies evolve, it is important to remember that both sides do have their place. As a common user, I want easy access to search engines and social media; no part of me wants to have to work for Google in order to search for restaurant phone numbers and driving directions. That also does not mean that I want them aggregating all of my internet activity to target me with heavily researched ad placement, but for now, that’s the case. How can we change this, from the front-end? And what will we have to concede here in order to gain there?
A Clay Shirky TEDTalk:
I agree that both sides - front-end users and back-end companies - have purposes to serve and must coexist. Without front-end users, the applications built by back-end companies are meaningless. Without back-end companies developing these applications, users have nothing to use. In order for both parties to benefit from this relationship, I feel that both parties must be willing to accept the demands and needs of the other. While we may not appreciate the ads that may take away from our Google experience, we must remember that without the revenue from these ads, Google may not be able to afford the time and efforts that go into creating a free yet powerful search engine. At the same time, Google should respond to the demands of its users in order to maintain a user base that views ads and allows it to turn a profit. I believe that we shouldn’t attempt to make the relationship polar and focused more on the front-end than the back-end or vice versa. Polarizing the relationship threatens its existence and in Google's case, many of us depend on this relationship daily. I believe that we should recognize the needs of the company, just as they should recognize ours, in order to continue developments that benefit both parties.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, the TEDTalk on open source development was very interesting. In the past, I only thought of Github as a technology for developers; I had never considered its applications outside of developing open source software.
Like you said there is no easy solution. You do not want to give up your easy access to
ReplyDeleteGoogle’s search engine but you do not want Google to be able to share all of your information to the highest bidder. There seem to be only two possible solutions. For sites like Google, Facebook and YouTube etc. to create a system like Wikipedia. You would have to make donations. While optional if want the site to keep running then you have to make a donation. The other possibility is for you to have to pay for the service. Like a subscription or a onetime fee in order to use the site. They could give you the option to pay and they will not sell your search history or you could you use it for free knowing that they might end up selling your history. I do not think there is an easy solution, but I would think donations would be the best way to go.