Archives for category: Social Media

Netwar 2.0:

Digital freedom is a person’s right to post/write/share any information they desire on the internet. Some governments around the world are trying to restrict digital freedom, at times without public knowledge as to let such law pass without public debate or hassles. The People’s Republic of China is considered to be the world’s strictest government body in relation to internet censorship and the freedom of digital information.

The introduction of the internet has made it very difficult for companies to protect their products and assets from being freely shared by its users. Maintaining copyright is imperative to protecting its financial value and society’s norms of capitalism.

2 modes of capitalism:

‘Incumbent wing’ – Entertainment companies, which are in favour of the copyright otherwise file/product sharing leads to loss of sales and revenue.

‘Vectoralist class’ – users that feed off this common production eg. Facebook, E-bay, Amazon, Google, Microsoft.

The Vectoralist class aren’t as noble as they would like you to believe as they do it for their own financial gain and benefit whilst making it appear to give liberty of express to its users.

2 sides of digital expression:

– Such software programes offer a horizonal and free structure of information exchange

– Those who criticize this specifically digital capitalism that was founded on data capture

There are 2 types of capitalism stated: Network and Material. They may be slightly different forms, yet they are not completely different or separate from each other. Financial capitalism is very much integrated in digital capitalism. It functions on the same formula of production and expansion, and with some sites/software, continual payments/upgrades (even after the initial purchase).

This will not result in a clash of 2 capitalisms, but instead a reconfiguration.


Anonymous is for digital freedom and provides alternatives to corporate social communication sites. They are in support of Wikileaks and attack any organisation they believe blocks digital expression and freedom. Anonymous are very integrated in the social activist movement, providing multiple channels for political debate amongst users and creating a non-hierarchical environment in the process.

They do not want to associate themselves with leadership or fame. They provide an inverted alternative to the current culture of digital communication. No-one is ifentified with one’s own name, nor do they allow individual attention seeking behaviour. People in Anonymous who more invested in the project have a natural authority, but that does not mean they are more influential as a result. Anyone can speak with the vertical mass media on an individual level, but no-one is allowed to themselves as a representative unless they are involved directly with the given action, or else they face expulsion.

Big Brother is watching you!

It is predicted that the convergence of the net and the streets will only get stronger as time goes on.

Social Media Activism:

Social media is changing the way activism, of a political or charitable nature, plays out in our environment. People are split as to whether it is having a positive or a negative influence. Some argue that social media is “Slacktivism” and clicking like on a facebook page is completely void and does nothing to assist charities to make a buck. It is only providing the user with a false sense of accomplishment.


Classic Slacktivism

On the other side of the argument, is the widely expanded exposure that sharing these links/videos (whether a person contributes their time/money beyond this or not) brings to a greater audience. As Kessler says, the basic act of ‘liking’ something is “the first step in a ladder of engagement”. The ability of social media to instantaneously connect large numbers of people interested in supporting whatever specific issue has never been at the level it is now, by connecting such masses with instant updates etc…without the issues of bureaucracy to stand in its way.

Organising these groups of people can have a significant impact. By funneling the interest of people, some organisations feel that they could turn some of those clicked likes (loose ties) into more active users and create tight ties or “activists” – they’d essentially climb the ladder of involvement by making steps via social media then ultimately head to a gathering/meeting etc to get more involved. It is somewhat of a gateway for the user to deeper engagement in the future.

Social media being incorporated into activism is only in its infancy. It’s a new digital age where providing information to a mass audience can only be improved and grow. The strategies and campaigns of activism through social media are testing new ground, and with time can only improve with its efficiency.

How to Become a 21st-Century Social Activist.

Q. What do you think will be some of the future pros and cons for social activism?

Q. How do you feel about the Australian government’s plans to monitor users online activity?  Safety or Invasion of privacy?

40GB of Data Leaked Using Australian Government Monitoring Technology

Related News:

New York cracks down on social media gangsters


History Of Wikipedia

The term “Wiki” was first coined by American computer programer Ward Cunningham (1949-present). It refers to websites which enable users to generate content by editing information about an event, object or phenomenon as it occurs in reality.

In 2000, Internet project developers Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger established Nupedia, which was the first example of a website which utilized the concept of developing a free encyclopedia for users to generate information for distribution on a digital network.

Initially Newpedia comprised of articles which were based predominantly on the opinions of expert academics. A major flaw in Nupedia’s implementation of an open encyclopedia to consumers was a lack of resources,  strict peer review processes and leadership tensions between Wales and Sanger in the direction of Nupedia.

Nupedia was scrapped in 2003, and Wikapedia was soon formed as a new social platform. Adopting the notion of “Wiki” proposed by Cunningham. Thus enabling wider distribution of information to consumers who could participate in the process of editing of articles on the site.

*The History Of Wikipedia In Two Minutes – Video*

The New Media Literacies

There is a strong role for adults to play in insuring that young people develop a critical vocabulary for thinking about the place of media in their lives and engage in meaningful reflection about the ethical choices they make as media producers and participants in online communities.

The new media literacies is essentially a set of cultural and social skills required by the digital generation in order to understand and navigate the new media landscape.

The emphasis is on Collaboration and Networking; in short a shift of focus from the individual to a focus on community involvement.

 Three Core Concerns: 

The Participation Gap — the unequal access of youths to the opportunities, experiences, skills, and knowledge which will prepare them for full participation in the world of tomorrow.

The Transparency Problem — The challenges young people face in learning to see clearly the ways that media shapes our perceptions of the world.

The Ethics Challenge — The breakdown of traditional forms of professional training and socialization which might prepare young people for their increasingly public roles as media makers and community participants.

Key Skills of New Media Literacies

Collective Intelligence — the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others towards a common goal.

Judgment — the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information source.

Networking — the ability to search for, synthesize and disseminate information.

Negotiation — the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative sets of norms.

The internet has placed new emphasis on the need for schools and afterschool programs to foster a set of cultural competencies and social skills which young people need as they confront the new media landscape that has appeared.

*The New Media Literacies – Video*

Participatory Culture 

The new literacies are almost all social skills which have to do with collaboration and networking. From these come Participatory culture, where individual expression becomes community involvement. Everyone has a role in media literacy. We are all consumers and we are all producers in this digital age.

We are no longer mere ‘audience’ members when it comes to cultural production. We are participants.

 Participatory Culture is:

  • Where there is relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement.
  • Where there is strong support for creating and sharing what you create with other.
  • Members feel some degree of social connection with each other.

These are the ‘special ingredients’ of how Wikipedia functions as a self-regulating process.

Now onto the benefits of Participatory Culture:

  • Opportunities for peer-to-peer learning.
  • A changed attitude towards intellectual property.
  • The diversification of cultural expression the development of skills valued in the modern workplace.
  • More empowered conception of citizenship.

Participatory Culture in Action!

Now a Trip back down Memory Lane With Nicholas Carr

Nicholas Carr in his article is Google Making Us Stupid? talks about the weight of technology and what it is doing to us. In Carr’s article he mentions that ‘the deep reading reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle and that we simply zip along the surface with information processing’ Now what does this mean in terms of Wikipedia, a site where absolutely anybody can edit the content.

 We live in a fast pased lifestyle, everyone is always wanting to try the new faster, smarter better thing in life. We are constantly producing, consuming and wanting more. For this Wikipedia serves a great purpose, you get an extradionary amount of information in just one site, instead of wasting time looking around for what you need.

Clay Shirky states that “Every past technology I know of that has increased the number of producers and consumers of written material, from the alphabet and papyrus to the telegraph and the paperback, has been good for humanity” Is this perhaps true of Wikipedia then?

The amount of reading has increased exponentially. We are reading more than ever in this Digital Information Age!

Personally, as a child of this digital generation, I used Wikipedia for just about anything, especially in school. There was nothing better than just cutting and pasting information that I automatically believed was accurate. As I grew older and became more aware that changed of course!

However this can be problematic if children are not aware of the finer details of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit articles, that means people who have actually studied the field and have a wealth of experience (Expert Paradigms) or those keyboard warriors (Idiots) who know absolutely nothing accurate about the subject matter yet believe they do. Vandalism is another topic continually occuring with Wikipedia, while  blatant vandalism is easily spotted and rapidly corrected such as Jesus secretly being Batman, it is Wikipedia’s more subtle vandalism that people will fall to, such as the date of something in the eighteen century that could easily be changed.

The Life of a University Student!

Collective Intelligence

Collective Intelligence  exploits the potential of network culture to allow many different minds operating in many different contexts to work together to solve problems that are more challenging than any of them could master as individuals.

In this world  nobody knows everything, everyone knows something, and what any member knows is available to the group as a whole at a moment’s notice. What holds a knowledge community together is not the possession of knowledge but the social process of acquiring knowledge.

The possession of knowledge is relatively static, however the social process of acquiring knowledge is both dynamic and participatory.

The Wikipedians bond by working together to fill gaps in their collective knowledge thus continually testing and reaffirming the group’s social ties.

Collective intelligence places new emphasis upon diversity: the more diverse the participants, the richer the final outcome.

Putting the Puzzle Together!

 Criticisms of Wikipedia

  • Increased reliance on Wikipedia.
  • These teachers worry that youth aren’t developing an appropriate level of skepticism about the kinds of information found on this particular site.
  • There are legitimate concerns about the credibility of online information and the breakdown of traditional notions of expertise which should be debated

 How to Combat These Criticisms

Much as educators responded to the debates in the 1990s about “political correctness” and multiculturalism by arguing that we should “teach the debate,” today’s educators should help young people to understand competing arguments about the value of Wikipedia. In this context, it is not enough to construct policies restricting the use of Wikipedia as a source if we don’t help foster the skills young people need in order to critically engage with a site which has become so central to their online lives.

“I can’t believe in any of this information. Nothing is believable.”

This cynical perspective is the antithesis of what the educational experience strives to foster. It is informed skepticism and a sense of the power of communication as a form of action to transform and shape society that educators hope to impart to students.

The emphasis is on Informed Scepticism rather than being dismissive.

*Do you Trust the Information On Wikipedia – Video*

Wikipedia: Not Just an Encyclopidia

Describing it as an encyclopedia emphasizes Wikipedia as a product rather than focusing attention on the ongoing process by which its community pools information, debates what knowledge matters, and vets competing truth claims. Encyclopedias we have known in the past were depositories of an always already completed process of writing and research. Wikipedia is something different.

When you first come to Wikipedia, it really seems like a collection of articles. It seems like a bunch of pages about different topics. Now when you talk to people who are very involved in Wikpedia, it becomes a collection of people who are carrying out a project….Wikipedia was a place where people were coming together to write about the world and figure out what’s true about the world and what kinds of facts are important to know about the world. These are the kinds of things I think students should be doing.” – Andrea Forte

 To the ordinary user, the turmoil and uncertainty that may lurk beneath the surface of a Wikipedia article are invisible. He or she arrives at a Wikipedia article via Google, perhaps, and sees that it is part of what claims to be an “encyclopedia”. This is a word that carries a powerful connotation of reliability. The typical user doesn’t know how conventional encyclopedias achieve reliability, only that they do.”Robert McHenry

Wikipedia is simply one of a broad range of online activities that involve the collaborative and coordinated production and circulation of knowledge. Online games such as World of Warcraft and Diablo encourage people with very different skills to work together to meet challenges that are designed for this kind of coordinated activity; the community may develop its own mods and toolkits that help them to monitor and organize such large-scale activities. Fanfiction sites operate very similar.Through the varying online communities helps young people to think about their own roles as researchers and writers in new ways.

How Wikipedia Empowers

  • Warning Flags – The things at the top of a page eg. No references, In need of attention, expert required.
  • Talk Pages – A place where you can discuss and weigh in about the contents of a page.
  • Neutral Point of View – Means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and is  especially important when Wikipedia’s global status is taken into account.
  • Hyperlinks – Wikipedia taps the power of networked culture by providing hyperlinks where-ever possible; this makes it very easy for readers to return to the original source and weigh its evidence for themselves Eg. references at the bottom of the pages.

    Wikapedia: To Cite or Not to Cite

    The academic skills and learning services of the Australian National University (ANU) recommend Wikipedia as a good starting point when investigating research questions. However it is advised that Wikipedia should not be cited in academic studies.

    The ANU would only allow the citation of a Wikipedia source if a student is effectively able to demonstrate that the article has originated from an authoritative source, with an expert knowledge of a phenomenon.

    As mentioned previously in the history of Wikipedia, the peer review process of articles on Nupedia was scraped and Wikipedia enabled any user to generate content which may be submitted to the online free encyclopedia.

    The ANU values this contribution of Wikipedia as an online source suggesting that Wikipedia offers:

    • Up to date entries on the most recent phenomenon or abstract issues
    • A history of discussion of articles, which enables users to see how contributors have arrived at certain viewpoints.

    While the ANU does support Wikipedia as an online source, as an academic source articles need to be treated with caution as:

    • Entries are not specifically written by experts within the field
    • Articles can have biased opinions based on a phenomenon. (eg My opinion of an issue that arises in society, may be different to that of anyone else’s opinion.)
    • Some articles lack sufficient quality in information, Also information can be subject to error.

    Overall as an open source of information Wikipedia is very convenient for gathering up knowledge on a particular subject or phenomenon. However as an academic source, Wikapedia may not be the best tool to cite information, and the better alternative is to adopt empirical research studies.

Is Wikipedia becoming a respectable academic source?

How many humanities and social science researchers are discussing, using and citing Wikipedia?

Lisa Spiro conducted a search into how many Wikipedia references were cited from two leading humanities and social sciences data journal collections. It became clear that there had been an increase in citations by humanities and social science researchers from Wikipedia from 2002 to 2008, which indicates the researchers acknowledge and engage with it. As we are told at university not to use Wikipedia to reference anything, it was surprising to read that Wikipedia was gaining respectability due to the well-known scholars that were citing it. However just because these well-known scholars are citing Wikipedia, surely it doesn’t mean it is a reliable source? Christine Borgman notes “Scholarly documents achieve trustworthiness through a social process to assure that the document satisfies the quality norms of the field”.

Researchers and scholars cite Wikipedia on a diverse range of topics as well as searching for images. Contemporary culture and Information technology were popular topics that many used Wikipedia to obtain information. User’s claim that mechanisms and information technology where among the most reliable content domains on Wikipedia given the high interest of such topics.

After analysing the findings of her research, Spiro came to her own conclusion that there were four main criticisms of Wikipedia. They included:

1: Research projects shouldn’t rely upon encyclopaedias.

2: Since Wikipedia is constantly undergoing revision, it is too unstable to cite.

3: You can’t trust Wikipedia because anyone, including folks with no expertise, strong biases or malicious intent, can contribute to it anonymously.

4: Wikipedia entries lack authority because there is no peer review.

Spiro also declares that Wikipedia’s appropriateness as an academic source depends on what is being cited and for what purpose. User’s should use critical judgement in analysing its reliability and appropriateness. Spiro doesn’t think there should be any shame is citing Wikipedia.

Among some ideas to help make Wikipedia a more reliable source, users think that contributors should be required to use their real name for verification. This would, to some extent, eliminate a number of false statements or accusations. Users also found that non-controversial topics were quite good on Wikipedia.

After reading other articles about whether or not Wikipedia should be cited, I found that there were many academics and scholars that believed that no encyclopaedias should be cited. They should just give you goof background information related to your studies.

Social Ties: Networking Together

‘Social Ties: Networking Together’ by Yochai Benkler was an examination of the effects of the internet on social relations. Benkler begins by describing the two different opposing views on how the internet would affect a person’s social relations. On one side of the argument people were really concerned that this new freedom would fray social ties and fragment social relations, in short a bit of a breakdown of the community, after all communication was the basis for all social relations. You couldn’t have meaningful relationships except by communicating with others, at a face to face level. This dystopian view was particularly strong in the 1990’s when the internet was just starting out.

“Communication is constitutive of social relations”

The other view believed that these new ‘virtual communities’ of the internet would come to represent a new human communal existence, providing more opportunities and ways of sharing human interaction. This emphasis was on ensuring a utopian view, leading to greater equality for all through this proprietary information notion. The more information some one has, the greater the power they hold.

Benkler examined a few studies and papers in order to better understand the effects of the internet on social relations. In Mark Granovetter’s study it was suggested that the kind of human contact that was built around online interactions was thinner and less meaningful. Mark referred to these online relations as being ‘weak ties’ that have been created based on a similar interest or practice. Howard Rheingold’s book ‘The Virtual Community’ also showed similar findings, Rheingold’s observations on online behaviour and computer mediated communication proposed that online relationships are more limited in nature than relationship ties to family and friends and if given the freedom to design our own communications environment flexibly, we would create a system that allows us to strengthen the ties that are the most important to us.

With the internet it doesn’t necessarily make us more social beings, it simply allows us more degrees of freedom. As human beings we have a tendency to do more of what is easier to do than what requires great effort.  Peer production helped make this possible, it offered a new platform for human connection. While it might seem easy and simple, things such as free downloadable software and Wikipedia, actually take a lot of people working together, sharing their ideas with each other, all around the world. It is through these purposes and interests that bring these unconnected individuals together, with whom they interact with, work with and eventually allow a social relationship to thicken over time. The internet allows us to extend networks across space, compress time and alter our experience of proximity. Thus communities are always revolving and changing.


Wikipedia is a great source for first bases of knowledge, however with Wikipedia it invites youth to imagine what it might mean to consider themselves as experts on some small corner of the universe. As they collect and communicate what they know, they are forced to think of themselves writing to a public. This is no longer about finding the right answer to get a grade on an assignment but producing credible information that others can count upon when they deploy it in some other real world context.

Wikipedia assumes an active reader who asks questions about the factual claims presented, the evidence supporting the claims and the sources that were consulted.

There are 6 questions that need to be asked when thinking about the media literacy movement and Wikipedia.

1. Who made and who sponsored  this message, and for what purpose?

2. Who is the target audience, and how is the message specifically tailored to them?

3. What are the different techniques used to inform, persuade, entertain, and attract attention?

4. What messages are communicated or implied?

5. How current, accurate, and credible is the information in this message?

6. What is left out of this message that might be important to know?

If you keep all this in the back of your mind then Wikipedia is the site for you!

Q.  Has anyone in the audience viewed the history of the discussion section in Wikipedia  with regards to how contributors came to their conclusions when writing the article? If so do you believe that their contribution’s are reliable source of information? If not, would you investigate this feature of Wikipedia for research purposes?

Q. Do you personally believe that online relationships can be possible replacements for real world human connections or even possibly more beneficial?

The thesis written by Cote and Pybus concerns several concepts regarding Facebook, including immaterial labour, immaterial labour 2.0 and biopower. In order to understand the relation between these concepts vis-a-vis Facebook, we must first understand what each concept involves. These are explained as follows.


Everyone reading this blog post knows what Facebook is, regardless of whether or not they use it. Facebook will hit One Billion users any day now (Owen Thomas), with 526 million of those being daily active users (Nicholas Carlson). 30% of active users are between the ages of 18 – 25 (Cote & Pybus, pg 15). Facebook is first and foremost a social sphere, a place to digitally ‘hang out’ with friends. Well, that is its what it ‘supposed’ to be used for. People can participate in Facebook by posting their own statuses and photos; and by ‘liking’ and commenting on other people’s statuses and photos. People can also ‘like’ the pages of celebrities, commodities and popular culture, such as movies, musicians and TV shows, with these pages resulting in millions of likes.

Top ten most liked pages

Facebook for every phone 131 million

Facebook 71.8 million

Texas hold em poker 64.8 million

Youtube 62.4 million

Eminem 60.8 million

Rhianna 60.1 million

The Simpsons 54.5 million

Shakira 54.2 million

Lady Gaga 53.2 million

Michael Jackson 51.7 million

All of them went up at least 100,000 likes since I checked them last week. Although Facebook is now in it’s 6th year of being open to the public, it is still growing exponentially. Not just in the number of subscribers; but the amount of subscribers who maintain a presence on Facebook through posting, liking and commenting.

The words of entrepreneur and Facebook president Sean Parker from 2010 movie The Social Network were adjusted by Owen Thomas to refer to the current amount of Facebook users,

“One billion users isn’t cool. You know what’s cool? Two billion users.”

Immaterial Labour

The easiest way to understand what immaterial labour is, is to compare it to our understanding of labour. Workers who are ‘labourers’ usually are in a ‘hands on’ type of job, such as carpentry, painting, or automotive repairs. These are forms of labour which result in a firm product. Immaterial labour is work which does not produce a product, instead it “Creates immaterial products, such as knowledge, information, communication, a relationship, or an emotional response.” (Hardt & Negri 2004, pg 108).

Immaterial Labour 2.0

As the Web evolved into Web 2.0, Cote and Pybus posit that immaterial labour, as introduced by Lazzarato in 1996, must evolve into immaterial labour 2.0. Immaterial Labour 2.0 uses the explanation of what immaterial labour is as written by Lazzarato,

“The activity that produces the “cultural content” of the commodity, immaterial labor involves a series of activities that are not normally recognized as “work”—in other words, the kinds of activities involved in defining and fixing cultural and artistic standards, fashions, tastes, consumer norms, and, more strategically, public opinion.”

Immaterial Labour 2.0 places this into the realm of Facebook. People posting photos, links, and statuses is all a form of immaterial labour 2.0. All this information becomes free knowledge, owned by Facebook to be used by anyone in any way they decide. In this sense, Facebook is training people to become used to divulging information for free, on a constant basis.

Learning to Immaterial Labour and Develop Affective Capacity

When we use Facebook, updating status’, post images, links etc we do so to maintain particular kinds of social and increasingly political and economic relationships. Why do we update so much? Judith Butler (cited in Cote & Pybus 2011 pg 11) believes it is, “To count as a subject and become recognisable”. Facebook is a well known social media network with nearly one billion users worldwide – so we as users see the space as a way to increase our social activity (inviting other users to participate and connect and become part of the public sphere. Facebook has the desire to create a network of friends, establish comparative intelligibility and information circulation.
Jenny Sunden (cited in Cote & Pybus 2011, pg 12)  says that we continue using these sites because the gap between reality and virtual world continues to get smaller and smaller. We used to see computers as a fixed window we looked in to, but now it has shifted, and is part of our daily lives. For example, my phone is now part of my life and comes with me everywhere I go. Facebook is also part of everyday life.  If you don’t have an account you are virtually non existent to a virtual world with nearly a billion users. Even if you do have an account but do not update your page on a regular basis, you are also seen as non existent user. Bianca’s father has facebook but doesn’t use it often, therefore she doesn’t consider him having one. We use the network site to construct what we want to project to other users. You can create a reality of yourself within this virtual world and find common ground with others.

Audience Commodity

In 2005, NewsCorp purchased MySpace for more than half a billion dollars. They did this because there had been a shift in the way people accessed media, and traditional ways of finding out information, such as newspapers, weren’t quite cutting it anymore. Television viewing is also down, with social media websites on the rise.

The word ‘audience’ isn’t really one that can be described to the participants of social networks. While there is a certain viewer aspect to it, it is more active, with people able to comment on things as they happen, instead of waiting to discuss them around the water cooler at work the next day. The viewer is also the creator. You can comment on things as they happen, which is participation, this can refer to television shows, or political events. “We have shifted from the static world of the couch potato to the dynamic one of the blogger or social media, busily updating.” (Cote and Pybus) These days, instead of waiting for the 6pm news, we can find out things as they happen. Whether its world events or whether your friend is having a party on Saturday, and who is attending.

Digital Archive of the Self.

In order for Facebook to increase its value, it has to encourage users to stick with them and use it more, no matter what changes they make to it. Due to the nature of social media, websites can die as quickly as they become popular and this is not what Facebook wants to happen. They want to continue being the main social media website that people visit, not go the way of Friendster and MySpace.

Facebook is a digital archive. This is different from regular archives because it’s not just read only. Users can change material, offer opinions, and all sorts of other things. Your Facebook profile becomes a digital archive of yourself. It contains your personal information like your date of birth, it has photos of you, it remembers where you’ve been. It is “always in the middle of being updated”. (Cote and Pybus)

Facebook Terms of Services

Whether you realise or not, Facebook owns everything you post on it. Their terms of service, something that few people actually read, details the below:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publically perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works, and distribute any User Content [remotely related to you].

This is part of the capitalistic nature of Facebook, because they are a money making enterprise and they can use your information to sell ads, and such.

Coté, M, & Pybus, J, 2011, Immaterial Labour 2.0. or, Learning to Like Social Networks, Oliver Leistert
& Theo Röhle (eds.)

Hardt, M, & Negri, A, 2000, Empire, Harvard university press, London, England

Hardt, M, & Negri, A, 2000, Empire, Harvard university press, London, england