My name is danah boyd and I'm a Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research and the founder/president of Data & Society. Buzzwords in my world include: privacy, context, youth culture, social media, big data. I use this blog to express random thoughts about whatever I'm thinking.

Relevant links:

Archive

Why Web2.0 Matters: Preparing for Glocalization

Recently, i found myself needing to explain Web2.0. Unfortunately, here’s a term that has been hyped up in all sorts of ways with no collectively understood definition. The Web2.0 conference talks about the web as a platform, a business-y concept that i find awfully fuzzy. Technologists and designers have differing views focused on either the technology and standards or the experience. Even Wikipedia seems confused and cumulative definitions are not inclusive. Buzzwords associated with Web2.0 include: remix, tagging, hackability, social networks, open APIs, microcontent, personalization. People discuss how the web is moving from a read-only system to a read/write system and they focus on technologies like GreaseMonkey, Ajax, RSS/Atom, Ruby on Rails. Of course, others talk about the paradoxical relationship between openness and control. The reality is that when people talk about Web2.0, they’re talking about a political affiliation with The Next Cool Thing, even if no one has a clue what it is yet.

Personally, i don’t find comfort in any of the business, technological or experiential explanations. Yet, i do believe that a shift is occurring and i find myself emotionally invested in it. So then i had to ask myself: what is Web2.0 and why does it matter? The answer is glocalization.

Glocalized Networks

In business, glocalization usually refers to a sort of internationalization where a global product is adapted to fit the local norms of a particular region. Yet, in the social sciences, the term is often used to describe an active process where there’s an ongoing negotiation between the local and the global (not simply a directed settling point). In other words, there is a global influence that is altered by local culture and re-inserted into the global in a constant cycle. Think of it as a complex tango improvisational dance with information constantly flowing between the global and the local, altered at each junction.

During the boom, there was a rush to get everything and everyone online. It was about creating a global village. Yet, packing everyone into the town square is utter chaos. People have different needs, different goals. People manipulate given structures to meet their desires. We are faced with a digital environment that has collective values. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in search. For example, is there a best result to the query “breasts”? It’s all about context, right? I might be looking for information on cancer, what are you looking for?

A global village assumes heterogeneous context and a hierarchical search assumes universals. Both are poor approximations of people’s practices. We keep creating technological solutions to improve this situation. Reputation systems, folksonomy, recommendations. But these are all partial derivatives, not the equation itself. This is not to dismiss them though because they are important; they allow us to build on the variables and approximate the path of the equation with greater accuracy. But what is the equation we’re trying to solve?

On an economic level, globalization has both positive and negative implications. But on a personal level, no one actually wants to live in a global village. You can’t actually be emotionally connected to everyone in the world. While the global village provides innumerable resources and the possibility to connect to anyone, people narrow their attention to only focus on the things that matter. What matters is conceptually “local.” In business, the local part of glocalization mostly refers to geography. Yet, the critical “local” in digital glocalization concerns culture and social networks. You care about the people that are like you and the cultural elements that resonate with you. In the most extreme sense, the local is simply you alone. There is certain a geographical component to the local because the people in your region probably share more cultural factors with you and are more likely connected to you in network terms, but this is not a given. In fact, the folks who were most geographically alienated were the first on the digital bandwagon – they wanted the global so that they could find others like them regardless of physical location.

When the web started, the hype was that geography would no longer matter. Of course, we know that now to be utterly false. But the digital architecture did alter the network structure of society, allowing interest-driven bonds to complement geographically-manifested ones. Web1.0 created the infrastructure for glocalized networks.

Glocalizing Web2.0 Systems

Glocalized structures and networks are the backbone of Web2.0. Rather than conceptualizing the world in geographical terms, it is now necessary to use a networked model, to understand the interrelations between people and culture, to think about localizing in terms of social structures not in terms of location. This is bloody tricky because the networks do not have clear boundaries or clusters; the complexity of society just went up an order of magnitude.

Our first rough approximation at this was the individual vs. the collective. The personal is critical – it is the maximal localization and contribution stems from the individual first. Think about tagging – it’s all about starting with the individual and building into collectives. But the goal should not be universal collectives but rather locally constituted ones whereby one participates in many different local contexts. This is critical because the individual and the collective do not exist without each other; they are co-constructed and defined by their interplay. Individual identity gets crafted in context of a collective and collectives emerge through the interplay of individuals.

Social networks give us a vantage point for seeing the relationship between collectives and individuals. As such, they have been at the root of the Web2.0 narrative. We want to understand how people and collectives are interrelated in order to support local needs. Articulation was the first step but, more than anything, it let us understand how broken our questions are, how complex the structure is. These models are not good enough for Web2.0 but they are a decent initial approximation.

Reputation systems emerge to help localize the social structure, to indicate contextualized trust, respect and relations. Reputation is not a universal structure, but one deeply embedded in particular cultural contexts.

The complex relationship between personal, local collectives, and global must all be modeled in glocalized networks for Web2.0 to work. We need to break out of the global village model, the universal “truth” approach to information access. We need to situate information access in glocalized culture. Folksonomy is emerging as a dance between the individual and the collective; remix occurs as individual and collective responses to the global. They are forms of organizing and situating global information in a glocalized fashion.

Glocalized information access does not mean separate but equal. Instead, globally accessible information needs to be organized in a local context where meaning is made. Recommendations emerge as a way for local collectives to organize information, sitting on top of individual recommendations combined with networks and reputation.

Institutional Structures

In addition to the techno-social systems that are being developed to allow for glocalized information access, there are institutional structures at play. While Open APIs certainly have political cachet, they are also critical to glocalization. People want to slice information for local cultures; this means that the local cultures need to be able to do the slicing rather than rely on institutions that are more likely to create universal organization schemas. No organization has the diversity necessary to build all of the different glocalized systems that people desire.

The structure of companies is also critical to Web2.0 and there is going to be an interesting relationship between innovative start-ups and big corporations. Startups can focus on particular technologies and build for specific cultural contexts, but they do not have the resources to build the larger infrastructure. This is where big companies come into play because they will be the ones putting the pieces together. Yet, the responsibility of big Web2.0 companies is to provide flexible glue to all of this innovation, to provide the information infrastructure that will permit glocalization, to allow for openness. Big companies span multiple cultural contexts but if they try to homogenize across them, they will fail at Web2.0. They need to be stretchy glue not cement. Cement works when you want a global village, when you want universals but it is not the way of Web2.0, it is not the next wave.

Conclusion

Web2.0 is about glocalization, it is about making global information available to local social contexts and giving people the flexibility to find, organize, share and create information in a locally meaningful fashion that is globally accessible. Technology and experience are both critical factors in this process, but they themselves are not Web2.0. Web2.0 is a structural shift in information flow. It is not simply about global->local or 1->many; it is about a constantly shifting, multi-directional complex flow of information with the information evolving as it flows. It is about new network structures that emerge out of global and local structures.

In order for Web2.0 to work, we need to pay attention to how different cultural contexts interpret the technology and support them in their variable interpretations. We need to create flexible infrastructures and build the unexpected connections that will permit creative re-use.

It’s important to realize that Web2.0 is not a given – it is possible to fuck it up, especially if power and control get in the way. Web2.0 is a socio-technical problem and it cannot be solved in a technodeterminist way. Technology needs to support social and cultural practices rather than determining culture. Technology is architecture and, thus, the design of it is critical because the decisions made will have dramatic effects. Digital architecture is unburdened by atoms but it is not unburdened by human tendencies for control. We’ve already seen plenty of digital architects try to control the flexibility of their artifacts rather than allowing them to morph and evolve.

Web2.0 requires giving up control and ownership of information; information is meaningless to someone else if they can’t repurpose it to make sense of it in their context. It is for this reason that technology is not enough – there will be political features of Web2.0 as technological development and cultural desires run head-on against legislation and political support of old skool information organizations. This is why IP and copyright issues are also critical to Web2.0.

Web2.0 also requires keeping local cultural values consciously present at all times. There is a great potential to be problematically disruptive, to destroy local culture while trying to support it. We all have a tendency to build our needs into technology but the value of Web2.0 is to allow everyone to build their needs into the technology, not just those doing the building. Trampling culture would be devastating.

For Web2.0 to be successful, technology and policy must follow glocalized needs and desires. This will be a complex and challenging process full of complicated issues as technologists, designers, social scientists and politicos engage in an unknown dance with very different values and pressures. This dance can and probably will disrupt nation-state and institutional structures; these groups will work hard to stop the destruction of their power. Neither China nor the RIAA really wants Web2.0 to happen and folks like them have the potential to really foul it up.

Those who believe that Web2.0 is the way to go must take on the responsibility of focusing on the people first, to keep them and their needs at the forefront of your mind while you design and build, re-design and re-build. Let the technology and business follow the desires and needs of people. Otherwise, Web2.0 could completely collapse or simply become a tool for the maintenance of structural power.

I will say, it’s an interesting time to be in the Valley. There’s so much potential and i really want to see Web2.0 go as far as possible in supporting a meaningfully distributed glocalized society.

Special thanks to Barb and Marc for helping me think through this.

Print Friendly

54 comments to Why Web2.0 Matters: Preparing for Glocalization

  • web2.0 and glocalization

    I just wrote a rather lengthy essay on glocalization and Web2.0 that discusses the socio-technical aspects of Web2.0. Most M2M readers are interested in social software; this essay is important if you are interested in understanding how social software…

  • Glocalization – a model for Web 2.0?

    Danah Boyd’s got an essay up on ‘Why Web 2.0 Matters’, which is worth reading. In a few sentences (but read the whole thing) – Danah’s arguing that Web 2.0 enables ‘glocalization’, a combination of globalization and localization. Danah’s definition o…

  • Andrew

    “geography would no longer matter. Of course, we know that now to be utterly false…”

    This is a bit of a straw man. If you mean specifically the vague promise of five years ago that no one would need to come to the office to work, well, that was *generally* wrong, but not “utterly false.” I don’t think anyone aside from marketing copy really promised that geography would no longer “matter.” It is certainly true that for certain things and certain relationships, geography is not the *barrier* that it once was, or was assumed to be. If I can now cause a custom 3D object to be printed at a distance from a design I made at home, geography matters an awful lot less than it did before.

    I’d be interested in hearing some concrete examples in this thesis. You write: “the value of Web2.0 is to allow everyone to build their needs into the technology, not just those doing the building.” Well, how? What allowances or affordances can you imagine that aren’t presently there? And can there really be a flexible system that doesn’t implicitly encode values into itself? Is it necessary to arrive at something like human language, which accomodates both precision and sloppy grammar, slang and dialect, and nearly endless reinvention? That’s just about the only “technology” I can think of that can accomodate culture in the way you seem to be asking for.

    Also what parallels with other technologies do you see as at least analagous to this issue? Your last three paragraphs almost could have been written verbatim at any time since the 1950’s. “technologists, designers, social scientists and politicos engage in an unknown dance with very different values and pressures.” So…like always? Which dance did we engage in when those values and pressures were shared? Even in “mature” techno-cultural worlds, like telecom, I’d say those parties barely know how to speak to each other.

  • Web 2.02 (bottom up)

    Peter Merholz has a response up to my Web 2.0 piece. Peter is one of the sharpest commentators and observers…

  • Andrew – i’m not talking about the work-at-home aspect but the virtual community rhetoric that existed in the early stages of the web. Think Sherry Turkle, Sandy Stone (and mostly how they were interpreted). It was the fantasy of MUDs/MOOs – your friendships didn’t have to have local components – you could find the people most like you and build and maintain digital friendships that were just as powerful if not more so than physical ones. Yet, as we’ve learned, most people IM/email/phone those in close geographic proximity not those far far away.

    I’ll try to write more about examples under a separate blog entry. But think about something like del.icio.us or Y!MyWeb2.0. Local groups have come up with different ways of marking their digital traces, what they store and how they tag it. Games have emerged (like in Flickr) where people try to trace funny things down and collect them. Social bookmarking is a process of collecting and sharing, both of which are locally constructed processes with culturally dependent values. You are right – language is infinitely flexible and culturally dependent and much of what we’re building is dependent on language and other organizational schemas.

    I agree with you that the coordination failure of the different parties is endemic to techno culture and it’s something that i’m terrified of as people are embarking on Web2.0.

  • Danah,
    This last comment about being “in the Valley…” is so… I don’t know… “we, in the Valley”-centric… But may be that’s ok… in a sort of a “glocal” way of seeing the world. True, you cannot but look at things from where you stand culturally… or (in a culturegeek speak) chronotopically.

  • Emil – yes, it is the Valley where this rhetoric is emerging and it is fascinating to watch it spiral. While i do believe that it is one of the key centers for current innovation, it is not and will not be the only one. But it is definitely interesting to be here where a lot is going on.

  • Glocalized Networks

    Danah Boyd reflects on the Web 2.0 and its relationship with the local and the global. Here’s a snippet…

  • My life has become internet subscription based

    Or, you could also say “hosted”. 

    This particular site is a “hosted” blog application, that I pay monthly for. 

    I …

  • Why Web2.0 Matters: Preparing for Glocalization

    While I may differ on a number of points, on the whole this was a well written piece that sheds some light on Web 2.0 and Glocalization….

  • Danah,
    I’m just a bit envious… that’s all.

  • Why Web2.0 Matters: Preparing for Glocalization

    Web 2.0 as a buzzword continues to gain traction and interest (though in many ways, it’s simply giving a title to a process bloggers have known for years, namely that information flows both ways…and everyone has a voice). Why Web2.0…

  • craigslist new orleans – web 2.0 in action

    You can find just about anything on craigslist. Bikes, mattresses, futons, stereos, landscapers, moving vans, graphic designers, jobs. You can even find missing persons, or a safe haven thousands of miles from what was once your home. How a…

  • Glocalized Networks

    Danah Boyd reflects on the Web 2.0 and its relationship with the local and the global. Here’s a snippet…

  • The Rise Of Glocalization

    Danah Boyd asked herself, “What is Web2.0 and why does it matter?” It seems that’s the type of thing Ph.D. candidates at Cal Berkeley’s School of Information Management and Systems do in their spare time. Web2.0 is about glocalization, it…

  • Just an FYI, that Firefox 1.5 beta 1 has a problem printing this page on Windows XP at least (only the first page gets printed). You may want to tweak your CSS. Cheers.

  • Wow, best essay I’ve read in quite some time. For me, you did I great job sewing all the treads together. The components (tagging, reputation, apis) all fit together, but it’s difficult to see how. I know we don’t have the answer yet, but you’ve taken us a step closer.

    I was just talking with a coworker this evening, and I said something like “i don’t know why, but the whole ‘show my blogroll plotted on a map’ feature hasn’t got me, yet at the same time i see that we’re headed to “community” and “world” and “local”.

    Anyways, your essay hit me at a great time. Thanks.

  • A VC’s Perspective on Web 2.0

    Buzzwords usually make my skin crawl, but I like the term “web 2.0.” Although there isn’t yet a single, precise definition, people generally seem to be converging on a common framework (see Richard MacManus, Wikipedia, Jared Spool, …

  • grumpY!

    i disagree with your assertion:

    “When the web started, the hype was that geography would no longer matter. Of course, we know that now to be utterly false.”

    really? ask the foes of bittorrent. jurisdiction has replaced geography. i don’t ccare where i obtain my tracker, as long as it is outside the sphere of restrictive IP law.

    again:

    “Startups can focus on particular technologies and build for specific cultural contexts, but they do not have the resources to build the larger infrastructure”

    you are inferring an implicit non-compete clause between the small and large firms in one market. but web startups don’t need competetive peers like google etc, they only really need the infrastructure (hosting, fiber).

    i think your heart is in the right place, but this is just another web2 puff piece

  • Transliteracy and Glocalization, or should it be Glocalisation?

    A rather hefty title for a heavy subject, but one which affects us all. This long post by Danah Boyd is an enlightening articulation of what is in store for us with Web2.0. She says: Web2.0 is about glocalization, it

  • Great essay!! You explained everything very clearly and linked all the areas together perfectly.

    On another note, your area of work and study greatly fascinates me. I myself have a strong interest in Social Software; mainly the business process side of Internet development but understanding the societal and cultural implications of communication on the web; will help in determining what the next wave of applications could be.

    I’ll continue to following you along.

    Thank you.

  • Auf die Ohren

    Wenn man nicht mehr weiss, was man hören soll, macht man sich auf die Suche nach neuer Musik. Dazu braucht man entweder gute Freunde, die sowieso alles kennen und Vorschläge machen oder viel Zahlenwürfelei die aus Musik wieder Parameter macht, eine riesig

  • global village

    I’ve alway though the talk about the global village was a bit suss. In postmodernity creating a global village means that everything and everyone is online all the time. The implication is that geography (place) no longer matters. I’m online most of t…

  • What is Web 2.0?

    A buzzword in its prime, Web 2.0 is a loose label for a variety of tools, techniques and services that are coming together to humanise the web in new and exciting ways … but is it really new?

  • There is much in here to agree with- it is a thoughtful piece and quite relevant to current debates about web 2.0 etc. I particularly like this bit:

    “The complex relationship between personal, local collectives, and global must all be modeled in glocalized networks for Web2.0 to work. We need to break out of the global village model, the universal “truth” approach to information access. We need to situate information access in glocalized culture. Folksonomy is emerging as a dance between the individual and the collective; remix occurs as individual and collective responses to the global. They are forms of organizing and situating global information in a glocalized fashion.”

    But… isn’t it the case that the buzzword ‘glocalization’ seems to be used mostly in an ‘international development’ context, which means that it inherently contains a centre-periphery power relationshiop model? In the real world, whether you are thinking about global-local in terms of geography, culture or whatever, power relations are inescapable and they prevent glocalization being a genuinely two-way process.

    For example, the way the World Bank use the term, they are thinking about ways of promoting and trading with cities independent of the countries and governments in which they are based. Some see that as neo-colonialism and a way of bypassing national sovereignty in poor countries. Also, what does this mean for the rural hinterlands outside the globally connected cities? This question has analogues also in culture as well as geography.

    The tools, like the idea of glocalization, are essentially first-world constructs – there’s not much we can do about that – but I think the notion of *hackability* is far more useful as a way to enable (what I think you mean by) glocalization than a conscious attempt to build in glocalization features, if that makes sense. People will take what you in US give them, and then they will hack them to make them relevant to their own lives and circumstance.

    You talk about “a complex and challenging process full of complicated issues as technologists, designers, social scientists and politicos engage in an unknown dance with very different values and pressures” to include the needs of the “local” in the “global”. How exactly would “local” actors engage with that?

    The best we can do, I think, is to strip the tools of cultural assumptions as far as possible and then make them as hackable as they can be, so that we don’t even need to take a guess at how local groups or actors will use them.

  • Web 2.0 Weekly Wrap-up, 26 Sep – 2 Oct 2005

    This week: Defining Web 2.0, Web-based office, Yahoo media/tv, Google Wifi, Techie Post of theWeek: Tim O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0. 

  • Internet Marketing: Tools or Message?

    What is it about Internet marketing that has everyone so confused? Not the technology – you can always find folks to explain that. Not the creative, either. It’s how you blend them that drives marketers and technologists nuts. It’s a division between t…

  • Lee – i know that glocalization isn’t really the right word because it’s about all sorts of locals and not just geographic ones. I’m trying to figure out a better term.

  • Web 2.0 Cultural Homogeneity and Class Systems

    Whether you love or hate the Web 2.0 meme, you have to admit it’s gained a lot of traction in both tech and business circles. Now we’re beginning to see cultural and sociological posts about Web 2.0, although Danah Boyd…

  • Web 2.0 and Many-To-Many

    So, when this blog started, it was intended to capture various aspects of social software. The hype has kinda gotten taken over by Web2.0. But what is the relationship between Web2.0 and social software? And what about Many-To-Many? Over on…

  • What is the future of the blog?

    During a recent conversation with a friend about blog technology, I realized that there is a definite backlash of sorts against different aspects blogging among some people. I have personally embraced blogging, because I see it’s current and future pot…

  • Danah,

    In the spirit of Web Deux and on the topic of terminology, “glocal” specifically, I’m not sure the analogy fits. And precisely because the networks connected with a more “sociable” web 2.0 have little to do with geography or place.

    Glocalization as I understand the term involves the global economy, and the interdependence of local and global companies, markets, capital flows, and so on. And though it describes the localization of the global, or the globalization of the local (is it both? hm, must look it up), it refers to processes of cultural/territorial de- and re-contextualization.

    Isn’t information always in context? That was McLuhan’s point — the packaging counts. I don’t know that I’d agree that there is such a thing as “universal information” — I think that for it to make sense, it always has to be embedded/presented within a context, one involving practice (often a social one).

    Rather than confuse matters more by trying to explain what I just garbled, I wonder if we shouldn’t separate terminologies: those that describe the media/technologies and those that describe practices. We can argue that there is clustering going on. There are certainly network nodes or nodal clusters, built around affinity groups, communities of practice, even physical centers such as those belonging to local craigslists (where place does describe the network).

    In each of those cases, however, it remains to be determined what the relations are good for, the degree to which they involve social organization, societal order, etc. There’s a susbstantial difference between affinity groups and families, between co-workers, students involved in distance learning, and online daters….

    I don’t know, it might be my proclivity to split pixels, but I think we all need to tidy up our distinctions (and I want to say, untangle our modifiers, but it would mean nothing). There’s no relationship between technologies that facilitate interactions and societal organization; between “sociable media” and user practices, between networking protocols and social networking (and real people dancing do not a society make). While web 2.0 might involve aspects of social interactions, tools are not culture.

    Who was it who wrote (brenda laurel or laurie anderson, though it shoulda been faith popcorn) “we go to the movies, not the projectors.”

    Ok, now back to my navel….

  • First time I saw i-neighbors.org I thought about this concept of “glocalization” or whatever name you’ll use to define Web2.0. The global village is amazing, it’s wonderful how fast and independently I can find a soulmate out there in the world. But, at the same time, it’s stupid how I can ignore dozens of neighbors that could be best friends as well. Who is my neighbor? How can I connect with her/him/them?

    I think that’s already happening to some extent, so I would like to hear more from you, more examples. What are those *new* things that give a proper unique life to Web2.0 – that it is not underway?

    Essentially, I agree with this vision/function of the Web2.0 you’re talking about (if it really is about that), just don’t see that as an antithesis of the global (the web turned the things more reachable and put down a lot of the geographic obstacules, that’s a fact). It’s more of a simbiosis.

  • danah – I particularly appreciate your point about human tendencies for control. To me this relates to both sides – the architecture, and the consumption.

    I agree that architects generally want things to turn out ‘just so’, but hopefully the trend of supporting practice instead of product is getting stronger.

    The trick will be giving folks enough control and visibility into this great big world of possibities, allowing them to find one or more centres they can orbit around.

    I’m not sure everyone likes total, unabashed freedom… I think most of us like knowing where the lines are, even if my lines are different to yours.

  • den

    damnt i dont understand you trobless 🙁

  • Uzi

    “geography would no longer matter. Of course, we know that now to be utterly false…”

    Well Danah, I think that my culture is so much closer to yours than to my neighbour next door.

    In this new world, culture is lessa and less defined by geogrphy…

    Great post though..

  • Uzi Shmilovici

    “geography would no longer matter. Of course, we know that now to be utterly false…”

    Well Danah, I think that my culture is so much closer to yours than to my neighbour next door.

    In this new world, culture is lessa and less defined by geogrphy…

    Great post though..

  • Structured Blogging,The “Del.icio.us Lesson”, Personal Datamining and The Knowledge Commons

    There is a lot of discussion going on in the “blogosphere” about the Structured Blogging. The idea behind Strucutred Blogging is to make a set of standards for RSS and blog software. Here is an article describing this: Structured blogging…

  • Terence

    So can anyone explain to me what Web 2.0 is in a summary?

  • I am no techie, not even sure if I spelled it right, but I am investigating this web 2.0 thing. I gather the basic premise is that it be interactive as in people being able to ‘comment’, just like this.

    If this is true, doesn’t it present a security problem? …by allowing people to read and write? Doesn’t it leave the site open to being hacked? Or am I way behind in my studies.

    Don’t answer the last question, I already know I am, but would like to get answers to rest of questions.

    Thanks

  • asdf

    This page is missing big text and tag clouds.

  • I understand it as a new philosofy that’s brings us nothing conseptually different in the sence of technology but approach.

  • Good article. For “glocalization” to work in real world, we still have to figure out adequate protection measures against spam. How much flexibility is enough but not too easy to abuse?

    We were doing a custom web app for a very big (Fortune 100) company and they really wanted to implement functionality for ratings/reviews; but their legal team would not allow it – since they could not invent a working mechanism to distinguish bona-fide user content from spam and attempts to diss competition…

  • From my point of view Web 2.0 is just the evolution of the web itself. Which is of course going on.

  • I just recently found your blog. I have to say I am at once, in awe of your grasp of the fututre of online social networks and somewhat dumfounded, by your lack of mention of the open source community. In either case, I am truly amazed at what I have learned reading your essays.

    Thanks
    Madmaph

  • Honestly, it’s just a matter of having to focus cuz i don’t have enough time. I have much respect for open source but i’ve left that topic for others to analyze.

  • Hey, this may be off the topic.

    Just in case anyone might be interested, a new online photo community site has just been launched. The site can be found at

    http://www.fotodango.com. It is a place where family and friends can post, share and create photo slideshow/photo effects.

    Regards,

    fotodango.com

  • Hello! I find your essay very inetresting and covering a lot of concepts such as “interenationalisation”; “gloval village” and of course “glocalisation” since I have also written a blog about if but from the perspective of the “International Relations” as a science AND on a personal level (what does internationalisation; globalisation and glocalisations means to you as a person??)
    I would like you to read my blog as well. You have actually ansered my question: i think you describe very well how those systemic processes like globalsiation influence even the software industry…looking forward to hear from all of you!
    global regards,
    e-nternationalist
    http://e-glocalization.blogspot.com

  • OMIDIJI AYOMIDE

    i love being abreast