I have to admit, I started my search for digital commentary by Googling “Web 3.0,” just to see what was out there that wouldn’t seem outdated anytime soon. I found a short but poignant Business Insider article called ‘So Can We Please Finally Stop Saying Web 2.0 Now?’ which I clicked on mostly because I so wholeheartedly agreed with the title. I guess that’s effective microstyle, right?

The article points to the dynamism of the web, how it is ever-changing and adaptable to our needs as a society. This is all true, of course, but the article’s most interesting quote reads, “The Web is unpredictable and does not move in discrete steps. It flows. Nobody controls it, and it has no release schedule.”

So why, then, are we so insistent on naming the web’s multiple versions? What characterizes any new “point-0,” and on that note, why have there not been at least 25 so far?

I, for one, agree with the article’s closing statement: “…forget Web 2.0. It’s just the Web. And let there be no ‘Web 3.0.’ Please.”

The first essay of this section, “Nomadicity,” by Todd Gitlin, discusses portable technology – that is, cell phones, mobile internet, and mp3 players alike – as a means by which we can both “control our mood” and “shield… [ourselves] from urban fear.” Though overall I find this essay too poetic and hypothetical rather than practical and evidenced, I do agree with these two sentiments. I know that I often find myself acting just like the man described in Gitlin’s bus-stop example, using my iPod to drown out noises around me and, frankly, so that I don’t have to talk to anyone in the mornings before I’m fully awake. And I know I’m not the only one who has pretended to be texting or reading an email on my phone, so that I didn’t have to say hi to someone passing by on the sidewalk.

Gitlin argues, however, that constant connection comes with a price: others take for granted the fact that we are always accessible, even when we don’t want to be. I admit that sometimes this can be a hindrance – if you put away your phone for a few hours to watch a movie, you’ll probably return to some worry-ridden “Where are you?” texts. But Gitlin is so busy describing technology as an “invasion of solitude” that he doesn’t give any credit to its ability to keep us safe or allow us to get help in emergencies. In fact, these days I’d be incredibly nervous to travel – by car or plane – without my cell phone, just in case I get a flat tire and need AAA or touch down late and have to tell my mom we’re still taxiing. In fact, on page 211, Gitlin refers to this kind of communication as “trivial,” which I honestly don’t understand, as I find it totally necessary.

Maybe the fact that I do find myself saying I could never go on a trip, or even drive my car to the grocery, without a cell phone proves Gitlin’s point that the world is becoming an “omnicommunicative utopia.” But isn’t it better to be always on-call, so to speak – so you’re available to receive important news, make and change plans with ease, and help someone who might call in need – than to be perpetually “offline” and unavailable?

As we all know, part of the allure of the internet is that it allows for engagement with, rather than pure consumption of, information. In the final article of Section Two, entitled “Activists,” John Palfrey and Urs Gasser argue that despite this, we can’t count on it to solve the long-standing issue of civic disengagement (e.g., not voting in presidential elections) among young people in America. They claim, however, that the internet can “become an extraordinarily powerful tool of organization, recruitment, and participation.”

Palfrey and Gasser’s article got me thinking about Punk Voter, a (since discontinued) website that was popular prior around 2003 and aimed to “unite the youth vote and bring real activism back into our society.” The website encouraged ongoing communication between musicians – including some pretty popular ones like Green Day, Sum 41, and Rise Against – and their devoted listeners, who opposed the election of George W. Bush to office. The Punk Voter campaign took a pro-peace stand coming into the 2004 election and was committed to supporting voter registration drives, such that everyone who was eligible would, ideally, go out and vote against Bush.

At least, that was the goal. Of course, George Dubya ultimately won the presidential race, so the campaign wasn’t 100% successful. However, it did encourage young people – especially those involved in punk culture who were likely to view the government as oppressive and purposefully disengage themselves – to become more involved in civic matters. In that respect, I think Punk Voter was, indeed, an “extraordinarily powerful tool”: I myself remember wishing I were old enough to vote so that I could make some sort of contribution (the closest I got was buying their CD).

But this was eight years ago, and the internet has become much more detail oriented since: there are YouTube videos and Twitter accounts highlighting every move of those in the political sphere. Now, I feel, young people use the internet to find out every last detail about a given candidate before they commit to a vote, rather than looking to a general campaign to give them a thumbs up or down. Do widespread campaigns like Punk Voter even exist for the 2012 election? And if so, would voters be as willing to rally together as they were in 2004? Or is this mode of campaigning overshadowed by more specific information, like videos of Rick Perry proclaiming the teachings of the church?

My first step when thinking about this assignment was to check out Prezi.com, since I made it obvious in class that I’d never used the site before and really had no idea what it was about. I thought I’d let the site itself try to convince me of its worth, and luckily there are a few Prezi presentations on the homepage designed to do just that. “About perspective” has the clever subtitle “Why move beyond slides,” which has dual meaning in that Prezi allows you to do something more than a plain old Powerpoint but also emphasizes non-linear movement through text and ideas. This presentation isn’t too lengthy, but it does a good job of highlighting Prezi’s advantages over the simple Powerpoint format.

For my R3, I commented on an article from Salon.com called “The Architecture Meltdown”, which details the how the economic downturn has affected architecture as an industry and a career prospect for recent graduates. My comment, below, is pending and does not yet appear on the site:

“The economic downturn has, as we all know, affected countless professions. As this article harks, architecture is no exception, and with each passing year more architects are forced to cut their teams and dig for possible sources of income to keep themselves afloat. Fair enough – thousands of Americans are finding themselves here, regardless of their college major or professional degree.

The article refers to architecture as “the new English major,” but not all English majors expect to become J.K. Rowling, just as not all architecture majors should (or do) expect to build a renowned New York City firm like Peter Marino. The article does cite that wealthy recent graduates have more room to play, while those who need a steady income to scrape by are forced to work for corporations that might stifle their creativity. But is it possible that earning experience in unrelated fields could one day lead to more interesting jobs in architecture itself? Architecture majors today need to embrace the prospect of branching out – it may ultimately bring them closer to a meaningful career in the field they truly love.”

In writing this, I used parallel structure to heighten the comparison between architecture and English majors. I also employed Johnson’s technique of “creating a scene” by using the specific examples of J.K. Rowling (a famous writer) and Peter Marino (a famous architect), and I wrote in a rhetorical question in order to mentally engage my audience.

When asked to point to an example of one of Christopher Johnson’s style tenets, I thought immediately of a headline I had recently seen on MSNBC: “’Scary Potter’ movie comes to theaters.”  What’s truly coming to theaters isn’t, of course, the teenage wizard’s creepy cousin, but rather a film called The Woman in Black. This headline gets its bite from playing on the fact that this otherwise-generic horror flick is made noteworthy purely because Daniel Radcliffe – known to most Millenials as Harry Potter – is its leading man.

From Johnson’s perspective, this headline utilizes both the concepts of brevity and metaphor.  Its “less is more” simplicity gives no real detail about the movie itself – which is for the best, because it likely doesn’t vary much from other recent PG-13 attempts at horror filmography – but uses its limited space to highlight The Woman in Black’s most striking facet. Additionally, by manipulating the name of a ubiquitous character in American cinema, this title is attention-grabbing, especially because it seems “off” – we’re not talking about the actual Harry Potter, so what is this story about? why is Harry now “scary,” and what’s he doing in a movie following the finale of his series? Regardless of whether you have heard of The Woman in Black, the headline is catchy, and it piques curiousity.

Johnson also suggests that writers use ambiguity to create curiosity but warns against being too vague. My most recent blog post is titled “Things I Can’t Handle, or Why I Roll My Eyes So Much,” which clues the reader in on the content (things that are bizarre or ridiculous enough that I can’t help but roll my eyes at them) but only to an extent. In this way, the title is intriguing and a little mysterious while not being confusing or overly abstract.