Task 1b: The readers and my ideas!

Oh how I do like to get stuck in with a good bit of theory. It's been a long time since my A level in communication but I wonder if there's anything still up there...

Flicking through the reader, it gets straight into the theorists and all that is said about web 2.0.

Web 2.0 in theory, has been created to break down the barriers of communication between people by encouraging what's known as 'participation'. In 2000, Hamilton stated that participation is a 'function'. A function, that works as part of the reduction of barriers to access. He also said that participation can "contribute to the successful building of relationships". 
Now just to expand on this a bit further, because instantly I can see pros and cons.
Before beginning the BAPP course I had no idea what a blog was, and certainly not how to write one. From Hamilton's point of veiw a Blog and other social networking sites such as Facebook, or twitter, break down barriers such as distance, time and money. A brilliant example of this is Skype.

Whilst working for Disney in Paris I used Skype to keep in contact with family and friends 1: because it over comes the barrier of distance by enabling video calls, 2: the barrier of costs, as skype is free for basic use, and 3: the barrier of time: as it would take far longer for me to travel home to have the same conversation.

However, like with everything, there are two sides to this story.

If I am able to pay my bills, do my shopping, chat to friends, follow work out videos on youtube and even date online, where then has my need to leave the house gone. If society has become entirely cyber (in an effort to make things quicker and easier), surely this then inhibits the need and want for genuine social interaction of the face to face variety?

It is always the case that extremists of either party miss out on a lot that goes on in the middle. And I say the middle is without doubt the best place to be! Without web 2.0 many people would not participate half as much with others, who perhaps it is more difficult for them to physically reach. Could it be argued however, that those who do not use such participation methods, put themselves out there more in a physical way by going and networking and visiting friends and family in person rather than dropping them a quick message on facebook?

Ullrich suggests that Web 2.0 services are constantly evolving, and the platforms are developed and replaced (the perpetual beta).

A couple of suggestions from myself:

If I live in an area of complete countryside with little internet access but high hopes of a strong business career....
If I am an extremely physically busy person, constantly on the go, with hardly enough time to sleep, let alone reply to a message on facebook....
If perhaps my financial situation wouldnt allow for on the go technology such as hightech mobile phones and laptops...

I live in central london, I am young, and intellectual and until last week, I was completely off the radar when it came to social networking. I find it hard to believe that some one in a considerably different position would possibly be able to keep up with it all.

If so much emphasis is put on cyber social interaction, are we then promoting social inequality to those who just can not keep up with (as Ullrich said) the ever evolving platforms?