Web 2.0 Vs P2P – modelos inconciliáveis de partilha e cooperação

Após ler “InfoEnclosure 2.0″ de Dmytri Kleiner e Brian Wyrick, tudo o que eu tenho andado a dizer por aqui nos últimos meses ganha mais sentido do que nunca. Neste artigo, eles denunciam o modelo de negócio da Web 2.0 enquanto apropriação privada do valor gerado pela comunidade, como ficou escandalosamente evidente aquando da aquisição da YouTube pelo Google. Apesar de permitirem que os membros da comunidade criem, modifiquem e partilhem conteúdos de um modo que até recentemente seria bastante complicado e moroso, esses sites acabam por trair a promessa de partilha de cultura e de livre cooperação, uma vez que o valor acaba quase sempre nas mãos dos investidores de capital de risco, não sendo raro que os próprios conteúdos se tornem propriedade dos detentores do site.

Em oposição a este modelo de controlo centralizado de partilha e colaboração, sempre à mercê dos caprichos dos accionistas, a arquitectura descentralizada das redes P2P – uma vez que estas não são propriedade de ninguém – não tem em conta os interesses de outros que não os dos próprios utilizadores. Isto oferece enormes vantagens não só a nível da eficiência de utilização dos recursos de rede e de infra-estrutura tecnológica necessária, mas também de liberdade de expressão e privacidade. Talvez isso explique porque é que o dinheiro tenha afluído mais na direcção dos sites da Web 2.0… E talvez seja devido a isso que o Mark Cuban tem razão, embora não da forma que ele pensa. Do artigo:

The value produced by users of Web 2.0 services such as YouTube is captured by capitalist investors. In some cases, the actual content they contribute winds up the property of site owners. Private appropriation of community created value is a betrayal of the promise of sharing technology and free cooperation.
(…)
From a technological stand point, distributed and peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies are far more efficient than Web 2.0 systems. Making better use of network resources by using the computers and network connections of users, P2P avoids creating bottlenecks created by centralised systems and allows content to be published with less infrastructure, often no more than a computer and a consumer internet connection. P2P systems do not require the massive data centres of sites such as YouTube. The lack of central infrastructure also comes with a lack of central control, meaning that censorship, often a problem with privately-owned ‘communities’ that frequently bend to private and public pressure groups and enforce limitations on the the kinds of content they allow. Also, the lack of large central cross-referencing databases of user information has a strong advantage in terms of privacy.

From this perspective, it can be said that Web 2.0 is capitalism’s preemptive attack against P2P systems. Despite their many disadvantages in comparison to these, Web 2.0 is more attractive to investors, and thus has more money to fund and promote centralised solutions. The end result of this is that capitalist investment flowed into centralised solutions making them easy and cheap or free for non-technical information producers to adopt. Thus, this ease of access compared to the more technically challenging and expensive undertaking of owning your own means of information production created a ‘landless’ information proletariat ready to provide alienated content-creating labour for the the new info-landlords of Web 2.0.
(…)
The mission of Web 2.0 is to destroy the P2P aspect of the internet. To make you, your computer, and your internet connection dependent on connecting to a centralised service that controls your ability to communicate. Web 2.0 is the ruin of free, peer-to-peer systems and the return of monolithic ‘online services’. A telling detail here is that most home or office internet connections in the ’90s, modem and ISDN connections, were synchronous – equal in their ability to send and receive data. By design, your connection enabled you to be equally a producer and a consumer of information. On the other hand, modern DSL and cable-modem connections are asynchronous, allowing you to download information quickly, but upload slowly. Not to mention the fact that many user agreements for internet service forbid you to run servers on your consumer circuit, and may cut off your service if you do.

Capitalism, rooted in the idea of earning income by way of idle share ownership, requires centralised control, without which peer producers have no reason to share their income with outside shareholders. Capitalism, therefore, is incompatible with free P2P networks, and thus, so long as the financing of internet development comes from private shareholders looking to capture value by owning internet resources, the network will only become more restricted and centralised.

O artigo de Kleiner e Wyrick faz parte do mais recente número da Mute dedicado ao tema “Web 2.0: Man’s Best Friendster?

Se gostou deste artigo, porque não deixa a sua opinião nos comentários e subscreve o feed de RSS? Obrigado!

Não existem artigos relacionados.