Cyberculture

Not to be confused with Cyber subculture.

Cyberculture or computer culture is the culture that has emerged, or is emerging, from the use of computer net- works for communication, entertainment, and business. Internet culture is also the study of various social phe- nomena associated with the Internet and other new forms of the network communication, such as online commu- nities, online multi-player gaming, wearable computing, social gaming, social media, mobile apps, augmented re- ality, and texting,[1] and includes issues related to identity, privacy, and network formation. 

Since the boundaries of cyberculture are difficult to de- fine, the term is used flexibly, and its application to specific circumstances can be controversial. It gener- ally refers at least to the cultures of virtual communi- ties, but extends to a wide range of cultural issues re- lating to "cyber-topics”, e.g. cybernetics, and the per- ceived or predicted cyborgization of the human body and human society itself. It can also embrace associated in- tellectual and cultural movements, such as cyborg theory and cyberpunk. The term often incorporates an implicit anticipation of the future.
The Oxford English Dictionary lists the earliest usage of the term “cyberculture” in 1963, when A.M. Hilton wrote the following, “In the era of cyberculture, all the plows pull themselves and the fried chickens fly right onto our plates.”[3] This example, and all others, up through 1995 are used to support the definition of cyberculture as “the social conditions brought about by automation and computerization.”[3] The American Heritage Dictio- nary broadens the sense in which “cyberculture” is used by defining it as, “The culture arising from the use of com- puter networks, as for communication, entertainment, work, and business”.[4] However, what both the OED and the American Heritage Dictionary miss is that cybercul- ture is the culture within and among users of computer networks. This cyberculture may be purely an online cul- ture or it may span both virtual and physical worlds. This is to say, that cyberculture is a culture endemic to online communities; it is not just the culture that results from computer use, but culture that is directly mediated by the computer. Another way to envision cyberculture is as the electronically enabled linkage of like-minded, but poten- tially geographically disparate (or physically disabled and hence less mobile) persons.

Cyberculture is a wide social and cultural movement closely linked to advanced information science and information technology, their emergence, development and rise to social and cultural prominence between the 1960s and the 1990s. Cyberculture was influenced at its genesis by those early users of the internet, frequently in- cluding the architects of the original project. These indi- viduals were often guided in their actions by the hacker ethic. While early cyberculture was based on a small cul- tural sample, and its ideals, the modern cyberculture is a much more diverse group of users and the ideals that they espouse.

Numerous specific concepts of cyberculture have been formulated by such authors as Lev Manovich,[5][6] Arturo Escobar and Fred Forest.[7] However, most of these concepts concentrate only on certain aspects, and they do not cover these in great detail. Some authors aim to achieve a more comprehensive understanding distin- guished between early and contemporary cyberculture (Jakub Macek),[7] or between cyberculture as the cul- tural context of information technology and cyberculture (more specifically cyberculture studies) as “a particular approach to the study of the 'culture + technology' com- plex” (David Lister et al.).[8]

2 Manifestations of cyberculture
Manifestations of Cyberculture include various human interactions mediated by computer networks. They can be activities, pursuits, games, places and metaphors, and include a diverse base of applications. Some are sup- ported by specialized software and others work on com- monly accepted web protocols. Examples include but are not limited to:
3 Qualities of cyberculture

First and foremost, cyberculture derives from traditional notions of culture, as the roots of the word imply. In non- cyberculture, it would be odd to speak of a single, mono- lithic culture. In cyberculture, by extension, searching for a single thing that is cyberculture would likely be prob- lematic. The notion that there is a single, definable cy- berculture is likely the complete dominance of early cyber territory by affluent North Americans. Writing by early

proponents of cyberspace tends to reflect this assumption
(see Howard Rheingold).[9]
The ethnography of cyberspace is an important aspect of cyberculture that does not reflect a single unified culture. It “is not a monolithic or placeless 'cyberspace'; rather, it is numerous new technologies and capabilities, used by diverse people, in diverse real-world locations.” It is malleable, perishable, and can be shaped by the vagaries of external forces on its users. For example, the laws of physical world governments, social norms, the architec- ture of cyberspace, and market forces shape the way cy- bercultures form and evolve. As with physical world cul- tures, cybercultures lend themselves to identification and study.
There are several qualities that cybercultures share that make them warrant the prefix “cyber-“. Some of those qualities are that cyberculture:

• Is a community mediated by ICTs.
  
• Is culture “mediated by computer screens.”[10]
  
• Relies heavily on the notion of information and knowledge exchange.
  
• Depends on the ability to manipulate tools to a de- gree not present in other forms of culture (even ar- tisan culture, e.g., a glass-blowing culture).
  
• Allowsvastlyexpandedweaktiesandhasbeencriti- cized for overly emphasizing the same (see Bowling Alone and other works).
  
• Multiplies the number of eyeballs on a given prob- lem, beyond that which would be possible using tra- ditional means, given physical, geographic, and tem- poral constraints.
  
• Is a “cognitive and social culture, not a geographic one.”[11]
  
• Is “the product of like-minded people finding a com- mon ‘place’ to interact.”[12]
  
• Is inherently more “fragile” than traditional forms of community and culture (John C. Dvorak).
  Thus, cyberculture can be generally defined as the set of technologies (material and intellectual), practices, atti- tudes, modes of thought, and values that developed with cyberspace.[13]
  
  
  4 Identity - “Architectures of cred- ibility”
  Cyberculture, like culture in general, relies on establish- ing identity and credibility. However, in the absence of
  

  4 IDENTITY - “ARCHITECTURES OF CREDIBILITY”
  direct physical interaction, it could be argued that the pro- cess for such establishment is more difficult.
  How does cyberculture rely on and establish identity and credibility? This relationship is two way, with identity and credibility being both used to define the community in cyberspace and to be created within and by online com- munities.
  In some senses, online credibility is established in much the same way that it is established in the offline world; however, since these are two separate worlds, it is not sur- prising that there are differences in their mechanisms and interactions of the markers found in each.
  Following the model put forth by Lawrence Lessig in Code: Version 2.0,[14] the architecture of a given online community may be the single most important factor regu- lating the establishment of credibility within online com- munities. Some factors may be:
  

  • Anonymous versus Known
    
  • Linked to Physical Identity versus Internet-based
    Identity Only
    
  • Unrated Commentary System versus Rated Com- mentary System
    
  • Positive Feedback-oriented versus Mixed Feedback (positive and negative) oriented
    
  • Moderated versus Unmoderated
    

  4.1 Anonymous versus known
  See also: Anonymous post
  
  Many sites allow anonymous commentary, where the user-id attached to the comment is something like “guest” or “anonymous user”. In an architecture that allows anonymous posting about other works, the credibility be- ing impacted is only that of the product for sale, the original opinion expressed, the code written, the video, or other entity about which comments are made (e.g., a Slashdot post). Sites that require “known” postings can vary widely from simply requiring some kind of name to be associated with the comment to requiring registration, wherein the identity of the registrant is visible to other readers of the comment. These “known” identities al- low and even require commentators to be aware of their own credibility, based on the fact that other users will as- sociate particular content and styles with their identity. By definition, then, all blog postings are “known” in that the blog exists in a consistently defined virtual location, which helps to establish an identity, around which cred- ibility can gather. Conversely, anonymous postings are inherently incredible. Note that a “known” identity need have nothing to do with a given identity in the physical world.
  
  
  Linked to physical identity versus internet-based identity only
  Architectures can require that physical identity be asso- ciated with commentary, as in Lessig’s example of Coun- sel Connect.[15] However, to require linkage to physi- cal identity, many more steps must be taken (collecting and storing sensitive information about a user) and safe- guards for that collected information must be established- the users must have more trust of the sites collecting the information (yet another form of credibility). Irrespec- tive of safeguards, as with Counsel Connect,[15] using physical identities links credibility across the frames of the internet and real space, influencing the behaviors of those who contribute in those spaces. However, even purely internet-based identities have credibility. Just as Lessig describes linkage to a character or a particular on- line gaming environment, nothing inherently links a per- son or group to their internet-based persona, but cred- ibility (similar to “characters”) is “earned rather than bought, and because this takes time and (credibility is) not fungible, it becomes increasingly hard” to create a new persona.[16]
  4.3 Unrated commentary system versus rated commentary system
  In some architectures those who review or offer com- ments can, in turn, be rated by other users. This tech- nique offers the ability to regulate the credibility of given authors by subjecting their comments to direct “quantifi- able” approval ratings.
  4.4 Positive feedback-oriented versus mixed feedback (positive and nega- tive) oriented
  Architectures can be oriented around positive feedback or a mix of both positive and negative feedback. While a particular user may be able to equate fewer stars with a “negative” rating, the semantic difference is potentially important. The ability to actively rate an entity negatively may violate laws or norms that are important in the juris- diction in which the internet property is important. The more public a site, the more important this concern may be, as noted by Goldsmith & Wu regarding eBay.[17]
  4.5 Moderated versus unmoderated
  Architectures can also be oriented to give editorial con- trol to a group or individual. Many email lists are worked in this fashion (e.g., Freecycle). In these situations, the architecture usually allows, but does not require that con- tributions be moderated. Further, moderation may take two different forms: reactive or proactive. In the reactive
  

  mode, an editor removes posts, reviews, or content that is deemed offensive after it has been placed on the site or list. In the proactive mode, an editor must review all contributions before they are made public.
  In a moderated setting, credibility is often given to the moderator. However, that credibility can be damaged by appearing to edit in a heavy-handed way, whether reac- tive or proactive (as experienced by digg.com). In an un- moderated setting, credibility lies with the contributors alone. It should be noted that the very existence of an architecture allowing moderation may lend credibility to the forum being used (as in Howard Rheingold’s exam- ples from the WELL),[9] or it may take away credibility (as in corporate web sites that post feedback, but edit it highly).