If Users No Longer Generate Content

The evolution of the Internet risks a setback, if users reduce the amount of content they contribute to the web. The highly-touted Web 2.0 is intimately linked to user-generated content, or UGC, in jargon. Let's do a thought experiment in which users decrease or even cease posting videos, comments, pictures: this could undermine many of the social processes that are at the basis of the second age of the Internet. Today, UGC generates most of the information mass available daily on the Net and are behind most of the emotional involvement generated by new medium. However, the sheer mass of content makes Web use hard, or simply frustrating. In theory, the Internet is a mine for niche subjects that are absent from mainstream media. In practice, it's hard to assess the quality of sources and, more importantly, existing search tools are inadequate for the job. Four variables could determine a drastic drop in contributed contents. First of all, the low quality and visibility of content generated by users. The excess noise present on the Web submerges UGC and prevents its full valorization. It's not a problem if navigators are mature enough not to expect large pay-offs from their Internet uploads. But it could be a danger if it frustrates users who feel shortchanged by their pro bono contributions. Too many lo-fi videos cause quality videos to stand out, but it can also lead people to subsequently overlook user-generated videos because they're usually bad. Since a large amount of content generates comments that are distributed according to a long-tail pattern, if frequency decreases, quality could soon follow. Secondly, it's increasingly difficult to search for UGC online. Google's algorithmic search is not a panacea, since it obviously underrates UGC with respect to more organized and institutional online presences. And search based on users' tags and bookmarks is still in its infancy. Thirdly, there is the question of the non-erasability of digital identities. Digital reputation and digital identity are both opportunities and dangers. Many of the messages posted online do not share the audacity of oral conversations. As Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, writes in his preface to Throwing sheep in the boardroom by Fraser and Dutta, you shouldn't fence in users because you fear their behavior will be negative or unethical. However, this optimistic position does not consider the fact that when users damage their own digital identity, it's hard to patch it up. Many display lower care for their digital identity with respect to their physical identity, and this also has an impact on office life, when colleagues find out about your online behavior off the job. Scorn is permanent, when it is memorized in social networks. Lastly, the decreasing appeal of social networks, which are becoming less attractive also to younger users. Internet users write a lot, but the tools that generate involvement are still rudimentary. If you are a recent Facebook user, and you have a sufficient number of friends, you get a positive feeling of augmented reality. But after a few months, the thing gets boring because of the quantity and repetitiveness of the information generated by "friends". The so-called "Facebook suicide" (deleting one's profile) has become rather frequent as of late, because the application no longer manages to generate the warmth and freshness that leads to users' involvement.

On the Internet the search is on for a new Google, for a search engine that can really add value to content generated by users. If this occurs, we could well be facing many more years of Internet prosperity and development. If it doesn't, times could get bleak fast.