Shirky, C. (2000) What is P2P… And What Isn’t

Shirky says that the “peeriness” of P2P looks to be more like a label than a definition. What’s the difference in this case?

When you label something, you define it and put in the righteous category. When you define something, you tell what it is and try to put in the right place as well. I don’t see why Shirky points out that the P2P can better be seen as a label than a definition. In this case, a lot of definitions are given to P2P networks and it’s utilities. But people label it in their own way, so I don’t understand why there should be a discussion about it if it has no given name in the first place. Labelling or defining P2P makes no difference in the way it is used or called by the people themselves.

Rutherford, E. (2000) The P2P Report

I think the positive arguments and examples Rutherford uses to illustrate the use of P2P aren’t so convincing. Actually it doesn’t sound positive at all. Is a P2P network an improvement at the working space, or not?

I guess not. Rutherford says that file-swapping programs tend to slow down the network when used too much. The positive arguments Rutgherford gives are when you are working in the same place as other employees with a P2P connection, you can contact each other very easily. Also when people want help with finding the right information, like the given example. Now these arguments and examples aren’t very convincing. When you can’t find someone you can always call or just send a message, there is no real reason for using such a network. You can also have a server where all the important data is copied to. When you want something out of that basket you simple log in onto that computer and retrieve what you want. In that case only one computer gets taxed, the other remain fully functional.

Wellman, B. & Boase, J. (2001) A plague of viruses; Biological, Computer and Marketing.

Boase and Wellman describe three viruses in their article A plague of Viruses: biological, computer and marketing. All three kinds have one thing in common; they al use a network to spread. Why do marketers use networks to advert their products?

Boase and Wellman say that there are two kinds of networks. The first is the densely knit network; a network of people who all know each other, and frequently see each other, like a group of friends. The second is the ramified network; a network that contains a larger group, not everybody knows each other directly, and they don’t see each other frequently, like people at their work. Actually the real world is a mix of the two kinds of networks, and this is called a glocalized network.

Though biological viruses, like HIV, and computer viruses, like the ‘I love u’ virus, use these kinds of networks to destroy, marketers use networks in their advance; to advert their product. An ordinary commercial at the television can pass me by without me noticing it. But if my best friend tells me about a certain product, I’m sure I will listen. So viral marketing is used, because the attention of the costumer is much higher. Free sms servers use this concept. The servers have websites on which you can send a free text message to a friend. But you will have a commercialized line attached to the message. So the receiver will get a message like; ‘I will see you around 8. Have a break have a kitkat.’ This can be more effective than a big billboard.

Another reason why viral marketing is so effective is that you trust your friends more than some guy on the television. If a friend tells me his Nike’s are really comfortable, I believe him and might go to the shop to fit them myself. If an ad tells me they are comfy, I know this could just be some marketing trick, and he only says it because he can get some clothes for free.