Individual/social aspect of sharing
I've been thinking a lot about the notion of sharing (on the Internet), how it can both serve an individual's self interest and contribute to a larger social knowledge base. Tagging bookmarks on del.icio.us, for example, is one way we serve our own interest (cataloging our links) and contribute to a collective interest (the application provides links to others who have found and tagged the same item).

Lurking
In this regard, I have developed a fascination with the literal idea of lurking. On the outside, it carries a kind of creepy connotation, lascivious even. Another way to think about this type of non-participatory viewing might include spying or espying: we act as watchers, we take notes, we peek around the corner catching a glimpse of our target stepping into a cab. It almost sounds melodramatic. As I recall (trans. no authority), the term lurking as it relates to cyberspace dates back to a usage associated with MUDs and MOOs where people entered a room and then said nothing while others chatted all around them.

Social networking as (e)spyware?
Yet, when you begin to really look closely, lurking and espying represent a large amount of what happens on the Web. I am not suggesting any malicious intent is necessarily involved by those who prefer to look rather than participate. Social networking sites encourage us to search and browse, to share and compare. That's what friends do, right? RSS and aggregators, for example, automate our ability to eavesdrop on conversations around the globe. But on the Web, eavesdropping is necessarily encouraged. And what we're seeing on the Web is not secret, per se. Eavesdropping on the Web is a way to learn things you might not learn if you were directly looking for a particular answer. On the Web, voyeurism is implicit and might not necessarily symbolize a deviant act. [Of course, it can be quite the deviant act when people use social networking sites for purposes other than interacting truthfully.]

Friends
Friends share. So people who don't share are not your friends, right? So what do we call people who we share with who are not our friends? Residue? By standers? Neutrons? What greater affect does not sharing or participating create? Global warming? War? Famine? A surplus of antique lamps no one will buy on eBay?

Agora
Ideally, the various social and participatory applications available to us can serve us as an agora, not necessarily a marketplace, in a capitalist sense, but more like the Greek verb ageiro which means to gather. The Web affords a means of convergence of commercial and civic life that can be more than about buying and selling merchandise--it can also serve as a place where people can freely examine a wide range of ideas and ideals. Which we are doing now.

Reflection as Action
But the next step requires us to be reflective. The Internet and Web have afforded us an opportunity to re-examine and re-define our morals, our communities, our nations, and the globe. But will these conversations be limited to only a few? What mechanisms are in place to encourage and support a wide range of thought and activity? Perhaps now that we have the ability to connect one-to-one-one-to-many, we should begin thinking about how to harness this collective social power and turn it into meaningful social action, promote open and meaningful dialogue, and serve as a platform for experimentation built on a wide range of perspectives. This is already happening in many ways and will, no doubt, continue to grow and become part of the water. But it should never be taken for granted. If the last U.S. presidential regime has taught us anything, it's that freedom is just another word for everything to lose.

Is the tent too big? Is there such a thing as too many voices in a democracy?  I think we need to explore these ideas more and continue to experiment on smaller scales to see how social software can serve as both a personal learning environment (PLE) and support positive social action.

As always, your thoughts and corrections are encouraged.