Stefania Diaz - Social Capital vs Financial Capital: do users consider Web 2.0 interactions "Free Labour"

Web 2.0 platforms have introduced a new form of communication that
in several cases generates capital. Web 2.0 websites such as Facebook and
Google do use user generated information for advertising purposes which then
generates a high monetary income. Some scholars argue that this unconscious
production of capital exploits users because they are unware that their time
and contribution is unpaid. However, can this “free labour” be beneficial in other
forms? There is a new form of capital that is formed through the process of
online interactions and is sometimes over looked: Social Capital. I will try to
understand if can Web 2.0 interactions be considered “free labour” if the
results are gaining a less tangible but yet still valid form of capital. In
doing so, I will conduct qualitative research by asking Web 2.0 users if they
consider the financial capital that social media companies are generating or do
they simply disregard the concept of “free labour” given that they are also profiting
personally.

Firstly, we must understand how such companies generate revenue on a
free service. Essentially, most of the revenue on the Web 2.0 websites is
generated through ads. Therefore, the value of the consumer resonates in the
information they are able to provide that is largely available to advertisers
through websites such as Google and Facebook, “Web 2.0 capital’s is dependant
on that of its advertisers… from the advertiser’s view point, they are buying
the access to a potential market that may or may not result in sales”
(Robinson, 2015).  Ultimately, there are
no guarantees for companies looking to attract consumers but it is an
opportunity to reach a massive audience of their particular target market,
since Web 2.0 websites already have the statistics necessary. For example, through
a simple profile, Facebook is aware of age, gender, location of residence and
therefore a person in their thirties is more likely to get ads for dating
websites than a teenager in high school. In order to analyse consumer labour
and how to qualify who is “working” Robinson visits Marx’s theory of productive
labour and unproductive labour: “the most basic aspect of productive labor is
that it should produce surplus value and thus contribute to the self valorizing
of capital. This depends in turn on productive labour having a direct
relationship to capital—typically but not exclusively one of wage labour”
(Robinson, 2015). Indeed, it is true that time is generating capital however,
“following Marx analysis on commercial capital, what advertisers are prepared
to pay has no direct relationship to the amount of time users spend online or
the supposed value of their user data” (Robinson, 2015). Therefore, while it
may be true that there is no correlation between time spent and profits, people
providing data is producing money because advertisers buy access to the that
data. If user’s data is being for companies to use and take advantage, then why
do many people still engage and provide information?

There is another form of capital
that is generated for the consumers and while companies such as Facebook are worried about pay-per-click and Adwords, the users are more concerned with the
amount of likes on their recent post. This is called Social Capital and better
explained as “the benefits individuals derive from their social relationships
and interactions: resources such as emotional support, exposure to diverse
ideas, and access to non-redundant information” (Ellison, Steinfield, &
Lampe, 2010).  Since social media has had
such a strong social impact on the ways in which people socialize, it is
inevitable that the interactions that take place on this platform do have
value. A study by Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe suggests that “Facebook use
overall was associated with social capital, there was a stronger association
between social capital and active contribution to the site… users who has the
ability and inclination to engage are more likely to reap social capital
benefits” (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2010)”.  I will like to prove whether of not people
are more concerned with maintaining their social capital and through that, they
undermine the digital labour and the fact that that companies are profiting
from their content being widely available. This is still a capital and
therefore Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe argue that it still has some form of
value: “Social Capital can be understood as a form of capital, like financial
or human capital, that is embedded in the relationships between individuals and
can be measured at the individual or group level” (Ellison, Steinfield, &
Lampe, 2010). It still holds value to the consumer and this is potentially the
primary reason why they contribute largely to these Web 2.0 sites. Therefore,
for social media users on sites such as Facebook, their work may generate a
more significant capital for themselves than it does for the companies who are
“exploiting”.

I believe the importance of this a phenomenon is to analyze if this
can be considered a win-win situation for both parties: Websites and
advertisers make money while users invest in themselves and online presence. I
want to focus on qualitative research and review the importance of interactions
for people with their social media networks and if their knowledge of financial
capital generated through those interactions will impact their contributions.
Do they feel this is fair?