Shirky, C. What is p2p… And What isn’t?

Not surprisingly, in his article What is P2P… And What isn’t?, Shirky talks about p2p. According to him, p2p involves Internet-connected PCs on the edges of the Internet. In other words, nowadays people increasingly make use of previously untapped resources on ordinary computers that operate outside the DNS System (Shirky 1). Shirky and many others believe that p2p can have a lot of benefits. For instance, it encourages decentralisation and it is designed to handle unpredictability (Shirky 3).

Because there still isn’t a clear definition for p2p, Shirky proposes a Litmus-test. This means that (1) ‘it must treat variable connectivity and temporary network addresses as the norm’ and (2) ‘it must give the nodes at the edges of the network significant autonomy’ (Shirky 3). So, my question is, “is this Litmus-test sufficient (enough)?” And why is it so important that you can decide whether something is strictly peer-to-peer or not?” In the end, Shirky himself says that most likely, ‘users will adopt those applications that use just enough decentralisation, in just the right way’. In other words, the fact that p2p encourages decentralisation is important to a certain extent. Still, sometimes - and for some people or companies - it is convenient to know when something is p2p, and for them I do believe this Litmus test can be useful. However, I also think that most people use p2p without really thinking about it and don’t really feel the need to find out more about its exact definition.      

Rutherford, E. The p2p Report

In her article The p2p Report, Rutherford (also) talks about p2p. However, she pays more attention to what p2p has to offer and what it can mean for companies. Rutherford believes there are three basic divisions of p2p and these are ‘collaborative computing’, ‘instant messaging’ and ‘affinity communities’ (Rutherford 3). Overall, according to Rutherford, p2p promotes the exchange of ‘intellectual property’ and can help save time and money. All of which seems very important in today’s society. So, in a way p2p can be very useful for companies, but it can also cause some problems. For instance, it is not easy to control and often ad-hoc (Rutherford 4).

            At one point Rutherford says that ‘some Industry watchers predict that some commercial e-commerce will start using p2p technology’, and that they may ask money for their service (Rutherford 3). So my question is, “can you still call it peer-to-peer when a company does something like this?” I thought the whole idea of p2p was that different people share all sorts of resources - for free - and information and that there is no central server or database. In other words, although there’s nothing wrong with companies using p2p, I just don’t think you can do this and still call it peer-to-peer (in the strictest sense).  

Boase, J. and Wellman, B. A Plague of Viruses: Biological, Computer and Marketing 

According to Wellman and Boase biological, computer and marketing viruses all behave in the same way depending on the form of network, which is either ‘densely knit’ or ‘ramified’ (or usually a combination). So, in other words, they compare computer and marketing viruses to - real life - biological viruses and believe that different kinds of networks influence how these viruses operate (Boase and Wellman 1). Above all, according to them the spread of these viruses depends on ‘the nature of interpersonal relationships’ and ‘the structure of social networks’. For instance, people known as ‘brokers’ and the way computers are linked to each other play an important part (Boase and Wellman 4).

My question here is, “to what extent can you compare computer viruses and viral marketing to biological viruses?” In a way, Boase and Wellman have a point that all three of them can spread and mutate rapidly, depending on the network. They also say that these viruses often spread without deliberate human intent. To a certain extent this is true. However, computer viruses are deliberately made, and companies often use viral marketing on purpose. As far as I know, this is - hopefully - not the case with biological viruses. Besides, I think viral marketing differs quite a lot from the other two. For instance, biological and computer viruses can be very harmful, but I don’t really see how viral marketing can cause (real) damage. Also, in the end, Boase and Wellman even say that ‘the cultural element of viral marketing sets it apart from biological and computer viral exchange’ (Boase and Wellman 10).