This is another useful aspect of virtual communities which we haven't discussed yet: the fact that in some places face-to-face interaction is difficult enough to impede community building. In some rural areas, people live so far from their neighbors, they cannot expect social interaction on a daily basis. Online communication could allow people in these areas to benefit from idea exchange which they cannot get by visiting a neighbor. However, when the technology could do more harm than good is if it becomes an excuse not to organize any meetings at all. Even if people are far apart, periodically travelling the distance needed to meet up is worth building up a sense of community. In such meetings, many people agree to come together in a central location to make decisions and create based on a common interest. Because getting online on a daily basis is realistic, communication vie the web could be a productive complement to these meetings, allowing people to share follow up questions, ideas, or concerns. A sort of parallel could be drawn with our class, in which we meet twice a week to talk, and during the rest of the time share interesting things or ask questions by posting on slack.

This strikes me as highly successful considering the difficulty citizens often face in trying to make change. These days, I hear again and again of citizens' resistance failing. However, these are usually cases of fighting against corporate greed. What Rheingold mentions here is calling on the county to make a change. Fighting against unwanted development by a corporate power is a different thing. Nevertheless, if this internet effort was so successful maybe those looking to fight corporations could strengthen a movement by looking into more net strategies.

Whether or not this is true, it reminds us the reader of how interesting it cane be to think about the origins of the things we use every day. Something as casual as an internet group communication medium could have started from efforts to communicate during the Berlin crisis and airlift. Just like the internet itself, large and lofty beginnings led to the development of a casual, everyday tool.

His parallel is totally appropriate. It is interesting that these online communities can be so popular in America where a core cultural value is individuality. Perhaps it is partly due to this core value becoming overemphasized so that it hinders the development of cohesive and welcoming communities. As Americans, we are so focused on the success of ourselves and our respective families, that less energy goes into creating opportunities to make social connections out in the community. So people look to the web for a source of companionship, where they can so easily reach out to a wide breadth of people. Of course there are places across America where this does not hold true, but it is likely that various communities have experienced such effects from a hyper-focus on individuality.

easy sharing of ideas --> people congregate around ideas --> communities form

The world "culture" comes to mind when I read this phrase. Each community comes up with its own distinct way of managing the world, and that is the community's culture. Of course there are commonalities among many community cultures, and some may even be very similar, but no two are exactly the same.

It seems Brand's idea for the whole earth community came partially from his participation as a member of the WBSI community. Faculty at institutions can form a strong community among one another. To me it seems that they are part of the larger community of the institution, yet they also form their own distinct group within that community. Yet what ended up influencing Brand the most was not his relationship with the entire community, but specifically with Brilliant. They all shared a common interest, but these two developed a longer lasting relationship. On a sort of tangential note, I think it is interesting to think about how and why we connect with certain people more than others.

So presence in the virtual community and the physical community are not necessarily always at odds. WELL members bring what is important to them in their physical community into the virtual space. In this case, the virtual interactions actually helped Rheingold to solve a problem for a family member. However, this is an example of a time when everything worked out fine. It is entirely possible that putting too much trust in an online identity could lead to a bad situation. Rheingold seems able to make sound judgement on this matter, but what about those who might take action on any advice without thinking on it?

Even I, who am not well-versed in technology nor very enthusiastic about the internet, find myself drawn in to the ease of sharing beautiful photos on instagram or how many interesting viewpoints you can read on a blog.

Communities and relationships formed via computer strike me in a similar fashion. I recognize that some successful relationships, projects, and events start online. For this reason, I acknowledge that a sense of community found online can be valuable. Nevertheless, I still place higher value on in-person interaction and engagement.<br> It is interesting how Rheingold has come to care so deeply about the people he met online, but can still see the issue from the perspective of the cynic. He understands how it might seem like a "bloodless technological ritual", but has come to understand it as much more through his personal experience.

this is what makes a community...even though the interaction is taking place online and this may take away from the genuity, a person willing and ready to help can make all the difference in how someone feels about joining a new group, online or in physical form

this is how i felt trying to get to this site and contribute an annotation