M8.1

The use of "inclined" makes approaching this question quite thought-provoking. On one hand, in light of the tools available, becoming a produser is almost a natural step of anyone with the knowledge and skills to use such tools. On the other hand one may still remain passive and  choose not to participate in the discourse and absorb it instead.

Personally I do generate a kind of baseline level of online content while using things like Facebook and Twitter to mainly communicate with friends and like/retweet/favorite a few things. I want to infer here that I believe this baseline is taken up by many. It's what one sometimes does in addition to this baseline that is real production in the online social realm. Best put, I think by saying it is something shared online that is accessible both in language and technology, and meant for the wider audience, people you don't know. Speaking in regard to myself, if this baseline was 1 and we're scoring out of 10, I'd be roughly a 4. Every so often contributing something into the ether of the internet.

Concerning a more politically critical perspective, I would suggest the governmental acts and bills like SOPA and PIPA that are acting to dismantle the neutrality of the internet as it stands today. Threats such as SOPA and PIPA have been looming for some time and continue to largely in part to the money that is to be made when providers are able to control who sees what on the internet. At the moment, anyone can make a website about pretty much anything and put it online. In today's savage capitalism that focuses heavily on reducing operating costs while increasing profits one way to do this is to eliminate competition. Because of net neutrality, wealthy multinational corporations have less options, which are more expensive, to maintain market dominance. Should net neutrality be struck down much of what we see online will certainly be heavily influenced by these corporate powers in deals with service providers, and any low bidders will likely cease to exist online.

While some use it solely for Facebook, its much larger than you probably think, here is just a piece of it.

M7.2

Twitch.tv as the URL suffix suggests is essentially a website that involves viewing video to some capacity. However, Twitch's success is in video game streaming and what it adds to this experience is what has made it so popular in the video game community.

With thousands of channels operating at any given time, viewers can open a channel of their favourite game and view and participate via the channel chat room to any degree they wish, as all content is live. Twitch's power to bring people together around the love of games is apparent in the element of interaction. The highly successful project Twitch Plays Pokemon is a testament to this.

Many friendships, relationships and careers have been started with the help of Twitch and its community. It is the beginning of a new trend of the way we game and interact online.

https://storify.com/andrewpause/twitch-tv

M7.1

As most of us in COMM 2F00 know by now, the selection of tools offered to us to participate in the internet are in the hundreds if not yet thousands. And, it doesn't take an education in social media to know that. In the past, citizen journalism was of course very limited and exclusive to those who had the time and money to participate. However, today there are many why engage in citizen journalism more as a fact of life online.

The most major opportunity here I believe is noted by Bruns and Highfield in saying now, no piece of journalism is ever finished in a sense. Sure there are "final" versions that make it to the news papers or the news corporation's website, but in this day of social integration via the internet the story will always evolve further and relatively easily through today's social media technologies. Hermida largely agrees with Bruns and Highfield on the new constructive nature of journalism and offers the explanation that professional journalists today act more so as curators of information rather than the ultimate authorities they used to be. Although, yes they do have some bias and authority that can come through their interpretations. This, I think, has diminished over the years since the internet boom and is even accounted for by the vast majority of citizen journalists.

I definitely believe all of these new tools encourage the majority of people online to participate. After all, it is what drives traffic. High engagement of online content is largely what many of new journalists are after. The more sharing options an article or other piece of news has increase its potential to be shared among circles of Facebook friends, to start being retweeted, and to become completely viral. Compatibility with the current major hubs of this type of social sharing like Facebook and Twitter is a must in this new world if your goal is widespread, participatory coverage.

When it comes to me personally, I also have to say yes. What is genius about how information flows on a vast array of topics online is very similar to real life experiences like the classic example of a barbershop, "Oh, I heard from so and so that...". The game breaking difference here that has been driving a lot of this interaction and exposure is that the internet and its social media tools are organized like a individual and virtual pan-opticon for each of us in which not only can everyone see what you're up to, everyone can see what everyone else is talking about and learn their thoughts, feelings and opinions as well. Because I'm usually getting this media fed to me through someone I know personally, I am much more inclined to engage and share my thoughts on whatever the matter may be.