KTub8

Digital Solidarity
explains, ‘allows the scattered members of a network
to recognise each other as existing within a shared
referential and imaginary universe.’ 56 It is through
this common horizon that we can also differentiate
politically between different swarms. While all swarms
are based on some acts of social solidarity, it does not
mean that they are always socially beneficial. I’ll return
to this point later on.
Weak Networks
Quantitatively speaking, weak networks – groups held
together by casual and limited social interaction – are
the most important of the new social forms. They are
often created by using technologies labelled as ‘social
web’, or ‘web 2.0’. These labels are unfortunate, because
the important parts are not the technologies but the
social formations and cultures that are built by using
them. Due to their immense popularity, weak networks
are setting a new baseline of what (inter)personal
communication means today and they shape the new
‘common sense’ about social interaction. They are the
new normal. Aggregated users and their actions are
measured in the billions, Facebook alone announced 1
billion active users in October 2012. 57 By the end of that
year, between one third and a full half of the population
in developed and many developing countries have been
using social networks regularly. A large number of them
have indicated that they are using these networks not
just to share information about personal or ‘community
issues’, but also to share information about ‘political
issues’, meaning they are both a means to organise one’s
personal life as well as a means to engage with the world
43