Engaging with The Participatory Open: Can We Build a Pro‑Social / Pro‑Societal Web? encouraged me to reflect more deliberately on how different digital spaces shape my participation and digital identity. A central question in the session—“open for whom?”—felt especially relevant as I considered the purposes behind the platforms I use (Stewart, Phipps, & Cormier, 2019).
My social media presence is primarily used to maintain connections with friends and family by sharing small, personal moments, while keeping my accounts private and professional. In contrast, my classroom website is intentionally designed as a safe and supportive space for students to ask questions, communicate, and learn collaboratively. My university blog serves yet another purpose: a space to organize my ideas, reflect on my learning, and engage thoughtfully with peers who offer different perspectives. Each of these spaces reflects a different audience, intention, and level of openness, reinforcing the idea that openness is not neutral, but contextual.
The session challenges the assumption that open digital spaces are automatically equitable or pro‑social. The speakers argue for the intentional design of a “pro‑social and pro‑societal web” that prioritizes human relationships, care, and the public good over extraction and surveillance (Stewart et al., 2019). While I do not feel particularly concerned about data collection or algorithms—especially when they surface content aligned with my interests—I am more cautious about permanence and surveillance. I am intentional about what I post, knowing that digital traces can resurface later in ways that may be harmful.
A key takeaway for me is that participation itself is an ethical choice. I deliberately avoid digital spaces that feel unsafe or hostile, and I rarely engage in large‑scale debates around topics like politics or religion. This is less about avoidance and more about protecting my time and energy for meaningful, respectful connections. As the session suggests, not all participation is equally valuable, and choosing where and how to engage matters (Stewart et al., 2019).
Moving forward, this reflection motivates me to approach my classroom website with even greater care. It is not just a communication tool, but a model of digital participation for students. While my social media presence feels stable and intentional, my teaching spaces carry the responsibility of fostering the kind of pro‑social engagement this session advocates—supportive, ethical, and rooted in trust.
Footnote: ChatGPT was used to refine the language in the final draft. All concepts and ideas are mine.
References:
Stewart, B., Phipps, L., & Cormier, D. (2019). The participatory open: Can we build a pro‑social / pro‑societal web? OER19 Conference. https://oer19.oerconf.org/sessions/the-participatory-open-can-we-build-a-pro-social-pro-societal-web-o-127/