Read the following passage and questions, then choose the right answer from options, the answer should be one of A, B, C, D.

<passage>:
People act and learn together for a rich mixture of reasons. The current enjoy working together to make something beneficial to everybody. If I had to reduce the essence of Homo sapiens to five words, “people do complicated things together” would do. Online social networks can be sociality, and those parts of human behavior can be amplified, too. But sociality−and I propose that the Web is an existence proof that these human brain that evolved most recently, and which are connected to what also essential to social life. The neural information-processing from bands to communities to civilizations, may have been enabled by But I didn’t start out by thinking about the evolutionary dynamics of sociality and the amplification of collective action. Like all of the others in this book, I started out by experiencing the new ways of being that Internet social media have made possible. And like the other role in my experiences of the possibilities of life online. Friends and Enthusiasts To me, direct experience of what I later came to call virtual communities preceded theories about the ways people do things together online. I met Joi Ito in the 1980s as part of what we called “the Electronic Networking Association,” a small group of talking, planning, debating and helping each other online came before the notion that our tiny subculture might grow into a worldwide, many-to-many, multimedia network of a billion people.  We started to dream about future cybersocial possibilities only after personally experiencing something new, moving and authentic in our webs of budding friendship and collaboration. In recent years, cyberculture studies has sociologists, anthropologists, historians, psychologists, economists, programmers and political scientists. Back when people online argued in 1200 baud text about whether one could properly call what we were doing a form of community, there was no body of empirical evidence to serve as a foundation for scientific argument−all theory was anecdotal. By now, One particularly useful affordance of online sociality is that a great it suitable for systematic study. One effect of the digital Panopticon is the loss of privacy and the threat of tyrannical social control another effect is a rich body of data about online behavior. Every one of Wikipedia’s millions of edits, and all the discussion and talk pages associated with those edits, is available for inspection−along with billions of Usenet messages. Patterns are beginning to emerge. We’re people online, and why. Does knowing something about the way technical architecture influences behavior mean that we can put that knowledge to use? Now that we are beginning to learn a little about the specific sociotechnical affordances of online social networks, is it possible to derive a beneficial social software? Can inhumane or dehumanizing effects of digital socializing be mitigated or eliminated by better media design? In what ways does the design of social media enable or prevent heartfelt communitas, organized collective action, social capital, cultural and life online−from lifelong friends like Joi Ito to the other people around the world I’ve come to know, because online media made it possible to connect with people who shared my interests, even if I had world. But in parallel with my direct experience of the blogosphere, vlogosphere, twitterverse and other realms of digital discourse, I’ve continued to track new research and theory about what cyberculture might shaped by social forces. One of the first questions that arose from my earliest experiences problems, without financial compensation. I first encountered Yochai then in The Wealth of Networks, Benkler contributed to important theoretical foundations for a new way of thinking about online activity−”commons based peer production,” technically made possible by a important corollary−if tools like the PC and the Internet make it easy enough, people are willing to work together for non-market incentives to create software, encyclopedias and archives of public domain literature. While the old story is that people are highly unlikely to cooperate with strangers to voluntarily create public goods, the new evidence to support the hypothesis that what used to be considered take for granted as part of daily life online, from the BIND software that makes domain names work, to the Apache webserver that powers a sizable chunk of the world’s websites, to the cheap Linux servers that Google stacks into its global datacloud, was created by volunteers who gave their creations away to make possible something larger−the Web as we know it. To some degree, the explosion of creativity that followed the debut of the Web in 1993 was made possible by deliberate design decisions on the part of the Internet’s architects−the end-to-end principle, built into the TCP/IP protocols that make the Internet possible, which deliberately decentralizes the power to innovate, to build something new and even more powerful on what already exists. Is it possible to understand exactly what it is about the web that makes Wikipedia, Linux, FightAIDS@Home, the Gutenberg Project and Creative Commons possible? And if so, can this theoretical knowledge be put to practical use? I am sociality.” That sounds right. But how would it be done? It’s easy to participative pedagogy, assisted by digital media and networked publics, guiding literacies essential to individual and collective life. pedagogy, assisted by digital media and networked publics, that focuses literacies essential to individual and collective life in the 21st century. Literacies are where the human brain, human sociality and communication technologies meet. We’re accustomed to thinking about the less visible social practices and social affordances, from the alphabet to TCP/IP, are where human social genius can meet the augmenting power of technological networks. Literacy is the most important method Homo sapiens has used to introduce systems and tools to other humans, to commodification, mechanization and dehumanization. By literacy, I mean, following on Neil Postman and others, the set of skills that enable individuals to encode and decode knowledge and power via speech, writing, printing and collective action, and which, when learned, introduce the individual to a community. Literacy links technology and sociality. The alphabet did not cause the Roman Empire, but made it populations, enabled by the printing press, devised systems for citizen governance and collective knowledge creation. The Internet did not cause open source production, Wikipedia or emergent collective responses to natural disasters, but it made it possible for people to act together in in places and at paces for which collective action had never been alphabets, presses and digital networks to create wealth, alleviate suffering and invent new institutions. If the humans currently alive are to take advantage of digital technologies to address the most severe and digital networks are not enough. We need new literacies around participatory media, the dynamics of cooperation and collective action, Engagement, I wrote: blossomed and set the scene for the Industrial Revolution, participatory media might similarly shape the cognitive and social Participatory media include (but aren’t limited to) blogs, wikis, RSS, tagging and social bookmarking, music-photo-video sharing, mashups, podcasts, digital storytelling, virtual communities, social network services, virtual environments, and videoblogs. These distinctly to the network to broadcast as well as receive text, images, audio, video, software, data, discussions, transactions, computations, tags, or links to and from every other person. The asymmetry between broadcaster and audience that was dictated by the structure of pre-digital technologies has changed radically. Participatory media are social media whose value and power derives just from the size of the audience, but from their power to link psychological and social characteristic. Social networks, when amplified by information and communication Like the early days of print, radio, and television, the present the new medium can be used, and which impose structures on flows of technological infrastructure for participatory media has grown rapidly, piggybacking on Moore’s Law, globalization, the telecom bubble and the innovations of Swiss physicists and computer science economically accessible. Literacy−access to the codes and communities of vernacular video, microblogging, social bookmarking, wiki participatory culture. A population with broadband infrastructure and ubiquitous computing could be a captive audience for a cultural monopoly, given enough bad laws and judicial rulings. A population that knows what to do with the tools at hand stands a better chance of of how to use it, but in the ways people use knowledge and technology to create wealth, secure freedom, resist tyranny.

<question>:
What was the earliest by date digital social communities mentioned by the Author?

<options>:
A LINUX
B Electronic Networking Association
C Freesouls
D Wikipedia

<answer>:

B