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

<passage>:
story that most of us tell ourselves about how humans get things done is focused on the well-known flavors of self-interest, which make for great drama−survival, power, wealth, sex, glory. People also do things together for fun, for the love of a challenge, and because we sometimes powerful amplifiers of collective action precisely because they augment and extend the power of ever-complexifying human sociality. To be sure, altruism, fun, community and curiosity are also parts of human capabilities can be amplified, as well. Indeed, our species’ social inventiveness is central to what it is to be human. The parts of the human brain that evolved most recently, and which are connected to what we consider to be our “higher” faculties of reason and forethought, are also essential to social life. The neural information-processing required for recognizing people, remembering their reputations, learning structure, the neocortex. But I didn’t start out by thinking about the evolutionary dynamics of sociality and the amplification of collective action. Like all of the that Internet social media have made possible. And like the other Mephistophelian, Pied-Piper-esque, authority-challenging, fun-loving enthusiasts who thought that sending black and white text to BBSs with 1200 baud modems was fun. Joi, like Stewart Brand, was and is what Fred Turner calls a network entrepreneur, who occupies what Ronald Burt would call key structural roles−what Malcolm Gladwell called a connector.  Joi was also a dream about future cybersocial possibilities only after personally programmers and political scientists. Back when people online argued in 1200 baud text about whether one could properly call what we were doing a foundation for scientific argument−all theory was anecdotal. By now, however, there is plenty of data. One particularly useful affordance of online sociality is that a great deal of public behavior is recorded and structured in a way that makes 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 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 normative design? How should designers think about the principles of 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 economic production? I’ve continued to make a direct experience of my mean and the ways in which online communication media influence and are shaped by social forces. The Values of Volunteers One of the first questions that arose from my earliest experiences online was the question of why people in online communities should spend billion PCs and Internet connections−as a new form of organizing economic production, together with the market and the firm. If Benkler is right, the new story about how humans get things done includes an important corollary−if tools like the PC and the Internet make it easy While the old story is that people are highly unlikely to cooperate with strangers to voluntarily create public goods, the new story seems to be that people will indeed create significant common value voluntarily, if it is easy enough for anybody to add what they want, whenever they want to add it (“self election”). There is plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis that what used to be considered altruism is now a byproduct of daily life online. So much of what we 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 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 part of the Internet’s architects−the end-to-end principle, built into 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, struck by a phrase of Benkler’s from his essay in this book: “We must that focuses on catalyzing, inspiring, nourishing, facilitating, and guiding literacies essential to individual and collective life. To accomplish this attention-turning, we must develop a participative on catalyzing, inspiring, nourishing, facilitating, and guiding literacies essential to individual and collective life in the 21st century. Literacies are where the human brain, human sociality and tangible parts of communication media−the devices and networks−but 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 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, populations, enabled by the printing press, devised systems for citizen in places and at paces for which collective action had never been possible. Literacies are the prerequisite for the human agency that used 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 participatory media, the dynamics of cooperation and collective action, the effective deployment of attention and the relatively rational and critical discourse necessary for a healthy public sphere. participatory media might similarly shape the cognitive and social environments in which twenty first century life will take place (a shift in the way our culture operates). For this reason, participatory media literacy is not another subject to be shoehorned into the curriculum as job training for knowledge workers. services, virtual environments, and videoblogs. These distinctly different media share three common, interrelated characteristics: Many-to-many media now make it possible for every person connected 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. This is a technical- structural characteristic. Participatory media are social media whose value and power derives from the active participation of many people. Value derives not just from the size of the audience, but from their power to link to each other, to form a public as well as a market. This is a psychological and social characteristic. Social networks, when amplified by information and communication networks, enable broader, faster, and lower cost coordination of activities. This is an economic and political characteristic. Like the early days of print, radio, and television, the present structure of the participatory media regime−the political, economic, the new medium can be used, and which impose structures on flows of information and capital−is still unsettled. As legislative and regulatory battles, business competition, and social institutions vie unknown variable is the degree and kind of public participation. Because the unique power of the new media regime is precisely its participatory potential, the number of people who participate in using it during its formative years, and the skill with which they attempt to take advantage of this potential, is particularly salient. participatory culture in which most of the population see themselves as creators as well as consumers of culture is far more likely to generate freedom and wealth for more people than one in which a small portion of the population produces culture that the majority passively consume. The economically accessible. Literacy−access to the codes and communities of vernacular video, microblogging, social bookmarking, wiki collaboration−is what is required to use that infrastructure to create a 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 media to learn, inform, persuade, investigate, reveal, advocate and encourage liberty and participation. Such literacy can only make action of how to use it, but in the ways people use knowledge and technology to create wealth, secure freedom, resist tyranny.

<question>:
Which of the following things does the author likely value most?

<options>:
A Technology
B Freedom
C Progress
D Value

<answer>:

B