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 drama−survival, power, wealth, sex, glory. People also do things and extend the power of ever-complexifying human sociality. To be sure, 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 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 also essential to social life. The neural information-processing the rituals that remove boundaries of mistrust and bind groups together, from bands to communities to civilizations, may have been enabled by (and may have driven the rapid evolution of) that uniquely human brain 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 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 Friends and Enthusiasts To me, direct experience of what I later came to call virtual communities preceded theories about the ways people occupies what Ronald Burt would call key structural roles−what talking, planning, debating and helping each other online came before the notion that our tiny subculture might grow into a worldwide, experiencing something new, moving and authentic in our webs of budding friendship and collaboration. In recent years, cyberculture studies has grown into a discipline−more properly, an interdiscipline involving programmers and political scientists. Back when people online argued in 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 associated with those edits, is available for inspection−along with beginning to know something about what works and what doesn’t work with Does knowing something about the way technical architecture influences 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? communitas, organized collective action, social capital, cultural and economic production? I’ve continued to make a direct experience of my 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 vlogosphere, twitterverse and other realms of digital discourse, I’ve continued to track new research and theory about what cyberculture might mean and the ways in which online communication media influence and are shaped by social forces. activity−”commons based peer production,” technically made possible by a 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 enough, people are willing to work together for non-market incentives to 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 evidence to support the hypothesis that what used to be considered 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, 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 say and not as easy to see the ways in which social codes and power that focuses on catalyzing, inspiring, nourishing, facilitating, and 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 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 sapiens has used to introduce systems and tools to other humans, to humanize the use of instruments that might otherwise enable 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 possible. Printing did not cause democracy or science, but literate 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 possible. Literacies are the prerequisite for the human agency that used alphabets, presses and digital networks to create wealth, alleviate to take advantage of digital technologies to address the most severe problems that face our species and the biosphere, computers, telephones and digital networks are not enough. We need new literacies around participatory media, the dynamics of cooperation and collective action, the effective deployment of attention and the relatively rational and Engagement, I wrote: If print culture shaped the environment in which the Enlightenment blossomed and set the scene for the Industrial Revolution, 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. podcasts, digital storytelling, virtual communities, social network 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, asymmetry between broadcaster and audience that was dictated by the structure of pre-digital technologies has changed radically. This is a technical- structural characteristic. 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, social and cultural institutions that constrain and empower the way 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 to control the new regime, a potentially decisive and presently unknown variable is the degree and kind of public participation. Because the unique power of the new media regime is precisely its to take advantage of this potential, is particularly salient. 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 technological infrastructure for participatory media has grown rapidly, piggybacking on Moore’s Law, globalization, the telecom bubble and the students. Increasingly, access to that infrastructure−the ability to 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 possible, however−it is not in the technology, or even in the knowledge of how to use it, but in the ways people use knowledge and technology to

<question>:
To which of the following is the technical and cultural shift NOT compared?

<options>:
A The Industrial Revolution
B The printing press
C The alphabet
D The Communist Revolution

<answer>:

D