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 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 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 powerful amplifiers of collective action precisely because they augment and extend the power of ever-complexifying human sociality. To be sure, gossip, conflict, slander, fraud, greed and bigotry are part of human sociality, and those parts of human behavior can be amplified, too. But altruism, fun, community and curiosity are also parts of human 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 also essential to social life. The neural information-processing required for recognizing people, remembering their reputations, learning 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 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 believer in going out and doing things and not just talking about it. early 1990s I had begun to branch out from BBSs and the WELL to make connections in many different parts of the world. The fun 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 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 form of community, there was no body of empirical evidence to serve as 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 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 Does knowing something about the way technical architecture influences beneficial social software? Can inhumane or dehumanizing effects of communitas, organized collective action, social capital, cultural and 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 never heard of them before, even if they lived on the other side of the mean and the ways in which online communication media influence and are 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 so much time answering each other’s questions, solving each other’s problems, without financial compensation. I first encountered Yochai Benkler in pursuit of my curiosity about the reason people would work together with strangers, without pay, to create something nobody then in The Wealth of Networks, Benkler contributed to important activity−”commons based peer production,” technically made possible by a 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 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 Google stacks into its global datacloud, was created by volunteers who gave their creations away to make possible something larger−the Web as 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 exactly what it is about the web that makes Wikipedia, Linux, now turn our attention to building systems that support human that focuses on catalyzing, inspiring, nourishing, facilitating, and To accomplish this attention-turning, we must develop a participative on catalyzing, inspiring, nourishing, facilitating, and guiding communication technologies meet. We’re accustomed to thinking about the 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 train each other to partake of and contribute to culture, and to humanize the use of instruments that might otherwise enable 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 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 new ways, with people they weren’t able to organize action with before, in places and at paces for which collective action had never been alphabets, presses and digital networks to create wealth, alleviate problems that face our species and the biosphere, computers, telephones participatory media, the dynamics of cooperation and collective action, In Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic participatory media might similarly shape the cognitive and social shift in the way our culture operates). For this reason, participatory tagging and social bookmarking, music-photo-video sharing, mashups, podcasts, digital storytelling, virtual communities, social network services, virtual environments, and videoblogs. These distinctly computations, tags, or links to and from every other person. The asymmetry between broadcaster and audience that was dictated by 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 social and cultural institutions that constrain and empower the way regulatory battles, business competition, and social institutions vie unknown variable is the degree and kind of public participation. 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. Like Yochai Benkler and Henry Jenkins, I believe that a 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 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

<question>:
What does the author imply is the biggest factor in humans collaborating with one another?

<options>:
A Teaching people to speak and write the same language
B Financially incentivizing people
C Making communities more accessible
D Spending more time in smaller communities

<answer>:

C