Dave Kellogg has a nice post entitled “Web 2.Over?” in which he eloquently reviews the various reasons that most web 2.0 startups are “in for a reality check”.
But what I liked most about the post was his defense of the spirit of web 2.0:
While a swarm of eyeball-catching, oddly-named, twenty-something-led startups may get obliterated — outside venture circles at least — that wasn’t the point of web 2.0. To me, web 2.0 was, is, and remains an important collection of concepts that will endure:
- A read/write web, where we can participate, update, annotate, comment, etc.
- A social web, where there is awareness of relationships that can be leveraged appropriately
- User-generated content, which is here to stay and always has been (think: radio call-in shows, Kids Say the Darndest Things, or America’s Funniest Home Videos)
- The use of the web for communication and entertainment. People are natural communicators. We will always adapt our tools to that fundamental need.
- A personalized web, that understands what we like and how we like to get it
Amen! The good news is that there is no turning back on this vision of a more interactive online medium. Today it’s blogs and tweets; tomorrow it may be something we haven’t even imagined. But, now that an increasing number of us fancy ourselves as publishers and communicators, I don’t see us giving up that power without a fight.
5 replies on “In Defense of Web 2.0”
[…] bookmarks tagged web 2.0 In Defense of Web 2.0 saved by 6 others tammpon bookmarked on 10/23/08 | […]
With the exception of maybe the personalization point, how is this different from Web 1.0?
Wasn’t the web always about read/write, sociality, user generated content, etc.?
The web may have always enabled a read/write access in theory, but until recently seems to have been read-mostly in practice. Lawrence Lessig has given some nice lectures on the subject, e.g., http://andrewapeterson.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/lawrence-lessig-talks-about-readwrite-culture-read-only-culture/
Ugh, I can’t stand web video. The information to signal ratio is too low. Is there a transcript posted anywhere?
Anything to please my readers. 🙂