Comments on: Two Roads Diverged - The Web 3.0 Conflict

By: television sets

television sets — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:06:25 +0000

Excellent goods of your stuff, man. Ive understand your stuff earlier than and youre just extremely excellent. I prefer whatever you have acquired here, certainly like what youre stating and just how that you say it. You create it enjoyable but you just look after to prevent it smart. I cannot wait to read additional from you finding out. This is actually a huge web site.

By: Tresa Tiemens

Tresa Tiemens — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:12:19 +0000

fantastic post, very informative. I wonder why the other specialists of this sector don’t notice this. You must continue your writing. I am confident, you have a huge readers’ base already!

By: Mike Burk

Mike Burk — Tue, 20 May 2008 23:11:44 +0000

Okay, I’ve got to chime in on one key point here: “Web 3.0 represents a shift in the tone of the web from open to closed.”

This would indeed create and entirely new “version” of the web, and I have a hard time imagining how we’d even be able to call it by the same name. It seems like you’re hinting at the eventual convergence of television and the web, where content would be far more “push” than “pull.” The problem I see is that the pull characteristic is what makes the web what we know and love. As soon as we have the oligopoly controlling content creation on the web, you’ve essentially destroyed it as a unique distribution platform. At that point it’s just interactive digital cable, and you only get a select amount of channels that actually matter - all of which are owned by six companies.

The corporatization of the web is definitely coming, but it doesn’t have to fall in line with how corporations work today. The entertainment industry operated as an oligopoly for nearly 50 years before it was broken up, and we’re seeing a similar philosophy reemerging today. It took us 50 years to understand and take steps to correct the harms of it, and far less than that to revert back. Why wait another 50 years to realize that we’ve been going about it all wrong?

I do agree that we can’t just wait out the clock. As comfortable as it would be to wait for the studios to decide how the next distribution model will work, my guess is we won’t be all that happy with the result. At the same time, it’s foolish to assume that we’ll incite some revolution and witness the downfall of the entertainment oligopoly. We have to think of our Web 1.0/2.0 models in line with Gramsci and the constant struggle between dominant and subdominant. We do radical things now, and they are eventually calmed down and incorporated into the dominant culture (i.e. entertainment conglomerates). So with that in mind, how can we shape our radical actions to affect the hegemonic process in a way that leads to a more beneficial outcome? Why start already the thinking about how to give in?

By: admin

admin — Tue, 20 May 2008 02:34:47 +0000

@ Freddy - death by a million paper cuts. Or, as Douglas Warshaw puts it on his blog, by a google’s worth of cuts!
http://thewarshawcurve.typepad.com/

By: Freddy J. Nager, Atomic Tango

Freddy J. Nager, Atomic Tango — Tue, 20 May 2008 02:22:03 +0000

You’re absolutely right. Note that I foresee the end of these sites as not being cataclysmic per se (as in Y2K) but more of a gradual atrophy (as in AOL or Friendster), with members steadily drifting away. Consider what’s currently happening to the major broadcast networks and print newspapers. They’re not going out with a bang — they’re just steadily bleeding to death. It won’t be malware that kills these mega-sites, but consumer ambivalence and apathy. I can just hear the words now: “You’re a member of Facebook? God, that’s so 2008…”

By: admin

admin — Tue, 20 May 2008 02:05:30 +0000

@ Freddy, the irony is that we may not see a pronounced end to 2.0. Unless there’s some sort of “digital Pearl Harbor” i.e. a massive security breach, large scale identity deletion or financial network collapse. If we’re talking about what the end of the web as we know would look like, I’d bet that the end will be a whimper rather than a bang. Remember Y2K? Didn’t happen like the conspiracy theorists may have hoped, but the prospect of widespread viral malware certainly hasn’t left the building. JZ

By: Freddy J. Nager, Atomic Tango

Freddy J. Nager, Atomic Tango — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:23:23 +0000

Totally agree with you: versioning (nice word) isn’t about technology, it’s about culture. I’d like to add that it’s also about economics. There wouldn’t have been a Web 2.0 if Web 1.0 hadn’t crashed in flames, forcing a reassessment of business models and practices.

So I don’t believe we should declare the arrival of a new numerical designation until there’s been a pronounced end to Web 2.0. (Otherwise, there will be a Web 4.0, 5.0, etc. every time some self-aggrandizing entrepreneur coughs up a new “paradigm.”)

What might the end of Web 2.0 look like? How about the crash of the giant social networking communities that have come to typify it, including MySpace, Facebook, even YouTube? Based on the premise that “size matters,” these sites have grown at all costs, throwing open their servers to all comers. The result has been an actual loss of community as users increasingly find themselves surrounded by complete strangers with whom they have nothing in common. (Just visit any Facebook “Group” and try to discern any constructive discourse amidst the spam.) If you don’t believe these sites could end, remember when AOL was a “community” and “you’ve got mail” was a cultural catch-phrase?

With their openness, the giant social networking sites have also invited in spammers, scammers and user-generated content so bad that it wouldn’t dignify a public restroom wall. And despite the massive user-bases (as large as some countries), these sites are too diverse and the content too risky for most advertisers. The result, as you mentioned, is anemic revenue that hasn’t lived up to the size of the user bases.

Web 3.0 will be niche-driven: as you say, “Web 3.0 represents a shift in the tone of the web from open to closed.” We will see more virtual walled communities where like minded individuals cluster. (Ironically, AOL is one of the first to head in this direction by turning toward a niche-site strategy.) The technologies that emerge during 3.0 will not be to support the world as a whole, but only the specific needs of each segmented community. And isn’t that the long-touted great promise of the Web: the end of the tyranny of mass production, replaced with customized products and services? The VC’s might not get all hot and bothered by this niche trend, but advertisers will appreciate these well-defined and policed communities.

Indeed, if another decade passes without pronounced improvements in operational ROI online, we will likely see many of the larger corporations treating the Web as a utility as opposed to an opportunity. They’ll use it, but they’ll leave it up to the little guys and niche communities to develop (as is the case with Wikipedia), since there’s much more money to be made in producing the next movie based on a comic book.