«
»

The Weakest Argument Against Web 2.0 Yet

I found Seth Porges’s post through Stowe Boyd’s blog. Stowe calls it “the weakest argument against Web 2.0 yet”. I agree.

Seth writes:
“Web 2.0 is/was a bit different. If the defining trait of the first Web cycle was the stupid animated GIF, the current “It” sites all have one thing in common: They are, to varying degrees, reliant on user-generated content. Without your neighbor/classmate/sister/girlfriend’s tireless devotion to keeping her profile up-to-date, MySpace would merely be a place for FOX to promote its properties. Without a horde of news junkies yearning to see their username in digital print, Digg would be an ugly page of yellow and white (and their new profile feature would be a joke).

And that is why the Web 2.0 era will come to end sooner rather than later. Because if there is one immutable law of humankind, it is that we are really, really lazy.

Right now, the bubble that the Web exists in is not so much a financial bubble as it is a time bubble. There is still a novelty for a lot of people associated with finding friends on social networking sites, Digging their favorite stories, updating articles about the history of pinball, and leaving comments on their favorite blogs. But that will wear off. People will revert back to the things they used to do: like Minesweeper and work.”

Are you kidding me Seth? Web 2.0 will die because we will no longer feel a need to connect with others, be too lazy to update our profiles, and would rather revert back to single-player computer games and work? 

I do agree that maintaining up to date profiles on all your social networks does require effort and soon solutions will need to be found in order to allow users to do this more easily. However, until that happens, Web 2.0 will continue to live on regardless because people care much more about connecting with others, voicing their opinions, and being heard, than they care about being lazy. The human race would not have gotten as far as it did if laziness was our primary attribute.

 

 

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 30th, 2007 at 12:52 pm and is filed under Web 2.0. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • I know that after I drove a car for the first time, I couldn't wait to get out and start walking again...
  • The real answer to keeping profiles updated is to eliminate the plural. You should only need one profile that's associated with your OpenId. What we need is for people to own their own profile and have soc-net sites subscribe to it. That way, we update it once, and they get the update the next time we use the site.
    Unfortunately, soc-net sites still live under the illusion that just because someone registers on their site, they "own" that person.
  • Big
    Nice! I like the flame back on an utterly stupid post. It is amazing how some people just really don't get it.
  • Justin:

    Well put :-)

    Joe:

    I agree with you. We should only need to update one profile. We need an open platform which will allow this.

    Scott:

    It still amazes me how some people underestimate the importance of Web 2.0 on our society.
  • Interesting arguments. But I agree with you, Web 2.0 will stay well for long time.

    -- Yihong
  • First and Foremost, love your blog.

    Second...

    I think Seth looks at Web 2.0 completely wrong. See, "Web 2.0" isn't just some trend. Sure, there's traits we associate with Web 2.0 - and those traits might be the "MC Hammer Pants" of today's, soon-to-be-tomorrow's technology, but Web 2.0 is more generational. See, people will always communicate, and look for new ways of communication, inevitably.

    You said:
    "And that is why the Web 2.0 era will come to end sooner rather than later. Because if there is one immutable law of humankind, it is that we are really, really lazy."

    That's just like saying that music will no longer exist because we're too lazy to rewind our cassettes. That's ridiculous. Web 2.0 will never die... but it will evolve. You used the word "era," so, perhaps you're on the same page... (not that I'm right)

    So, when does Web 2.0 evolve into Web 2.1 or Web 3.0 Beta??? Well, when you or I stand up and say, "Congratulations folks, we've made it to Web 3.0 Beta!" There's no governing laws to make the call. There's some folks who might be huge influences (O'Reilly), but we ultimately determine the new generation. It's nothing more than a catch phrase anyway... an "era."
    We might be lazy, but the young innovators of the world won't let this die. Neither will Corporate America. Large corporations don't create the latest and greatest technology as much anymore.. instead, they'll pay the Mark Zuckerberg's of the world big money for it. This will never end...

    Web 2.0 has just began. We've just scratched the surface.
  • Not only will it stay for a long time.. it will also evolve over time. That's the reason why Web 2.0 is not going to just 'die'. It will evolve and adapt to the next generation of the web side by side with the emergence of new technologies.

    - Zahasman
  • Yihong, Jason and Zahasman:

    I completely agree: Web 2.0 has just begun and will continue to evolve. It may evolve and be called something else, but the human need to connect will always stay there. As you say, we’ve just scratched the surface...
  • web 2.0 will never die but will instead morph into web 3.0 - social networking sites will become more entertaining and easier to use once the internet is a global database and the networks can support massive data transfers

    seth has not done his homework on the subject of web 2.0 or web 3.0 or where things are heading. there's just too much room for improvement - it won't die, it will only get better.
  • I'd actually argue that we're not seeing web 2.0 at its maturest point just yet. There are a lot of developments on the way which will simplify the web 2.0 experience (what about that Google project which is going to unify the social sites?!). Besides, I hate it when other writers make statements about how lazy "we all are". Speak for yourself, sunshine.
  • Exactly Tom. I guess "certain" people may be lazier than others :-)
blog comments powered by Disqus