Web 2.0 doesn’t exist

Well, the expression exists. There it is: “Web 2.0”. But as a concept, it’s almost like talking about “Onion 2.0” just because you now do pickles differently.

I remember Andrew Keen and his position regarding this phenomena. His criticism is totally valid as long as you start with assuming that “Web 2.0” actually exists. The name itself invokes criticism. Put aside this assumption and you’ll find yourself actually talking about criticizing large scale mediocrity and large scale deification of mediocrity,  which is historically unprecedented.

On the other hand, there’s this wonder about the fact that the online medium is slowly degenerating into what old-fashion media has become a long time ago. Precisely because it got populated with mediocre types. Its source is the idea(l) that the online medium “traditionally” (the quotes suggest that you would normally need a significantly greater period of time to speak of tradition) belonged to the enlightened minds of the academic persuasion.

This tribute to mediocrity is why Google is no longer sufficient if one looks for authority on the web, and it is inherently becoming less and less relevant.

“Web 2.0” is a joke made by professionals and turned into a profession by the new race of petty nothingness peddlers in web (or other technologies, in fact) matters – those very mediocre ignoramuses I was talking about. “Web 2.0” ? The web is no (proprietary) software, it won’t take version names and numbers, people.

Web 2.0 does not exist. It is the same web, only now forged by a new species of extremely smart individuals that have in-depth knowledge/intuition about the human nature (and of the future profit niches) in the purpose of tending to the needs  of many… not-so-smart people, especially in the area of social surrogates and self validation.

Milka Marmot

Personally, should I be speaking with someone that talks about “2.0” in web matters without grinning, I’ll know I’m not looking at a professional, but at a dude that doesn’t really know what he’s talking about, in more ways (and areas) than one.

Be the first to rate this article:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Allowed HTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to article comments   Subscribe to all comments