Nothing new under the sun.
Critiques of Web 2.0, and particularly of Web 2.0 hype, are very easy to
find. Many of them say the same things over and over again (which is, of course
what most of the Web 2.0 proselytizers do as well). Jeffry Zeldman's Web
3.0 on his A List Apart blog is rather
characteristic of these. Nicholar Carr, in The
amorality of Web 2.0 not only leashes out at the concept of Web 2.0 but uses
it as a starting point for an impassioned attack on the idea that the internet
can change the world for the better. Laurel Papworth, in a short piece titled
Forget objective
reporting, go for jugular on the Australian Financial Review site reminds
us that the claims of Web 2.0 aren't new not only in internet terms:
Aren't collaborative journalism, web 2.0, user-generated content, personalised
media and so on and so forth, the buzz words for a very old concept in media talkback?
and suggests that we turn to talk radio as a model.
Tim
O'Reilly has a
page with a lengthy list of comments on his article. Some of these are positive,
many poke fun at it. Jennifer Kyrnin, from within the About portal, writes a
very balanced review of the debate which is very informative, but don't we
really prefer to watch the sparks fly when people are arguing?
Perhaps the most enjoyable of all these critiques is that by Andrew Keen, Web
2.0 Is Reminiscent Of Marx. Keen is wary of any utopian vision, and to his
mind, the most dangerous of these is presently coming from technology:
Rather than Paris, Moscow, or Berkeley, the grand utopian movement of our contemporary
age is headquartered in Silicon Valley, whose great seduction is actually a fusion
of two historical movements: the counter-cultural utopianism of the '60s and the
techno-economic utopianism of the '90s. Here in Silicon Valley, this seduction
has announced itself to the world as the "Web 2.0" movement.
And
just what is this danger? Empowered by Web 2.0 technology,
we can all become citizen journalists, citizen videographers, citizen musicians.
Empowered by this technology, we will be able to write in the morning, direct
movies in the afternoon, and make music in the evening.
Keen
traces the source of this vision to Karl Marx and the "fantasy of self-realization
in a communist utopia". He seems fearful that the great equalizer of technology
will perhaps allow all of us to be artists, but mediocre artists at best, and
probably simply junky artists. And the price we'll pay for this participatory
paradise is a loss of expertise, of true art. Jim Kerr, at the New Media Crossroads
blog responds to
Keen's arguments. It's a good response, though I'm perhaps a
bit surprised at my own reactions to the article. I laughed and scratched
my head, and yet I also found myself agreeing with parts.
Go to: Perhaps better never than late, or
Go
to: It's just too Oh!