I still say no to web two oh

I had a post on Scripting News for most of the day yesterday that, after the crazy “Web 2.0″ news of today, must seem prescient. I decided, coming back from the baseball game that it wasn’t worth the grief it would likely cause, so I took it down.

Richard MacManus relents, and decides that Web 2.0 is here to stay, and Mike Arrington sighs in relief and explains why he remains loyal to the concept.

Me, well, I’ve always believed in the Two-way Web, back before it was hip. I even coined the term Internet 3.0, to describe the P2P level that came after RSS and XML-RPC and SOAP. Some part of me is sure that this was the inspiration for the creation of the new moniker.

What I object to about “Web 2.0″ is that it was created to exclude people from the conversation, and by the way, I’m one of those people. They’re planning the third Web 2.0 conference, and I haven’t gotten an invite to present, and I’m not holding my breath.

The Microsoft Mix 06 conference was an obvious attempt to hop on the same bandwagon, again, no invite to speak (they wanted me in the audience, but I don’t believe in audiences anymore, so thanks but no thanks).

Tim Berners-Lee warns of a dark net, but we don’t need to wait for that, it’s already here, in Silicon Valley and South of Market. It’s the web of them, not us, and you need not apply, because it’s going to stay that way.

I love and admire Mike and Richard, and I’m glad they’re welcomed by the owners of Web 2.0, but until they put out a welcome mat for everyone else, I’m going to keep looking to the future, because I think that kind of exclusivity belongs in the past.

And Mike, if you wanted to get rid of the problem, one call to O’Reilly or Battelle right now would probably take care of it. And mention it to Kevin Werbach as well. That you and so many others quietly acquiesce allows the exclusivity to continue. Until then, I’m going to keep looking for a route-around, and some day, hopefully soon, we’ll find it.

What prompted this piece

I read The Accordion Guy’s piece explaining how Toronto could become Silicon Valley. I groaned out loud. Please, let’s figure out how Silicon Valley could be more like Toronto. SV is a boring place with a totally shitty attitude, it’s trouble with a capital T. This boom-bust cycle isn’t something I’d wish on a city I hate, and Toronto is such a nice place.

Sure, you want to be rich, but there’s a nice way to be successful and an ugly way. Silicon Valley isn’t nice. But the sentiment is real. Lots of people have envious feelings when they look at this place. And that’s by design. Keep doing what you’re doing, create inclusivity, welcome all comers, and you’ll be where Silicon Valley was in the middle of the last century. Where it is now is not good.

3 responses to this post.

  1. You better be careful. Looks like you’ve been blogging about Web 2.0 a lot lately without noting that it’s a trademark. Expect a call from Tim’s lawyer.

    Reply

  2. Today I had to throw away some books. But then I created one of my own! You are all hereby notified that I own the term “Web 2.1.A”

    http://www.effengud.com/web21a/index.htm

    Digg it, baby! :-)

    Reply

  3. [...] One thing to be thankful for is that in all the reviews of Friday’s party, very few said it was about Web 2.0. We seem to have gotten that out of the way. Arrington’s parties are inclusive, and net-net that’s a good thing.   [...]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: