The problem with web 2.0

In this blog I have occasionally made some dismissive remarks about things like "the normative ethos of web 2.0" and "the web 2.0 enthusiasts". So far my references have always been in passing and I've never stopped to justify my skepticism. With the debate about 'the ethics of web 2.0' now raging, it's as good a time as any to put my thoughts in order. 

So what, then, is web 2.0? At least four things: 

1. A family of technologies   
2. A sociological discourse that sees the technologies and business models as signs of powerful new unstoppable trends that are transforming society 
3. A normative discourse that sees these trends as a good thing 
4. A movement with its members who espouse these sociological and normative discourses

Taken together, these layers make for a fairly toxic mix--one dressed in reassuring libertarian colors while hiding within an intolerant style.

Does this debate matter? Yes, but not in the sense that the web 2.0 enthusiasts would like to believe. To a large extent, this is an irrelevant debate being held between anoraks. Society is not at risk; and to the extent that the trends are real, they are not the outcome of anyone's design and are not necessarily a bad thing.

The problem is that the movement can be bad for business. Because of their deep intellectual confusion, its members are prone to make all sorts of mistaken assumptions that can lead to business failures.

Let me explain, in the order above.

1. The technologies

The technologies themselves are beyond argument. I'll take it as settled that together they form a more or less coherent family, even if it is one that is hard to characterize. I also agree that, taken together, the web 2.0 technologies amount to an important phenomenon that is shaking the media industry at its roots, forcing us to question old assumptions and ways of thinking.

(I use the term 'technologies' widely to mean not just algorithms and machines but also websites, use-cases and even business models.)

2. The sociological discourse

The story gets a bit more problematic here. At its core, the common discourse is based on a certain interpretation that sees the web 2.0 technologies as symptoms and enablers of important social and economic trends: diminishing trust in institutions; fragmentation and atomization of society and culture; peer-to-peer, decentralized 'content' instead of one-to-many ('broadcast'), top-down culture industries; deliberation between peers instead of rule by elites; a general 'leveling' of society, with everyone now a 'peer' at the 'edge'; engagement instead of passivity; exquisite personalization and customer service; consumers' demand to be given 'what they want, when they want it'; peer production; a culture of sharing and forming communities around shared interests; etc. In short, postmodernism.

There is undoubtedly much strength in this interpretation, and it is not my intention to dispute it here (for all you know, I might embrace it). My only aim is to point out that it is disputable; that it does not follow automatically from an observation of the technologies and business models alone.

Flickr, for example, can be seen as heralding a new practice of sharing--or, alternatively, as just a hosted service for saving one's pictures simply and securely--i.e. as free infrastructure (read this). You can just upload your content, put the URL on your blog or pass it to friends, and never again visit its front page or follow any of the links it offers you.

Alternative interpretations like this are seldom even considered by those 'in' the web 2.0 movement (on which more below). When someone points out that the '2.0' practices account for a minority of the ways in which technology is used, this is summarily dismissed as irrelevant: it is only a matter of time, one is informed, before everyone follows the early adopters (who are also the young); if you can't see that, you just don't 'get it' (on which more below). This may well be true; but then it may not be.

This failure to acknowledge the essentially debatable nature of the web 2.0 interpretation gives us the first worrying sign that something is wrong. But so far this is nothing serious: it is just a case of a new paradigm seeking to establish itself.

3. The normative discourse

Things get more worrying when this interpretation (which is often taken as fact) is mixed, as it often is, with an enthusiastic embrace of the change that is afoot, as seen through the dominant paradigm. In much the same way that interpretation is presented as fact, the view that the change it describes is a good thing (for individuals, for consumers, for citizens, for companies, for society) is also often taken as beyond discussion. This blurring between the descriptive and normative should ring a second alarm.

As to the substance: how, it is implied (it is never said - the question is deemed too obvious) could consumer empowerment fail to be a good thing? How could it be a bad thing that consumers can finally get exactly what they want? How could public deliberation, and ultimately (why not) direct democracy, be anything less than ideal? How could the formation of communities of interest be less than our longed-for return to the origins of democracy?

Again, all these views are respectable and defensible, but far from invulnerable. Consumer empowerment is a very blurry idea: who are we talking about when we speak of the 'people' who have a right to media in their terms? Are they an underserved group, society at large, or just the sum of individuals? And as to their all-important wishes, how are they formed? Who influences them? And would their satisfaction be a good thing? For each in isolation, for the group, or for both?

These are all difficult questions, and in a democracy they are rightly matters of endless debate. Whatever answers you have--and you may very respectably espouse those implied by the web 2.0 discourse--in a democracy you must accept that they are just your views, and that your fellow citizens may not share them.

But the web 2.0 ideologue won't acknowledge this. To him (he is usually male) a family of technologies is part and parcel of a momentous social change, a change he expects you to embrace under pain of being branded reactionary.

To recap: the 2.0 ideologue imposes his view by simultaneously presenting his interpretation as

• An obviously positive state of affairs, and 
• Not an interpretation at all, but a statement of fact: a matter of science and history

The pattern is all too familiar.

(An anecdote: when I once mentioned to someone in the industry that I was thinking of writing this post, he strongly and sincerely advised me against it, suggesting that I would be committing professional suicide).

4. The movement

This bleak picture turns decidedly black when you notice the language used by some web 2.0 evangelists. Those who don't share the 2.0 paradigm are all too often brushed aside as people who 'don't get it' or who are too '1.0'. The effect is to demarcate a boundary between those who are enlightened and 'get it' and those old, reactionary, clueless types who don't. In-jokes and extensive networks further reinforce the sense that those in the inner sanctum are not just a group but a community--an 'in crowd', an exclusive club that is in fashion and in power.

This sense of community--the movement--is essential to the web 2.0 discourse. Without it, the ideas would be just that--and, I guess, far less popular. But in reality the ideas are less important than the community. What matters is that by embracing the web 2.0 discourse you have a chance (but no guarantee) of joining the in-group and all the advantages that go with it.

Granted, this strategy would not work if the discourse was baseless. But its success relies largely on the movement's intolerant style, and the small number of its serious opponents. Because most new-media experts embrace the movement (or so its members would have us believe), outsiders, often unversed in the domain's subtleties, are all too easily intimidated into silence or fooled into submission.

The problem

At its core, the web 2.0 discourse suffers from three key weaknesses:

1. It assumes that independent values necessarily dovetail with each other. It assumes that what is good for individuals is good for society, and that what is good for individuals and society is or can be made good for business. None of this is automatic. 
2. It confuses trends with destiny - i.e. it has a teleological view. It assumes that whatever changes can be identified today are a manifestation of large historical forces that have their own momentum and will inevitably lead to an identifiable state of affairs. 
3. It has a strong preference for a certain type of change (which happens to coincide with the larger forces of history), and too often this prevents its followers from formulating sound strategies.

For example, you can argue on very strong grounds that today's copyright laws are bad for consumers, and also (independently) for culture, and hence for society. But that by itself does not imply, in any way, that changing the law will be good for any particular company, or that the business models that would emerge would lead to better economic results. This is not to say that such a change would be bad for business, or that it would be a bad thing; it is only to say that there is no implication whatever either way.

It may be desirable to have a world in which everybody feels free to create derivative works ('mashups') on the basis of other people's work, and it may be that business models can be devised to make this yield wealth for individuals and for companies; but the two ideas are independent and can stand or fall without the other.

Far too many business models only make sense if you share not only a certain interpretation of changes taking place in society (nothing wrong there), but also of their inevitable conclusion (which is shakier) and their desirability (which is out of order in formulating a commercial strategy). I once heard an elevator pitch in which world peace, George Bush and the clash of civilizations were mentioned alongside Ajax, the rise of broadband video and peer production - all in one minute.

Web 2.0 members often act like a guild. With their endless references to obscure technical terms they shut out those who are not 'experts', and this, ironically, keeps their discourse protected from the powerful attacks it would face if access to it were more open (although this is beginning to change).

In their haste not to miss out on the next YouTube, investors are pouring money into questionable ideas. Some will succeed. But many will fail in miserable ways, leaving their creators drowning in cynicism at a world ruled by greed.

Comments

[Simon Torrance]

I very much agree with your sentiments. What we've tried to do with the 'Telco 2.0' initiative is completely avoid the tecchy love-in which is web 2.0 and focus on a straight forward notion of 'how telcos can make money in an increasingly IP-based world'. It's very simple and commercial and (from a capitalist point of view - jobs, pensions, etc) helpful, we hope. Web 2.0 is a growing buzz word now in telco R&D depts, parts of marketing and CTO offices. But we've invented 'Telco 2.0' to focus on commercial success for telcos - exploiting web 2.0 ideas, technologies and usage trends.

[Karen Johnson]

I enjoyed your clarity and thoughtfulness. Blind obeisance is always worrying even about something that appears to bring so much good. If Web 2.0 really means we can all contribute why does so much of the newspeak seems to be at pains to exclude rather than to include. It rivals medieval Latin and 21st century pension documents for impenetrable opacity. I hope this is a phase and we may look forwards to an era of more universally accessible language.