Replies

This is a horribly written article. It doesn't give a clear notion of just what this "Web 2.0" really is.

I get this from Wikipedia:

To some extent Web 2.0 has become a buzzword, incorporating whatever is newly popular on the Web (such as tags and podcasts). A consensus on its exact meaning has not yet been reached.

Until somebody explains just what it is, I'm not going to be afraid, especially not by somebody who's just throwing out names like Marx, Spengler, Kafka, Bono, and Mozart to show off.

To some extent, Keen's nightmare has already happened. Fifty years ago everybody lined up for Hitchcock or John Wayne or Gregory Peck movies. Today when you go into a video store there are hundreds of new pictures by unknown directors. It doesn't mean that the movies are getting worse, just that it's hard to know who's who.

Chaos is here, like it or not. I really doubt big media of one sort or another are going to crawl up and die or the heavens will fall because outsiders get more of an audience on the Internet.

I'm with you and I may add that the media won't go anywhere but maybe the way they do business will change. MY Dad used to tell me not to believe everything you read in the newspaper. He told me that the newspaper industry was run by political party's. He said in the old days, the Federalist would go to a newspaper and get them to print propaganda for them and the Whigs would do that too. He said that it is no different today, except that the Demorats have a near monopoly on it. He told me all that before Rush Limbaugh and CNN and FOXNews and the Internet.

I really doubt it but I would like to think that maybe the internet will force the media to focus on the truth rather than propaganda.

This map of Web 2.0 companies also has a good set of links to "best of Web 2.0" sites and projects, down on the lower right column.

http://www.fourio.com/web20map/

By poking around on the sites anyone can see that Web 2.0 has absolutely nothing to do with the bloviating nonsense Keen describes.