(en fortsättning på tidigare inlägg om web 2.0, sociala webben, facebook och Google Opensocial)
Reading up on current discussions regarding web 2.0, I found this article about why 2.0 might be fading already and this one about the facebook versus Opensocial release from Google and a more technical one on why Opensocial is not going to do the trick. There is many more but these three gives you an idea of what is the current search for the new graal. The next big thing.
Maybe I'm totally wrong but let's take a step back and review what happened when services like the blogtools where released. The whole creation process of consumable "news" was disrupted and the previously dominating print media (that went online to not loose even more readers) couldn't figure out what had happened.
This little sketch I made shows very simply how the power over news (my definition is something that news is new, and told to others - disregarding how, what about and from whom) was changed and went into an equal power situation.
The control over the distribution of news from a few producers (publishers, journalists) to the way it's now possible to produce and distribute, online, is now shared power. the two pyramids points to each other and the situation gets even more complicated as many of the readers are actually sources now, encouraged to send their observations to journalists, or use it to spice up their blogs.
The recent events in Burma and Pakistan shows that the power of having a mobile is also the power of creating news material, each of the sent SMS or MMS is a source, not possible to validate by chain of commands as in the old school media world. Now there's a lot of talk about the power of new social networking tools in mobiles, that they give everyone the power to create instant news and make it visible on facebook or any other community.
Could be good and fine when we talk about a situation of crisis, action material. But what it shows is also that if the sources is not analyzed then there is few that understands it and that creates problems, a very small group will read it. So instead of creating the one and only news feed, the disruption is total, user created news get ultra local or super global, not much in between.
Back to web 2.0. Besides the fact that there is thousands of social communities and even a browser that collects them into one window, the communities are super global and not ultra local. So they are not of any real use for anyone in the everyday life. They are pure entertainment. Maybe the big ones can evolve into web 3.0 and become important to peoples life but the solution is defenitely not to create more of them! The fragments of our personal time is not going to be enough for them all.
So the change of command in who decide what I can read and where didn't bring us the big democratic, free and totally open media world. It will bring us more and more inner worlds, secluded Exchanges of source information, because I will only trust information validated by someone that I trust will have the judgement not to lie and also be able to analyze their sources.
The best reference to what we will get is Flexible Intelligence Source and Information Tools. And they will be both online and mobile.
There will still be a lot of openly accessible news feeds for the masses. Without knowing it web 2.0 created the new class society, the ones that have access to real news, the ones that wants to have acces but can't get it, and the ones that do not care. The new networks will be the ones that enable people to grow themselves and their business by having access to restricted information, created within the networks.
If it's good or bad? It's just the way it's going to be.