Web 2.0 - eCommunism is coming
Moderator: General Moderators
Web 2.0 - eCommunism is coming
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly ... eb-20.html
This is scary. It reminds me of "Busimess @ the Speed of Thought", only this one is written by Tim O'Reilly, not Bill Gates.
Hey, since nobody gives a damn about things like individuality and personality, why don't we skip all those intruductory steps altogether? All we need to do is combine the minds of all humans into a single information matrix. (I hope my Vacuum Flowers reference will not be lost in vain.) Yeah, it's that simple.
This is scary. It reminds me of "Busimess @ the Speed of Thought", only this one is written by Tim O'Reilly, not Bill Gates.
Hey, since nobody gives a damn about things like individuality and personality, why don't we skip all those intruductory steps altogether? All we need to do is combine the minds of all humans into a single information matrix. (I hope my Vacuum Flowers reference will not be lost in vain.) Yeah, it's that simple.
Last edited by Gambler on Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
I find his opening line rather interesting because it's historically incorrect.
"The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001"
NASDAQ Chart

ANYWAY...
That's an interesting read. I've not read much about "Web 2.0" until that and it's cool to know what people were actually referring to in the dozens of articles I've heard it mentioned in.
It gets ya thinking, I wonder what Web 6.0 will be like?
"The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001"
NASDAQ Chart

ANYWAY...
That's an interesting read. I've not read much about "Web 2.0" until that and it's cool to know what people were actually referring to in the dozens of articles I've heard it mentioned in.
It gets ya thinking, I wonder what Web 6.0 will be like?
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
-
Charles256
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Re: Web 2.0
I'm really puzzled by this comment, and by the reference to communism. There is no state (or even single industry) control of production, knowledge, or even providing. I'd say its got practically nothing in common with communism, so I'd be interested in hearing your explanation of what the link is. Maybe I'm missing something.Gambler wrote:This is scary.
On the contrary, Web 2.0 welcomes individuality, and makes it far more possible. Don't like the RSS feeds from Fox News because of the bias? No problem, switch your feed to pull from CNN instead.Gambler wrote:Hey, since nobody gives a damn about things like individuality and personality, why don't we skip all those intruductory steps altogether?
Web 2.0 means embracing the web as a service. Instead of "If you want our news, you have to get it in our format, with our ads, with our poor layout choices", you get the raw data, and can perform whatever changes you want to with it.
Thats empowering small sites to become incredibly powerful at very low cost. Want to do a social networking site? You can use the GoogleMaps API to layout where people are, you can use Flickr for photo storage, and so on. Its about enabling fast application development with a minimal amount of reinventing the wheel.
But you don't have to rely on one vendor's implementation either - you can pick and choose. Don't like Google much? No problem - use Yahoo's search API instead. The list goes on.
Its not combining minds. Its making information available in raw form, from multiple providers with no strings attached, to allow better communication. Thats not the borg-ification of humanity - thats the unix philosophy brought to the net.Gambler wrote:All we need to do is combine the minds of all humans into a single information matrix. (I hope my Vacuum Flowers reference will not be lost in vain.)
If you were serious in your concerns, please, explain further, because I don't see anything negative about Web 2.0, and I'm usually one of the most paranoid people around.
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
Strange I though all those blogs and social networks were by user choice?Hey, since nobody gives a damn about things like individuality and personality, why don't we skip all those intruductory steps altogether?
The thing is its already out there, and it works. Its hard to pass something off as hype when its proven to work effectively. The problem is turning everything so far into effective business models - there seems to a habit for a lot of progress to emerge in areas not traditionally considered. Who'd have thought MySpace would explode so much?Imho it's yet another hype in the hope to get some managers enthousiast and make lots of money... Waiting for web3.0 where things will be really shiny and usable...
Companies along the lines of Google are going to get there a lot faster (they have less baggage and assumptions to weigh them down).
I keep hearing Microsoft will challange Google, but to date Microsofts impact on my online experience is limited my Hotmail account. Outside the provision of email where is Microsoft's gigantic presence on the web? We've already established it takes more than a predominant browser to make money from the internet...
Web 1.0 -> Web 2.0
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> blogging
evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
publishing --> participation
content management systems --> wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness --> syndication
It has plenty of things in common with communism. The thing I love about that word is the way US propaganda of the cold war period is still echoed. The theory of communism is all about building an efficient society where everyone is equal, and everyone contributes to the community, and everyone is helped by the community, bla, bla, bla. I think the connection is obvious. More detailed explanation of what I don't like about the article would require me to write an article myself, and my English sucks too much for scribing anything readable.I'd say its got practically nothing in common with communism, so I'd be interested in hearing your explanation of what the link is.
It depends on which author you are referring to, but the portion "where everyone is equal" is categorially opposite of Marx's writing. In fact, Marx specifically says "each gave according to his abilities, and received according to his needs."Gambler wrote:The theory of communism is all about building an efficient society where everyone is equal, and everyone contributes to the community, and everyone is helped by the community, bla, bla, bla.I'd say its got practically nothing in common with communism, so I'd be interested in hearing your explanation of what the link is.
Marx incorporated (into his theory) the natural and real differences in man, and allows each to receive truly different items as well. Thats *not* being equal. His theory had great purchase because it was so dramatically different from the capitalist view of each man having to produce enough to support himself (and getting unduly rewarded for over-acheiving).
I'm still interested if you have an honest connection between the two, but your only tenuous connection is based on a flawed understanding of communism, and even if that were accurate (and its completely wrong), it *still* isnt a good description of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 doesn't make everyone equal by any stretch. It simply asks for compatible (read: Interoperable) standards so that competition can be its most intense - the polar opposite goal of communism, where competition is reduced to increase productivity.Gambler wrote:I think the connection is obvious. More detailed explanation of what I don't like about the article would require me to write an article myself, and my English sucks too much for scribing anything readable.
I think your issues are more with your misunderstanding of communism than with Web 2.0. Either that, or you do need to explain further.
It's not that far off....
After all the United Nations is trying it's best to lobby for control of the internet. They have been for years. If they succeed it may become eCommunism after all. Why? Because...
The UN Charter was written by Communists. The main contributors to the UN charter were officials from the USSR and officials from the U.S. State Department and Treasury Department. The US officials were later determined to be secret Communist agents. These men drafted the Charter. The charter mirrors in almost every aspect the USSR's constitution. Why were they doing this? They were planning a world wide Communist government of course! They're still working on it. The history of the 20th century is the history of increasing government intrusion. The 21st century will only hasten the pace.
After all the United Nations is trying it's best to lobby for control of the internet. They have been for years. If they succeed it may become eCommunism after all. Why? Because...
The UN Charter was written by Communists. The main contributors to the UN charter were officials from the USSR and officials from the U.S. State Department and Treasury Department. The US officials were later determined to be secret Communist agents. These men drafted the Charter. The charter mirrors in almost every aspect the USSR's constitution. Why were they doing this? They were planning a world wide Communist government of course! They're still working on it. The history of the 20th century is the history of increasing government intrusion. The 21st century will only hasten the pace.
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
Bunch of communists, eh? Man, they made some serious errors then...
There was lobbying for international control over the internet because an internet controlled by one nation only can be misused. One or two nations can decide a lot of things and ignore everyone else (hardly the first time that happened in recent history if you recall).
There was lobbying for international control over the internet because an internet controlled by one nation only can be misused. One or two nations can decide a lot of things and ignore everyone else (hardly the first time that happened in recent history if you recall).
It sounds like a huge world-wide conspiracy to convert all capitalist constitutions to communist constitutionsneophyte wrote:Why were they doing this? They were planning a world wide Communist government of course! They're still working on it. The history of the 20th century is the history of increasing government intrusion. The 21st century will only hasten the pace.
I believe this is a false way of addressing the productivity "issue". I mean, as you can see in many capitalistic states and markets, competition between companies and services only makes them better. I'll give an example of to children having a competition between themselves - which only leads to the kids putting more hard workj to beat each other.Roja wrote: [...] competition is reduced to increase productivity.
A reservation I have for this (my) opinion or this method, though, is that while the strong businesses or services survive this competition, while the small, weak ones don't. However, maybe it is better this way, because weak businesses may not have as much as productive impacy on the economy (in spite of their potential to grow, which is why i stated the reservetion above).