Web2.0
Páginas: 15 (3593 palabras)
Publicado: 13 de septiembre de 2011
Against
You:
A Manifesto in Favor of Audience By Andrew Keen
No 35.03
The InTerneT Is back, we are Told.
Best-selling authors like Chris Anderson (The Long Tail) and Don tapscott (Wikinomics) say that the technology sector is hot once more and that the Internet is again revolutionizing traditional media. We hear that, in contrast with the ephemeral nineties tech boom, today’s revolutionis for real. this time, Anderson, tapscott and their digital utopian chorus promise us, new Internet technology really is going to radically alter the world. these revolutionaries are only half right. Google, Digg, Craiglist, MySpace, Wikipedia and Youtube are indeed successfully changing our media landscape. Digital technologies like blogs, podcasts, remixes, videocasting and mash-ups arerevolutionizing traditional communications—blurring the age-old distinction between author and audience and between creator and consumer. Venture capitalists are elbowing each other to fund promising new start-ups—the next generation Youtubes, Wikpedias and MySpaces which enable the creation of user-generated-content. the technology media—Wired, Business 2.0, Fast Company, even Fortune and BusinessWeek—is once more glamorizing start-up entrepreneurs. Silicon Valley, never shy of linguistic innovation, has even come up with a new word—Web 2.0 (coined by technology impressario tim O’Reilly)—to describe this new revolution. Yes, this second Internet revolution is indeed going to be different, at least in terms of its business success. the first time around, during the gold rush of the nineties, thedigital economy rose meteorically, then crashed and burnt in April 2000 with even greater speed. the dotcom boom, that digital tulip craze, turned out to be empty of real economic value. After the crash, the start-ups withered away and the new thing turned out to be the dead thing. that was Web 1.0. But today, the new new thing, this Web 2.0 thing, is indeed the real deal. Pundits like Anderson andtapscott are correct. the digital utopians of Silicon Valley really are transforming American culture and media with their new technologies.
No 35.03
Info
/13
ChangeThis
But the one problem with Web 2.0., and this is a very big problem indeed, is that the consequences of the technology transformation are catastrophic. the good news is that the Web 2.0 revolution is for real; thebad news is that it is having a profoundly destructive impact upon media, culture and society. there is an old cliche in Silicon Valley that nothing succeeds like failure. the assumption is that business failure hardens the entrepreneur, making him more resilient. turning that cliche upon its head, this manifesto focuses upon the failure of success by exposing the destructive consequences oftoday’s Silicon Valley revolution. Web 2.0’s utopian vision is of an “always-on” society in which we have instant access to a democratized, interactive media. I believe that this could spell the death of traditional mass culture, the end of nationally read newspapers, hit music and movies, universally read books. Rather than always-on, the consequences of the Web 2.0 revolution will be a culture thatnobody will want to watch, read or hear. It will be an always-off world. For the digital utopians, mainstream media is an elite racket monopolized by privileged experts which has failed, historically, to reward real talent. Society is, consequently, full of unjustly unpublished writers, unrecorded musicians, undistributed movie directors. Web 2.0’s technology, therefore, is emancipating. By becomingbloggers and podcasters, we—the traditional audience— become the empowered author. this is the heart of the Web 2.0 matter. For digital utopians like Don tapscott and Chris Anderson, the latest technology of the Internet, which allows anyone to publish weblogs or record music on their computer or distribute video over the Internet, smashes the traditional barriers to entry. In one sense,...
You:
A Manifesto in Favor of Audience By Andrew Keen
No 35.03
The InTerneT Is back, we are Told.
Best-selling authors like Chris Anderson (The Long Tail) and Don tapscott (Wikinomics) say that the technology sector is hot once more and that the Internet is again revolutionizing traditional media. We hear that, in contrast with the ephemeral nineties tech boom, today’s revolutionis for real. this time, Anderson, tapscott and their digital utopian chorus promise us, new Internet technology really is going to radically alter the world. these revolutionaries are only half right. Google, Digg, Craiglist, MySpace, Wikipedia and Youtube are indeed successfully changing our media landscape. Digital technologies like blogs, podcasts, remixes, videocasting and mash-ups arerevolutionizing traditional communications—blurring the age-old distinction between author and audience and between creator and consumer. Venture capitalists are elbowing each other to fund promising new start-ups—the next generation Youtubes, Wikpedias and MySpaces which enable the creation of user-generated-content. the technology media—Wired, Business 2.0, Fast Company, even Fortune and BusinessWeek—is once more glamorizing start-up entrepreneurs. Silicon Valley, never shy of linguistic innovation, has even come up with a new word—Web 2.0 (coined by technology impressario tim O’Reilly)—to describe this new revolution. Yes, this second Internet revolution is indeed going to be different, at least in terms of its business success. the first time around, during the gold rush of the nineties, thedigital economy rose meteorically, then crashed and burnt in April 2000 with even greater speed. the dotcom boom, that digital tulip craze, turned out to be empty of real economic value. After the crash, the start-ups withered away and the new thing turned out to be the dead thing. that was Web 1.0. But today, the new new thing, this Web 2.0 thing, is indeed the real deal. Pundits like Anderson andtapscott are correct. the digital utopians of Silicon Valley really are transforming American culture and media with their new technologies.
No 35.03
Info
/13
ChangeThis
But the one problem with Web 2.0., and this is a very big problem indeed, is that the consequences of the technology transformation are catastrophic. the good news is that the Web 2.0 revolution is for real; thebad news is that it is having a profoundly destructive impact upon media, culture and society. there is an old cliche in Silicon Valley that nothing succeeds like failure. the assumption is that business failure hardens the entrepreneur, making him more resilient. turning that cliche upon its head, this manifesto focuses upon the failure of success by exposing the destructive consequences oftoday’s Silicon Valley revolution. Web 2.0’s utopian vision is of an “always-on” society in which we have instant access to a democratized, interactive media. I believe that this could spell the death of traditional mass culture, the end of nationally read newspapers, hit music and movies, universally read books. Rather than always-on, the consequences of the Web 2.0 revolution will be a culture thatnobody will want to watch, read or hear. It will be an always-off world. For the digital utopians, mainstream media is an elite racket monopolized by privileged experts which has failed, historically, to reward real talent. Society is, consequently, full of unjustly unpublished writers, unrecorded musicians, undistributed movie directors. Web 2.0’s technology, therefore, is emancipating. By becomingbloggers and podcasters, we—the traditional audience— become the empowered author. this is the heart of the Web 2.0 matter. For digital utopians like Don tapscott and Chris Anderson, the latest technology of the Internet, which allows anyone to publish weblogs or record music on their computer or distribute video over the Internet, smashes the traditional barriers to entry. In one sense,...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.