Why Web 2.0 bashers are …

If you’ve been here before, you have already read my counterpoints to Charlie’s Top 10 reasons why Web 2.0 sucks.

Ok, so we have established one thing, I am definitely not one of the ‘most people’ who reads Charlie’s blog. I commented on his points based solely on the merits of his argument. His credentials are no doubt impressive, but I don’t make it a habit of studying people’s bio before I comment on their posts. I probably should. I could’ve (should’ve) used a different word, but ‘wrong’ just doesn’t have the same ring as ‘clueless’. No offense meant.

Thanks to Charlie for the counter-points to my counter-points, being a good sport, and providing much-needed inspiration for my post 🙂
Note: You can read Charlie’s complete response right below my counterpoints.
Alrighty, here are my counter-points to his counter-points to my counter-points to Charlie’s original post (phew),
– "Plus, our laws about decency and privacy only really serve to make the indecent seem more vile…  Do you know how many people wrote into the NFL about Janet Jackson’s boob scarring their kids?  I mean… how ridiculous is that?  Rules should not be made by the government about how people dress."
I wish there was a law against people dressing unfashionably, but that’s just me 🙂 But seriously, people have a right to be indignant. I don’t think there’s anything’s wrong with folks writing to NFL. It’s healthy to have an opinion, but someone has to decide what’s acceptable and what’s not. In the Web 2.0 world, those limits haven’t been set yet. Kathy Sierra (and the death threats against her ) is a prime example of the abuse of freedom of expression. The debate is still on, who decides what’s okay and not okay especially in the online social networking world.
"the tools that make it possible and easy have just recently been created. Remember the days of static html pages?! That wasn’t that long ago…"
1, not true… online social networking is 10 years old…  Remember searching member profiles in AOL?   2.  Static html works just fine for Craigslist, no?
What was missing then is the ease of interaction that is possible today, ‘searching’ is not the same as being able to debate/share/collaborate.
"not every company is looking to capture the Idaho or Wisconsin (no offense) market"   
MySpace does a fine job of tackling that market and if you’re looking to create value, you need to hit the mainstream.
There are some tools/sites that will never go mainstream and one does not have to go mainstream to create value. You can create value and cater to a niche market segment. I consider, trying to go mainstream is akin to commoditizing, trying to be everything to everyone. So my question here is – what are you defining as mainstream? And why does MySpace have to go mainstream instead of figuring out how to monetize the existing user base?
"It’s saying that if you are going to fund…say Modern art…you should be an artist yourself."   
No… actually… its like saying if you talk about art, you should have gone to a museum at least once.  Case in point, internet radio licensing.  Diane Feinstein thinks that setting equal music play costs across all digital mediums is "fair".  Of course, these rates don’t apply to radio.  Do you think she’s ever listened to an internet radio station…tried last.fm?  She’s creating laws for things the prob doesn’t even use.  That’s bad.
I have already answered this one, and I will repeat it here again – Sure, I can understand why one should have a good understanding of the business, but just because one is a great  blogger and/or has a cool MySpace profile, doesn’t make him/her an expert in understanding business models and valuations.
In other words, understanding how blogging works and how to monetize it, is not the same as being a savvy blogger yourself.
Same goes for your latest example, does Feinstein listen to Internet radio all the time? Who cares.
Does she understand how this media is consumed, the consumers, and the revenue model? She’d better.
"Web 2.0 gets…gets blamed for data-issues like privacy"   
Really?  Because the last 10 stories I heard about privacy leaks were not Web 2.0 companies… it was old school financial services players like banks.
That’s exactly my point, I couldn’t understand why this was part of your ‘Web 2.0 sucks’ commentary. I agree, these are real challenges but it’s going to take much more than Web 2.0 to resolve these. And there’s no reason to think that some entrepreneur somewhere isn’t already thinking of ways to leverage Web 2.0 to address some of these.
As far as the NBC-Fox comment goes, I am not a big-media-company fan, and you can read my rants here – http://marketingmystic.typepad.com/marketing_mystic/2007/03/new_network_by_.html
—————-
Charlie’s response:
On 4/27/07, CEO <charlie> wrote:

Ok, so most of the people who read the post realize that I’m not a "Web 2.0 Basher".  I was an analyst for Union Square Ventures (we funded del.icio.us) and now I’m a product manager for an avatar company.  I teach two classes at Fordham… an undergraduation course called "Management for the MySpace Generation" and a graduate MBA course called "Intro to Business Blogging". 

So, I don’t think its quite appropriate to call me "clueless"…   

The post was meant to, and was successful at, starting conversation.   Most people who read that realized that.

And now I’ll counter your counter points…

"For example, you like to walk around naked because you believe that clothes inhibit your ability to express yourself fully. The problem is that nobody else wants to see you naked, hence the need to lay down rules."

– I don’t like seeing naked old guys at the gym, but there’s no law against that.  So what exactly is the difference between seeing naked old men at the gym and seeing them in public?  I don’t like seeing naked old men anywhere, but clearly there are inconsistant rules about this sort of stuff.. just as there are inconsistant rules about freedom of speech… rules manipulated for political reasons often times.  Plus, our laws about decency and privacy only really serve to make the indecent seem more vile…  Do you know how many people wrote into the NFL about Janet Jackson’s boob scarring their kids?  I mean… how ridiculous is that?  Rules should not be made by the government about how people dress. 

"the tools that make it possible and easy have just recently been created. Remember the days of static html pages?! That wasn’t that long ago…"

1, not true… online social networking is 10 years old…  Remember searching member profiles in AOL?   2.  Static html works just fine for Craigslist, no?

"not every company is looking to capture the Idaho or Wisconsin (no offense) market"   

MySpace does a fine job of tackling that market and if you’re looking to create value, you need to hit the mainstream.

"VCs and big companies are not paying for the tools or features, they are paying big bucks for the huge traffic."

Actually, many VCs are funding companies before they have any traffic whatsoever.   And traffic is not what people pay for.  Traffic can be bought… it is usage that you can’t buy. I could buy traffic to YouTube, I just can’t incentivize video creation in the same way.

"While the big media companies loathe the idea of some joe schmoe enjoying their content without paying for it, the Web 2.0-enabled sharing of legal and illegal content has forced them to adopt the…OMG..FREE content-sharing platforms."

Are you serious?  NBC-Fox is not a win for anyone…   Do you really think they’re going to come up with an implementation as good as YouTube… and even YouTube still does not connect to my TV.  So far, all of the network approaches to this have not allowed the embedding of these clips anywhere.  They want to keep you in their site.

"Web 2.0 gets…gets blamed for data-issues like privacy"   

Really?  Because the last 10 stories I heard about privacy leaks were not Web 2.0 companies… it was old school financial services players like banks.

"It’s saying that if you are going to fund…say Modern art…you should be an artist yourself."   

No… actually… its like saying if you talk about art, you should have gone to a museum at least once.  Case in point, internet radio licensing.  Diane Feinstein thinks that setting equal music play costs across all digital mediums is "fair".  Of course, these rates don’t apply to radio.  Do you think she’s ever listened to an internet radio station…tried last.fm?  She’s creating laws for things the prob doesn’t even use.  That’s bad.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s