Web 2.0 doesn't live up to it's name

(sorry this post is late!!!!)

From this Slate article, I gathered that the main criticism of Web 2.0 is that the "web 2.0" term is limiting and simlutaneously beffudled behind a mass of big words and technological phrases.

For example: "Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform."

What does that mean? The term Web 2.0 can describe any interaction over the internet that contributes to a web-community, interactive intelligence, or fosters a new sense of web-based livelyhood (namely video, sound, and image interaction.)

I think that this article is too hard on Web 2.0. Sure the name is confusing - the definition changes daily with emerging technology. But the sentiment behind the movement is the same - finding a way to communicate with people online. And not just communicate, but inform, explore and learn common interests of people you might never see face to face.

It's understandable that some would fear this new system of communication. Who knows what it could lead to? Will the communities that are formed on the internet through flickr, myspace, youtube, and wikipedia come to replace the face to face interactions that have permeated our world since the era of man? If so, what does this mean for the future of our political system, our economy, and of course, our social structure.

I believe the web has the ability to connect people more than it has the ability to destroy society. Maybe it's my naive personality that hopes, but despite all the commercialization, invasion of privacy, and proliferation of sex offenders, I believe in the good of the internet. Web 2.0 has the potential to make us the most advnaced species - by leaps and bounds. People's intelligence can finally feed of eachother an grow. With all the problems plaguing the world now - let's hope we use this intelligence for good, not evil.