tellhimfred.com

My interest in all the shiny new web services, betas, and networks is obviously not representative of the masses. Most people will not jump at the opportunity to check out anything that has the words “invite-only beta” in the description. I understand that.

Today I saw a forum post from a Hoffa, and he asked the following:

how much of the blogosphere/web 2.0/social networking/dynamic multi media/crisp edge web-based app technology is *actually* important in an objective sense, and how much is given an inflated sense of importance by the relatively small group of people who work with and/or are fascinated with it?

I think there’s a threshold of how much content the average person is going to consume in the course of their lifetime, and I see a ceiling fast approaching on how much the world in general is going to give a shit about. Yet, the more I read about the cutting edge of web-based technology, it’s becoming more and more advanced, more integrated and more about pushing all this content, and I wonder - who’s consuming it all?

Is it all a colossal waste of time?

How much of our new technology is being driven by need or desire, and how much by “vision”?

So, I offered my take. I’d love to hear yours. My reply:

Well, my friend, I think you may have reached a “when I was a kid we only had three TV channels” moment. I have a lot of those. I have moments like that when I see commercials selling ringtones. It makes no sense to me, but it’s an entire sub-industry. And that’s the common thread- the majority of these things being built, researched, and launched aren’t aimed at us. They’re aimed at the next generation of kids that simply do not know what life would be like without these technologies.

One quick example:
Music- The iPod is a perfect example of an innovative product that was conceived out of “vision” rather than any need whatsoever. And the iPod didn’t just change the way people listen to music, it changed the entire distribution model of the music industry. Though you may still shop for music at a record store, I bet it would be nearly impossible to find a teenager who doesn’t buy their music through the iTunes store alone.

But let me back up and try to answer your question by breaking down what you’re actually saying:

how much of the blogosphere/web 2.0/social networking/dynamic multi media/crisp edge web-based app technology is *actually* important in an objective sense, and how much is given an inflated sense of importance by the relatively small group of people who work with and/or are fascinated with it?

So, you’re basically asking if all of the following are actually important in an objective sense. That’s kind of a tough question to answer, as you’d need to define what qualifies as being “important.” How do you judge something as “objectively important”? Regardless, let’s just move on assuming that there’s something called objective importance that exists, and it can be seen as a worthwhile and satisfying activity for human beings to take part in. So here goes:

• Blogosphere- I think blogs can be seen as important under this definition, as they’re basically a source of information. Given the idea that learning is a worthwhile human experience, I’d argue that blogs are important.
• Web 2.0- Since web 2.0 is just a completely worthless term, I don’t know how to go into this one. There is absolutely no meaning behind the term whatsoever. It’s basically a blanket term applied to web sites, services, and tools that all fall under one umbrella: they exist. I’ll give you this one: web 2.0 is not important because it doesn’t map to anything in reality.
• Social Networking- Social Networking- to me- is a term used to describe a set of tools allowing human beings to communicate with each other remotely through a model that is based on their own interpersonal relationships in physical reality. Being able to communicate with friends in a convenient way from disparate locations has value to me. Social networking sites allow people to have discussions, share content items, and reinforce interpersonal connections when presence-based physical interactions are impossible. I think that’s a good thing.
• Crisp edge web-based app technology- I’m guessing this is yet another buzzword-laden phrase without meaning. And since it means nothing, I’d agree that it isn’t important.

The second part of your question is this:

how much is given an inflated sense of importance by the relatively small group of people who work with and/or are fascinated with it?

So, you’re asking whether those that are enthusiastic about these services believe that they are more important than they actually are to the masses? I’m not sure that’s really a question. Isn’t this true with anything? If you’re a person that is extremely into video games, wouldn’t you believe that video games are far more important than the value placed on video games by non-gamers? I think the same could be said for any activity, hobby, or “favorite”.

You then say:

I think there’s a threshold of how much content the average person is going to consume in the course of their lifetime, and I see a ceiling fast approaching on how much the world in general is going to give a shit about.

So you’re saying that we’re at a point where content consumption is about to max out, and that people are going to be overburdened by content. I think you have a point in some ways here. First, there is a glut of available content out there, and there’s no way a person could consume it all even if they wanted to. However, it’s not like this information is constantly coming at us. It’s out there to be consumed by those that choose to consume it.

And I think that’s the point of all this new cutting-edge stuff: There’s an enormous disconnect between content and people. There’s absolutely worthless garbage out there, and there’s great stuff out there. The question is how to get to the good stuff while filtering out the junk. If you really look at it, you’ll see that all the social networks and web tools aren’t really about slamming people with more content to waste time on. Instead, they’re trying to build connections and filters. Connecting people to what they deem “objectively important” while trying to shield people from what they deem “a colossal waste of time.”

Your final question is this:

How much of our new technology is being driven by need or desire, and how much by “vision”?

I’d agree that very little innovation is driven by actual need. I can think only of vaccines, new methods of food production, and technologies aimed at trying to provide for life’s necessities. Almost all innovations are guided by vision. We didn’t need to go to the moon. We didn’t need to invent the automobile. Look at everything you own, and tell me how many of  these things are actually vital to your existence here on earth.

Summing It Up

Again, I know I’m not representative, and I could be overly defensive. Who knows. But I’d love to hear what people think about the question.

Discuss in the forum