"Web 2.0 blowback"

NetSquared's picture

My good pal and Cluetrain co-author, Doc Searls, has called me out. There's no other way to put it. "Your move, dude," he writes. I encourage you to go read his post -- and to follow the links to what he calls "the best blowback against Web 2.0 boosterism." He points to an article by Nicholas Carr titled The amorality of Web 2.0. Personally, I didn't think it was a moral issue, but i guess I need to chew on this a bit. You think about it. I'll think about it. And we can meet up back here to compare notes.

In a technologically perfect world, a blogger is like a well-oiled machine. Never tires out, never stops posting, never gets sick. In a human world -- which let's assume for the sake of argument we're still in -- bloggers are... well, human. And this particular blogger has been off his feed for the last couple days. It's taking me more than the usual concentration to grasp Mr. Carr's point(s). His piece has sparked much conversation around the web, so I'll assume my lack of comprehension is due to whatever crud -- bird flu? mad cow? -- I've gotten hold of over here. btw, Carr is also author of Does IT Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage, which also caused quite a [expletive-deleted] storm a while back. It was based on an article he wrote for Harvard Business Review -- a publication he also once worked for.

And while we're talking about HBR and interesting books -- and I'm failing to rise to Doc's challenge -- here's a handful of titles that may be more germane to nonprofits, specifically, whether or not "Web 2.0" is salvation or snake-oil...

More when my brain is hitting on all six again. (It used to be "all eight" -- now I understand what Christopher Lasch was driving at with that subtitle: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations).