The Next Big Thing Is Eating The Lunch Of Something That Was Big A Decade Ago

Someone who hasn’t fallen for George Orwell’s trope ‘whoever is winning now will always seem to be invincible.’

Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years - Eric Jackson via Forbes

In the tech Internet world, we’ve really had 3 generations:

  1. Web 1.0 (companies founded from 1994 – 2001, including Netscape, Yahoo! (YHOO), AOL (AOL), Google (GOOG), Amazon (AMZN) and eBay (EBAY)),
  2. Web 2.0 or Social (companies founded from 2002 – 2009, including Facebook (FB), LinkedIn (LNKD), and Groupon (GRPN)),
  3. and now Mobile (from 2010 – present, including Instagram).
We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead.

With each succeeding generation in tech the Internet, it seems the prior generation can’t quite wrap its head around the subtle changes that the next generation brings.  Web 1.0 companies did a great job of aggregating data and presenting it in an easy to digest portal fashion.  Google did a good job organizing the chaos of the Web better than AltaVista, Excite, Lycos and all the other search engines that preceded it.  Amazon did a great job of centralizing the chaos of e-commerce shopping and putting all you needed in one place.

When Web 2.0 companies began to emerge, they seemed to gravitate to the importance of social connections.   MySpace built a network of people with a passion for music initially.  Facebook got college students.  LinkedIn got the white collar professionals.  Digg, Reddit, and StumbleUpon showed how users could generate content themselves and make the overall community more valuable.

Yet, Web 1.0 companies never really seemed to be able to grasp the importance of building a social community and tapping into the backgrounds of those users.  Even when it seems painfully obvious to everyone, there just doesn’t seem to be the capacity of these older companies to shift to a new paradigm.  Why has Amazon done so little in social?  And Google?  Even as they pour billions at the problem, their primary business model which made them successful in the first place seems to override their expansion into some new way of thinking.

Social companies born since 2010 have a very different view of the world.  These companies – and Instagram is the most topical example at the moment – view the mobile smartphone as the primary (and oftentimes exclusive) platform for their application.  They don’t even think of launching via a web site.  They assume, over time, people will use their mobile applications almost entirely instead of websites.

We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead.

Web 1.0 and 2.0 companies still seem unsure how to adapt to this new paradigm.  Facebook is the triumphant winner of social companies.  It will go public in a few weeks and probably hit $140 billion in market capitalization.  Yet, it loses money in mobile and has rather simple iPhone and iPad versions of its desktop experience.  It is just trying to figure out how to make money on the web – as it only had $3.7 billion in revenues in 2011 and its revenues actually decelerated in Q1 of this year relative to Q4 of last year.  It has no idea how it will make money in mobile.

The failed history of Web 1.0 companies adapting to the world of social suggests that Facebook will be as woeful at adapting to social mobile as Google has been with its “ghost town” Google+ initiative last year.

The organizational ecologists talked about the “liability of obsolescence” which is a growing mismatch between an organization’s inherent product strategy and its operating environment over time.  This probably is a good explanation for what we’re seeing in the tech world today.

Are companies like Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! obsolete?  They’re still growing.  They still have enormous audiences.  They also have very talented managers.

But with each new paradigm shift (first to social, now to mobile, and next to whatever else), the older generations get increasingly out of touch and likely closer to their significant decline.  What’s more, the tech world in which we live in seems to be speeding up.

People forget how indomitable AOL seemed, and the promise of Netscape and MySpace, before they fell into the dustbin. As I have said before, Facebook is the new AOL, although Johnson is making a different case for that. I have been presaging the rise of social operating systems — which would invalidate Facebook’s near-monopoly on people’s social inclinations — while he points to the rise of mobile, and says

Considering how long Facebook dragged its feet to get into mobile in the first place, the data suggests they will be exactly as slow to change as Google was to social.

And that’s is not a good place to be.

I agree with Jackson: the rate of change is not slowing, so the monopolies of today are likely to be shorter-lived than those of even a decade ago. And the new world beaters are possibly companies that don’t even exist yet, but whenever they crop up we will first notice them when they start stealing users, market, and attention from the formerly indomitable killer apps of the preceding era.

The unwillingness of Facebook and Google to share a public commons when it comes to the intersection of search and social is corrosive to the connective tissue of our shared culture. But as with all things Internet, we’ll just identify the damage and route around it. It’s just too bad we have to do that, and in the long run, it’s bad for Facebook, bad for Google, and bad for all of us. (BTW, Google also doesn’t show Twitter or Flickr results either, or any other “social” service. Just its own, Google and Picasa.)

- John Battelle, Search, Plus Your World, As Long As It’s Our World

Once again, Google steps in a pile of doodoo with its maladroit efforts in trying to absorb the social web. Unwilling to simply index things and offer them up as search results, Google wants to ‘socialize’ search. What this means is that search is just another battlefield for Google to fight the war for the future against Facebook, Twitter, etc.

On one hand, you have to admit that Google faces a new world, one that is increasingly social, and the search company has to get in there. But this is not the way to do it.

I continue to be amazed that Google doesn’t look at its email and calendar apps as a good place to build social, instead of dicking around with search.

The End Of An Age, Or The End Of The Beginning?

Jeremiah Owyang wants to declare the end of the golden age of tech blogging, or, even more portentously, he says

The tech blogosphere, as we know it, is over.

This could be interpreted in a number of ways, but at face value — and leaving aside for the moment the specifics of his argument — I agree. The ‘blogosphere’ — that mid ’00s concept of a community of bloggers writing for each others and cross-linking through trackbacks and threaded comments — that communitarian vision has been superseded by other ideas of what is, or should be, happening, online.

However, I don’t want to adopt the metaphor that is used by people that fear the future, and long for a halcyon past. I won’t go along with the ‘golden age’ rhetoric, which is generally employed by those arguing a fall from a better past into a less virtuous present. (The concept comes from ancient Greek mythology, with its Golden, Silver, Bronze, Iron ages, and then the present, debased age.)

I prefer Winston Churchill’s trope:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Winston Churchill by Yousef Karsh

Churchill was, of course, referring to a turning point in the struggle with Germany during World War II, while we are discussing the transition from a more primitive and less social phase in the web revolution, into something more complex and, ultimately, more rewarding.

The points that Jeremiah makes to support his argument are very tactical, not looking at the strategic changes going on technologically or societally. His ‘trends’ aren’t really trends, but narrow extrapolations from recent events masquerading as business advice. They are these, in brief:

Trend 1: Corporate acquisitions stymie innovation

Trend 2: Tech blogs are experiencing major talent turnover

Trend 3: The audience needs have changed, they want: faster, smaller, and social

Trend 4: As space matures, business models solidify – giving room for new disruptors

These observations are interesting as far as they go, but aside from the ‘faster, small, and social’ I don’t think these are major, in any sense.

I’d like to offer a few trends that may be implied by Jeremiah’s lists or by the comments of various bloggers that he cites, but aren’t really characterized very well in his post.

It’s obvious that Jeremiah is caught up in the issues confronting three groups of web denizens posting their contributions posting on technology platforms based on a now well-established model of web publishing, which we call blogging. This is unexamined in his piece, but the model of a website made up of chronologically ordered posts with comments in a thread on each piece, and a variety of navigation or advertising widgets in the margin may be getting tired, and may not gibe with other modern advances in online media dynamics. At any rate, Owyang’s concerns seem to be directed toward three constituencies:

  1. Independent authors or analysts, who may find it harder to operate in a changed media world, or to make a living from blogging, if indeed very many did so.
  2. Blog network companies — like Techcrunch, Mashable, and The Next Web — that are confronted with the invasion of major media companies, consolidation, and turnover.
  3. And last, the ‘audience’ — by which Owyang means everyone else. I will put to the side that social media was supposed to be about the end of the audience — Jay Rosen’s famous ‘the people formerly known as the audience’ — and simply state that Owyang and the others groups he appears to be concerned about have largely internalized a media-centric worldview, while mouthing mostly empty platitudes about the power of social media.

He doesn’t seem particularly concerned about the problems of major media companies, which continue to be deadly serious, nor does he refer to the notable advances that media companies like The Atlantic have accomplished. Nor does he spend much time talking about the technology companies — like Tumblr, Twitter, and Flipboard — that are involved in the tectonic changes going on today; changes that make the ebb and flow of small-potato business models surrounding tech blogging look like the scrambling of ants underneath the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Yes, we are veering into a new era of web media; and it’s about goddamned time.

Here’s a few of the most powerful trends, in summary:

  1. The rise of the web of flow, and the fall of the web of pages — Ubiquitous and highspeed connectivity and the emergence of a new breed of ‘genius’ mobile devices have led to a web in which information is perceived as and designed to be experienced in motion. The user experience has shifted from wandering around, searching for information, moving via URLs from page to page. Increasingly, information flows to us through the agency of solutions like Twitter, Tumblr, and Flipboard, mediated by social and algorithmic ‘engines of meaning’, as Bruce Sterling styled it. We are no longer experiencing the web as exploring a library, but more like a drinking from a fire hose.
  2. The social revolution and social tools — While a lot of the discussion about the rise of blogging talked about social media, the technology involved wasn’t particularly social. However, the emergence of network-based social tools — notably Facebook, Twitter, and thousands of other niche offerings — have led to a dramatic and unprecedented change in information transmission: increasingly, people are getting their news and insight via social networks, channeled through other, known individuals. The simplest proof of this state change is that Twitter is now the emergency broadcast system, the canary in the coal mine, the first place that the most important information appears. These tools form the bloodstream and the nervous system for the connected world we now inhabit. And the blogs and other media tools that were principally about publishing pages in the previous era, are now primarily oriented toward pushing links and summaries into the social nervous system.
  3. Social learning, innovation, and curation — As the population online grows, piling into world-spanning social networks, there are a number of systemic changes. As Stalin is supposed to have said, quantity has a quality of its own. As the online population and social density online goes up, there are phase transitions involved, and I believe that somewhere in the past year or two, we passed through a threshold. As Mark Pagel argues, our level of social connection has grown to the point where new ideas can travel much more quickly and economically: this includes all ideas, not just those involved in tech blogging, but tech blogging too. The best ideas — and their originators — will rise to the top more quickly, and as a result, Pagel maintains that we have a lessened need for innovators, and at the same time we are learning more quickly than before. I believe that this is the complementary trend allied to the increased perceived need for good curators: the value of discernment — which ideas are more useful — has gone up, while the value of creating new ideas has gone down. And, of course, you can substitute ‘write yet another post about iPhone apps or the Zygna IPO’ wherever I wrote ‘idea’ or ‘innovation’.

Obviously, Owyang and those leaving comments on his post weren’t necessarily treating these trends. The post was ostensibly about the changes in the world of tech blogging, after all. But I don’t see how you can meaningfully explore that niche without the larger context.

Brian Solis sees the larger context as necessary as well:

I recently wrote about my thoughts on the state and future of blogs, which is of course far grander than the world of tech blogging. And as you can see, blogging is alive and clicking.

Yes, micromedia, video, and social transactions/actions are breaking through our digital levees and causing our social streams to flood. And, yes, Flipboard, Zite, and the like (get it?), are forcing our consumption patterns into rapid-fire actions and reactions. You have a choice. You are either a content creator, curator or consumer. You can be all of course. But, think about this beyond the mental equivalent of 140 characters. What do you stand for and what do you want to become known for? The answer is different for each of us. But, content, context, and continuity are all I need to learn, make decisions and in turn inspire others.

I don’t buy the consumer angle — after all, every person is curating for at least one person, themselves — so I consider it a cardinality distinction: curating for one is not appreciably different than curating for two or ten. All curators — of whatever degree of discernment — started by curating for themselves. But Solis clearly gets the big picture, and I agree totally that what is bubbling up today will make the web a place where we continue to come to learn, make decisions, and connect with — and perhaps inspire? — others to do the same.

The internet creates a huge range of often-novel choices from which end-users construct their own adaptive behaviors. The important determining factors in personal friendships, marriages, and other relationships remain with the individual. Which isn’t to say the internet makes no difference. It does. The internet facilitates anti-social behaviors like identity theft, and positive behaviors like keeping in close touch with relatives in faraway places, to such a degree that they become almost unimaginable in the pre-Internet age. My sense is that, once you eliminate outliers and freakish behaviors, the internet will continue to bestow tremendous opportunities for social growth on most people, in most circumstances.

David Ellis, cited by Janna Anderson, Lee Rainie in Respondents’ thoughts, The Future Of Social Relations

How Americans view the internet’s impact on groups - Lee Rainie, Kristen Purcell, Aaron Smith

When asked to assess the impact of the internet on the ability of social, civic, professional, religious or spiritual groups to engage in a number of activities, Americans express generally positive views. Nearly seven in ten (68%) believe that the internet has a “major impact” on the ability of groups to communicate with their members, and roughly six in ten feel that the internet has a “major impact” on the ability of groups to draw attention to issues (62%), connect with other groups (60%), impact society at large (59%), and raise money (52%). For each of the nine group-based activities we measured in this survey, three-quarters of Americans or more feel that the internet has had at least some impact (if only a minor one) on the activity in question.

With poll numbers like that the internet should run for president.

Facebook Is The New AOL

[originally entitled: Blogtalk 2010: Notes And Thoughts On The Social Future]

Galway is a lovely place, and I have always wanted to see where ‘the hills sweep down to the sea,’ so Blogtalk 2010 was fun. I saw old friends, and made some new ones. But this get-together reinforced a few thoughts, which wound up in my keynote, as well.

The era of blogging is over: its impact as a goad, a competitive force on print media has been felt, and deeply internalized. Meanwhile, most of the failures of 20th century journalism remain: notably, failing to create open social discourse, and becoming entrapped in the liturgy of journalism while failing to debunk lies and expose injustice. But print media have adopted the trappings of blogging, and have co-opted much of the heat — if any — of the blogosphere.

This has been relatively quick, partly because blogging is really ‘personal publishing’ — low-cost publishing, and lines up pretty well with the one-to-many dynamics of mass publishing. Comments and backlinks are pretty weak sauce when considered in the light of ‘social media’. Blogging, in the final analysis, ten years later, isn’t particularly social. Especially contrasted with social networks and other tools.

Facebook is the new AOL.

Blogtalk was filled with talk about social networks. A representative of Facebook spoke, and was almost orgasming as he related how great all the newest features were. Facebook and Twitter’s growth rates were repeated like kabalistic incantations throughout the event, and the unstoppability of Facebook in particular — its manifest destiny as the basis of all things social on the web — was generally taken as a given.

But social networks as realized today by Facebook and others are closed worlds, silos in which vastly different user experiences are managed. I heard presentations on a variety of approaches to federated and/or open identity management schemes, which could potentially support open and/or distributed social networking models, but these are only of theoretical interest to actual users.

I believe that Facebook represents the high water mark of social networking, as we understand it today, a time dominated by social networking applications, as if our social interaction is something best managed in a single enormous database, whose rows and tables are designed by a small group of developers in one company.

Facebook is the new AOL.

Facebook is managing the chaos of social interaction on the web, normalizing it and standardizing it for us, just as AOL made the web neat and tidy. That seemed a winning proposition in the late ’90s, which led to astonishing valuations for AOL. They acquired Time-Warner using that wealth, and in 2002 Time-Warner wrote off $600M as AOL started to fall. Now, AOL has been spun out, and has no central role in our experience of the web. 10 years is a long time. Time-Warner is now the second largest entertainment company in the world.

The moral of this story is that you can make a business out of simplifying what is chaotic and confusing, but only at the outset. As people become habituated to what at first was scary and headache-inducing, they will move away from controlled experience to more personally managed negotiation of the world.

‘But, all my friends are on Facebook!’ That was true in 1999 about AOL, too. All my friends had AIM accounts, so it was the best place for instant messaging. Until Yahoo and MSN offered audio and then video, and blogging broke loose. And then everything changed with broadband.

And what is going to be the equivalent of broadband for sociality online? What is going to come along to destabilize the Facebook stranglehold on our ‘social graphs’? Simple: sociality has turned out to be the most interesting thing to emerge from the past decade of the web. It’s not all the servers, the cloud computing, the data, or even the explosion of materials online: its the social dimension, and the tools we have built to explore that.

At the same time, we are witnessing an almost unprecedented era of invention around new devices, form factors, and operational premises for computing and communications. Smartphones, tablets, app stores, and the emergence of activities like geolocation, massively parallel gaming, social TV, and so on. These are leading to a deep rethinking of the operating environments we rely on, in our PCs, mobile and gaming devices, and formerly internet-deaf devices like TVs and appliances.

The next generation of operating environments will be social at their core. Our current operating environments are based on standard understanding of things that programmers care about, like files, directories, and access controls. The average person could care less.

We will see social operating systems where following people’s activities, or creating likes, or publishing profiles will all be built-in. These will not be features of apps, or managed as metadata in walled silos. The primitives that structure our social connections will be built into the fabric of the next generation of operating environments, just like file systems, URLs, and HTTP are well-integrated into today’s.

As a result, actors like Google, Apple, the Linux community, and Microsoft — as well as upstarts that don’t even exist yet — will be the implementers of the next generation of social web, with social interaction built into its DNA.

Imagine that I will turn on my next generation iPad, a few years hence, and I’ll be presented with various applications that show views over the streams of information finding their way to me based on my social relationships. But those relationships are not based on application managed information, but related to my device connecting to the web, like getting an IP address today. I would get a social IP, and ping out to all the other entities online, so that information from those that I follow would find me, just as email is routed to me today independently of what email application I choose to use.

There will still be a place for applications to present and augment the basics of social interaction, but they will not be what Facebook is today: a huge social scene whose rules and regulations are managed by the owners of the application, for their own interests.

Clearly, The New York Times, ABC and Apple don’t want to hand the future of our social connection over to Facebook, or any other cabal of software companies. The answer is not in copying Facebook, which seems to be the goal of Google’s Me project. Inevitably, the way ahead is to take the social dimension — at least the core features that have emerged in the social web to date — down into the operating platforms. Actions like following, liking, posting, and reposting have become the core of our social existence. And these core activities should be core to the platforms, not peripheral.

Based on common protocols, vendors of different platforms could still compete based on how they manage these new social primitives along with the other things that devices must do. But just like today’s files — which can move from Mac, to Windows, to Linux, to GameBoy — we would have the ability to network effectively; although in this case, to network socially.

It remains to be seen how quickly or smoothly this transition will be. And in the meantime the dominance of Facebook will make billions for investors. However, the fastest growing segment on Facebook is the 55+ crowd, which suggests that the young and the hipsters will start to defect to alternatives, just like they fled MySpace when the phonies and fogies came in.

Social music and social TV are the two areas that suggest the greatest pressure for a solution at a fundamental — not application, or application framework level.

Facebook’s management may be aware of this, as well. Imagine the scenario where Facebook’s valuation is so high, and the prospects seem so grand, that Facebook acquires an apparently fading Microsoft, and works to fuse Facebook into some version of Windows. Like the AOL Time-Warner merger, I bet it this would lead to smoke but no bang.

Meanwhile, the world will lurch chaotically forward. If cable and entertainment companies develop standards around social TV, and allow experimentation by entrepreneurs to develop social apps that augment TV, we will see some real interesting stuff arise, and the defection of viewers from non-social TV will slow, and reverse. Facebook will see its numbers falling as people start watching basketball, reality shows, or movies with friends online. Likewise, Apple could lead to similar experimentation around social music by exposing social APIs in a future socialized version of iTunes.

This will take years, if not decades, to roll forward. But I maintain this will happen, and that, as a result, Facebook is not the future, but just a very temporary present.

Eric Schmidt Confirms Google Is Off Track

Last week it was Peter Norvig admitting that Google has missed the opening rounds of the battle for the social web (see Google’s Biggest Mistake: The Rise Of The Social (Post Search) Web), and this week his boss confirms that Google is still off in algorithm land instead of understanding the social dimension of the web:

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.: Google and the Search for the Future

The day is coming when the Google search box—and the activity known as Googling—no longer will be at the center of our online lives. Then what? “We’re trying to figure out what the future of search is,” Mr. Schmidt acknowledges. “I mean that in a positive way. We’re still happy to be in search, believe me. But one idea is that more and more searches are done on your behalf without you needing to type.”

“I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions,” he elaborates. “They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”

Let’s say you’re walking down the street. Because of the info Google has collected about you, “we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are.” Google also knows, to within a foot, where you are. Mr. Schmidt leaves it to a listener to imagine the possibilities: If you need milk and there’s a place nearby to get milk, Google will remind you to get milk. It will tell you a store ahead has a collection of horse-racing posters, that a 19th-century murder you’ve been reading about took place on the next block.

Says Mr. Schmidt, a generation of powerful handheld devices is just around the corner that will be adept at surprising you with information that you didn’t know you wanted to know. “The thing that makes newspapers so fundamentally fascinating—that serendipity—can be calculated now. We can actually produce it electronically,” Mr. Schmidt says.

The idea that machines will tell us what to do next is chilling, rather than liberating. Yes, we will use social tools that harness the millions of activities of our social circles and scenes, but our affiliation with others is where we will find meaning, not some functional result served up by Google or Facebook or Twitter.

Meaning is the new search.

The Social Revolution: Why The New Web Matters

[I gave this talk at the Next08 conference a few weeks ago, in Hamburg.]

What is the web worth?

How would you go about valuing it, if you had to? Is it worth all the tea in china? If Google wanted to buy the whole thing, what would it cost? Every blog post, spam comment, Wikipedia entry, and hyperlink: what would we charge if Martians arrived and wanted to buy it?

The hardware involved is incalculable, and no reliable numbers exist. We can’t even begin to estimate how much we have spent on it. IDC calculated that 27 million servers had been deployed by the end of 2005, growing at an increasing rate of 3 or more million per year.

Some have estimated that something on the order of 8 B USD was spent powering the servers alone, worldwide. This was about the same as we spend for powering televisions, globally, and growing much faster.

On a crude level, we might compare it to television, which is telling. In the US, every hour that people spend online, is an hour not spent watching television. But this transcends an advertising-based valuation of clicks and eyeballs, because the web is not being created like television shows: it’s not being developed by hollywood.

It is being built by us, for us. And it is being built without blueprints, without any centralized approval, without even any general agreement on what it is for.

The big story of the web isn’t the props - the servers, networks, ten trillion web sites, and all the information lying around in databases and in HTML - but what people are saying to each other and how we have been changed as a result.

We are creating the Web to happen to ourselves.

Apologies. It was blogging that did this to me. No neat conclusions. A barrage of conjecture, wisecracks, and one-liners, disguised as a presentation.

My work is social tools, but my goals lie beyond.

Giant borgesian hypertext document, where we wander by clicking links, flitting from place to place like the flying dutchman. An endless labyrinth where you can wander endlessly, never knowing the sum of the uses that are being made of the materials. How could you know?

Where’s the juice? Where’s the life? Where are the people?

Perhaps a fitting vision for Tim Berners-Lee, as a way to manage research papers. The email and webpage era of the Web.

We could simply count the pages and the number of users, and look at web 1.0 from the perspective of hypothetical research efficiency: finding snippets of information, and clipping them, and then getting back to our work in the ‘real world’ offline.

But something happened…

“Our specialist and fragmented civilization is suddenly experiencing an instantaneous reassembling of all its mechanical bits into an organic whole. This is the new world of the global village.” - Marshall McLuhan

We began to use the web as a means to shape ourselves, to shape our culture, to change our aspirations and as a place for their realization.

The shift in time and space: McLuhan knew that our perception of the world is based on the properties of the media that we use to make sense of it.

The original vision of the web was a document, the web of pages, but what has come on top of that is a web of people, connecting to each other, conversing in blogs, social networks, video and photo sharing sites, dating services, forums, and a seemingly infinite and inexhaustible number of new ways to commune and communicate.

People have found each other, person to person. And even though mass media outlets have moved onto the web, their influence and power is waning.

Newspapers, mass media journalism, the pre-web music business, all of the established media have been hollowed out by the defection of the people formerly known as the audience, us, who have streamed onto the web, and away from the forms of old.

We have created something altogether new, cobbled together from bits of the old, like a marauding tribe of nomads using the bricks from an ancient, deserted temple to make the foundation of a new city.

All the media that matter are being built on a new basis: the participation of the inhabitants. They are mashing up what came before, and spinning new magic from the old, like a giant mosaic assembled from bits of broken china.

As you wander in the new web, you can move into any corner of it and find people directly interacting with other people, making sense of their own concerns. Knitting, lute playing, whether Hilary will or won’t, or how best to help the stricken in [fill in the name of the most recent disaster]. In every nook or cranny, there are people talking, writing, making muxtapes, cross-fertilizing, and making a mess of the place. This is the sprawl at the edge of the web, and increasingly, its starting to look like all edge.

As the edge grows, the center dissolves. Mainstream journalists begin to act like bloggers, editors begin to drop the veneer of objectivism, and immediate, first person voice becomes the standard not some radical minority.

And the world, once the subject of conversation, is itself changed when so many have changed their beliefs, either explicitly or at a level below awareness.

I am made greater by the sum of my connections, and so are my connections

It’s mostly connections

Network economics

“on the Web everyone will be famous to 15 people” - David Weinberger

Trends: fragmenting as innovations increase, and specialized networks get deeper. We are going to be connected to everyone, but we will have to switch contexts like traveling across town by subway, bus, taxi, and skates.

Albert-László Barabási’s Linked, the author explains that the origin of the “six degrees of separation” notion that underlies all social networking theory was the brain child of a Hungarian writer, Frigyes Karinthy. In 1929, Karinthy published his forty-sixth book, a collection of short stories entitled “Everything Is Different” (Minden masképpen van), which is now out of print and apparently lost to us.

This is the world that instant messaging networks presaged,even back in the late 90s when hundreds of millions of users are logging into a service like AIM and sending billions of messages everyday, it became clear to some of us that we were moving rapidly into a world where the web was going to be the human bloodstream, where everything that was important would show up first.

And we are moving toward a time of even faster growth, with a growing fragmentation of worlds. We are not going to see a single AOL reality nor Google: but tens of thousands of lesser, overlapping, and mutually self-reinforcing small worlds. People have dozens of sorts of personal affiliations, and that characteristic of human connection will lead to the topology of the web, just like the properties of wind and water shape the face of the Earth. The form of the wiring in our heads — the way we interact, how we track who is important to us, and the ways we pass information through human networks — turns out to trump the protocols of the Internet hardware.

Once again, the Web is a solution to the problem we pose to ourselves: we have made it to invent ourselves.

A world of bottom up belonging, radiating outward, from person to person

Good title, got people pissed off. The paradox is that to connect with others, through whom we define ourselves, we have to start by asserting who we are, what we like, need, want. It seems selfish, but it is aspirational as much as anything else. We may seem self-obsessed on the web, but at the core, we aren’t really there to talk about stamp collecting or photography, we aren’t there for the places we seem to inhabit online, and not even — in the final analysis — for the specific others that we connect to. We are searching for a reason to be, to be linked into relationships where it would matter if we stopped coming back, where we can become ourselves through others.

It’s a net, not something neat and clean. There is a wonderful swing to human interaction on the Web, but it’s not democratic at the core. No one is in charge, but a small number of people have huge — perhaps even unjustified — influence.

It’s a village world, where reputation matters, and affiliation is tribal.

There are all the downsides of tribalism, too. There is a “us and them” aspect of bottom-up belonging that needs to be checked with a sense of universalism, a need for universalism. That is why the Web is terrifying to corrupt and controlling nation states: it is inherently non-national, but global and local at the same time. Glocalization is a tribal perspective on the world, that naturally arises from neo-tribal web culture.

The long tail changes economics everywhere, but also changes our conceptions of involvement and value.

When the costs of connectedness drop — when it becomes possible to remain connected with hundreds not dozens of people, and to remain cognizant of their backgrounds, location, moods, relationships, and positions on matters of importance — does the world become a deeper place or have our feelings become shallower?

The long tail is not just about availability of obscure books at Amazon. It is about the spectrum of relationships that we can afford, and the depth of our awareness and involvement.

Another tribal trend: more shapes of relationships with more people as more channels for involvement come online, and new ways to discover and experience others become prevalent.

Slide11

The experience and sense of time says more about a culture in a shorthand way than almost anything else.

Industrial time is falling away in the Western world. The idea that time is a sequence of instants, seconds ticking on a never varying clock, is falling away. We all know that in different hours of the same length our productivity, creativity or efficiency varies wildly; but in many ways we pretend that they are all equal, which is a white lie at the core of much of the value of work.

Time is inconstant, and we sense this mostly as things seeming to speed up. Time dilates or contracts based on what we are doing. And we see the conflict in how we value time; that we are willing to slip from one activity to another, to help a friend to make progress by answering a text message while in a meeting, we are shifting to a time-shifted sense of time. We are adopting continuous partial attention, and reseating our timesense as a result. We are changing our perceptions by the activities and tools we use, just like exposure to flight simulators or martial arts training changes our situational awareness in all aspects of our lives. Learning to juggle is a new state of consciousness that has other benefits/impacts over and above the juggling itself.

One way that people talk about this is moving onto a ‘real-time’ basis. But real-time isn’t any realer than slow time. However, that visceral in the guts sense of increased velocity of the world gets across the potentially disorienting impact of being pushed into a new world that demands new patterns of thinking to understand. Many will feel behind the power curve. But if you look to the youngest among us, you can see that the future is here already, it’s just not equally distributed (Gibson).

We are seeing the next web start to appear today, away from the heavily annotated and mashed web of pages that is the primary reality today. The first glints of that new web is starting to emerge from the lineage of instant messaging and RSS feeds: the development of tools and technologies on top of ubiquitous connectivity that allow the artifacts of conversation between us to flnd us instead of us having to dig through the archives of the web of pages. I call this the web of flow.

We are seeing an explosion in flow applications — the Facebook minifeed, RSS streams, Friendfeed, Twitter, Jaiku, Pownce, and my own Workstreamer project (coming soon) — where that timeshifting — not zipping ahead to cut out advertiselments, but a freeing of time, the possibility of time dilation — will be the norm.

A simple example: the business executive of 2000 would reading every email and then analyze all the information to decide what is important, and what actions to take. But the business executive of 2010 has been pushed to the point where there is no such thing as reading all the email: in fact, there is no hope there. Instead, the future business leader will allow his network to filter and highlight what is critical and important. The crucial things will rise to the top in a darwinian struggle for share of time, or mind, and this will all be managed in a flow model, where s/he spends little or no time filing, opening, or searching. The flow of relationships and information made meaningful through relationships becomes that bloodstream of this brave new world, of society, of the enterprise and the marketplace.

These new realities offer tremendous opportunities and challenges in all sectors, from the mundane questions of business etiquette — is it ok to instant message during a meeting? In a meeting with a client? — up to new modes of marketing and connection with markets. The impact of the social web on traditional media has been completely disruptive, and we can contemplate similar impacts on other, less directly implicated industries. But if you connect the dots, inevitably similar revolutionary change is coming.

On the personal and individual level, these trends will lead to a basic identification of ourselves as humans living together on Spaceship Earth, as Buckminster Fuller called it, and a movement away from ideologies that divide us based on language, religion, caste, gender, or ethnic background. As antropologist and ethnographer Claude Levi-Strauss said, in a 1972 interview,

“ A well-ordered humanism does not begin with itself, but puts things back in their place. It puts the world before life, life before man, and the respect of others before love of self. This is the lesson that the people we call “savages” teach us: a lesson of modesty, decency and discretion in the face of a world that preceded our species and that will survive it.

We need to put things back into place, although the configuration that web culture will make of all this is brand new. Much of the sensibility of our time will seem like a return to things that were put aside at the start of the industrial revolution, although much will be completely new. But at the core, Levi-Strauss’ checklist — world, life, people, the respect of others, self — seems like a pretty good starting point.

credits https://stoweboyd.backpackit.com/pub/1477530