Web 2.0 - The Voyeuristic Web
Much digital ink has been spilled on what Web 2.0 is. I want to throw my hat in the ring from a completely different perspective. Part of the reason I have not posted much this week, is because I was thinking about this piece.
For a historical perspective, here are some other definitions of Web 2.0:
The more I look at Web 2.0, the more I think of it as voyeurism par excellance. I call Web 2.0 "the Voyeuristic Web." Look what has succeeded big time in Web 2.0. What is Myspace if not a peak into people's private lives, tastes, likes and dislikes? If Web 1.0 voyeurism was a peak into people's homes and bedrooms via jittery webcams (remember the Jennicam craze?), Web 2.0 is a full blown biography and motion picture of peoples lives.
Think about it, of all the web 2.0 companies, the companies above are the ones that are really working or getting tremendous buzz. This is quite a commentary on our own lives. I keep wondering what are the psychological drivers of this? Is it loneliness as people sit opposite their computer screens all day? Is it dissatisfaction with our own lives?
Whatever the underlying social or psychological factors, I think it is very instructive as you build Web 2.0 companies going forward.
For a historical perspective, here are some other definitions of Web 2.0:
- Here is the Wikipedia definition
- Here is Oreilly's original definition
- Here is one from Dion Hinchcliffe
- And Dion's best Web 2.0 of 2005
The more I look at Web 2.0, the more I think of it as voyeurism par excellance. I call Web 2.0 "the Voyeuristic Web." Look what has succeeded big time in Web 2.0. What is Myspace if not a peak into people's private lives, tastes, likes and dislikes? If Web 1.0 voyeurism was a peak into people's homes and bedrooms via jittery webcams (remember the Jennicam craze?), Web 2.0 is a full blown biography and motion picture of peoples lives.
- What do I like to read? Just check out my del.icio.us bookmarks.
- Who do I hang out with? check out my social network (Linkedin or Myspace).
- Want a visual peak into my life? Check out Flickr.
- What is your neighbor's house worth? Check out Zillow.
- Who looks at his own home or neighborhood on Google Earth?
Think about it, of all the web 2.0 companies, the companies above are the ones that are really working or getting tremendous buzz. This is quite a commentary on our own lives. I keep wondering what are the psychological drivers of this? Is it loneliness as people sit opposite their computer screens all day? Is it dissatisfaction with our own lives?
Whatever the underlying social or psychological factors, I think it is very instructive as you build Web 2.0 companies going forward.
posted by Michael Eisenberg at 10:10 AM
12 Comments:
who is john galt?
You bring up a very interesting prospective on what makes web 2.0 work. Another way to look at the reason for success of web 2.0 companies is technology adoption/ ease of use. Most of what we are seeing today are ideas that I remember hearing living in San Francisco in 1999/2000 but for the most part there were not enough people that felt comfortable enough uploading and sharing digital images, etc.
As people of turned the web into an integral part of their life and have been using it on a day to day basis for 5 + years we can expect that social behavior that was once limited to a very small group of people will be adopted and changed by a larger number of users.
Hi -
We met 5 years ago when I came to ISP with an idea of using surfers net-behaviour (explicit/implicit) to rate products/content. You politely sent me away now it is part of Web 2.0. BTW - I would do the same in your position the. As a techno-philosopher I would say that Web 2.0 simply enable the REAL, pure nature of human-being mind to show-up and shine with its true colors. It is not voyeuristic, it simply the real not contolled nature of the human-being at it best (for good and bad), free of controlling rules in the real world made by sociaty (how to behave) , state (laws) , political (trends).
To Anonynous -
I do not know who John Galt is nor why it is relevant here. Please enlighten me.
Hi Erez -
1. Timing is everything :)
2. I think your comment is very interesting. What it also implies though is that the distance of the web enables people to be more real. However, I think your implication is that the real person is by nature voyeuristic. He is interested in what other people are doing. It seems that the you view that very positively which might be the case. I was simply pointing to the phenomnon.
Zeev -
I think what you say is partially true. The timing, technology and broadband are all more ripe now. But not ALL of the ideas are working. They are all based on the new technology. The only ones that seem to reach a large scale are ones that are voyeuristic. I do agree with your last comment that the accessibility has democratized the socialization.
you would have to read atlas shrugged to know who john galt is. however, as to its relevance - "who is john galt?" is a rhetorical question used in the novel when there are unaswerable societal (psychointernet) questions.
Michael,
An interesting and, I think, apt analysis. But let me take the liberty of completing the thought. If it's voyeruism, how long can it remain interesting? Is it the G-rated (not always) version of porn, which we all know makes a lot of money on the web? I think not.
This voyeurism and enthusiasm for sites that let you look at someone else's photo albums or home movies (which was the part of socializing that we all used to dread) stems more from a fascination with the technology. In other words, to paraphrase an old joke, why do we do it? Because we can.
Once the initial enthusiasm wanes, the question will be "what now?" What will Web 3.0 be, once we've gotten over the voyeuristic empowerment of Web 2.0 and once we've looked at everyone's houses on Google Earth, how can this become a useful (and commercially viable) part of our lives?
A comment for Erez: It really is all about timing. What happened to create Web 2.0? A conference, that's really all. Sure, there are tools available that make it easy for anyone to get on the web now, but the real difference is that back in 2000 or so when you went to see Michael, he was telling you "You can build it but they won't come." Now, they're coming, and that's why there's all this buzz.
I remember the first internet startup I saw, back in 1993. Back then, it wasn't Web 2.0 and not even Web 1.0. It was Web 0.0 because the Web was still around the corner. Yet the entrepreneur had a vision of a site that would do any Web 2.0 application I've seen proud. The problem? No web and no users. There was a sentence in the business plan that said "By the end of 1994 there will be 5,000 sites on the World Wide Web." We debated long and hard about whether to go out so far on that particular limb.
Michael -
In principal, Intenet today is exposing the real essence of human-being which is our ability to think, part of it is being curious. Our essence can be realized in the best way using Internet due to the un-controlled, unregulated nature of the medium and the technology tools (Flicker, blogs, ...) you mentioned. I believe its curiousity and not voyeuristic. Don't forget that in most of your examples someone want to be exposed.
BTW - If you want to stay in Midas list next month, look for Start-ups based on Internet Social/Philosophy elements. They should serve a REAL human needs.
Ezra - I liked your perspective :-)
Erez -
Can you please send me your list of recommended start up investments.
I don't want to miss the Midas List next year :)
My question is: is there a real business behind web 2.0 communities ? Sometimes I can figure out a business model, sometimes I believe they think this way: I build a community up, then someone else (VCs ? ) will determine how to make money with it.
I think there's an element of voyeurism here, but I think that in some cases, it's also people feeling a subconscious need for tangibility, for a way to get a handle on the massive community that is the Internet, and on the massive amount of information that's out there. We're living more and more in this abstraction of the real world, an abstraction we call cyberspace, and it doesn't always satisfy our need for groundedness. We sometimes feel like we're alternately floating in a vast sea of data or yelling out into a void that's much too busy to notice.
The world isn't becoming a global village. It's becoming a global metropolis. And that makes people want desperately to be able to go onto the web and say "there! There's my house!" or "that's where I fit into a social group!" or "that's the intellectual community I'm interested in!" You have to remember that people are not only looking at others' data. They're also sharing their data. In fact, the former had to come before the latter in most cases (yes, Zillow.com and Google Earth don't follow this pattern).
I think people wanted some way to say to a largely uncaring world, "I'm here. I matter."
Maybe I'm overdramatizing here, but I think that's pretty noble.
Post a Comment
<< Home