June 6, 2008

10 things I hate about web 2.0

Send to Kindle

allegedmoralfailings337.jpg
1. Recon­ci­ling the huge gap bet­ween how inte­res­ting and impor­tant you tell your clients it all is, ver­sus how inte­res­ting and impor­tant you actually find it all your­self.
2. The end­less train of online armchair quar­ter­backs end­lessly trying to engage you with end­less rounds of men­tal mas­tur­ba­tion.
3. The same usual sus­pects whi­ning end­lessly on about the same usual sus­pects.
4. The idea that spou­ting end­less hyper­bole about the latest doohic­key wid­get is actually an inte­res­ting, com­pe­lling and worthy way for a grown man to spend his free time.
5. The well-intentioned but mis­gui­ded belief that anony­mous loser douche­bags are actually entit­led to an opi­nion.
6. Peo­ple at con­fe­rence panels, pre­ten­ding that the only rea­son they’re atten­ding is to offer valua­ble insight to their fellow man, as oppo­sed to just pim­ping their wares and/or scou­ting for con­sul­ting gigs.
7. The per­va­sive use of the term, “2.0″ to desc­ribe anything other than inter­net soft­ware e.g. “Love 2.0″, “Women 2.0″, “Brea­kup 2.0″, “Food 2.0″, “Reli­gion 2.0″, “Music 2.0″, “Poetry 2.0″, yak yak yak…
8. Any blog­ger with higher traf­fic than my own.
9. The popu­lar but mis­ta­ken belief that there is a vast, uns­top­pa­ble army of peo­ple in the world who actually care about this shit.
10. The sopho­mo­ric con­ceit that “The Con­ver­sa­tion” is two-way. To quote Fran Lei­bo­witz, “The oppo­site of Tal­king is not Lis­te­ning. The oppo­site of Tal­king is Waiting”.

Be Socia­ble, Share!

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

Tags: ,

54 Responses to “10 things I hate about web 2.0”

  1. Wow. Somehow you mana­ged to chan­nel my exact mood as I sit lis­te­ning to peo­ple tra­ding bullshit on the train on this gray fri­day mor­ning. Well done Hugh!

  2. moses says:

    Hey Hugh, #1, #8 and #9 are my favou­ri­tes.
    How about this one: being pressured/tempted to join and expe­ri­ment with all the latest social tools but rea­lis­ti­cally not having enough time.

  3. Bravo. Of course, now you’ve given me insight into a place in my soul I don’t want to know about (“Soul 2.0″?) and I will pro­bably die a little bit every time I find myself doing this stuff now. :)

  4. Dave says:

    Ahhh …
    New York brings out the true nega­tive human in you. It’s a big city thing.

  5. zchamu says:

    @moses — How about this one: being pressured/tempted to join and expe­ri­ment with all the latest social tools but rea­lis­ti­cally not *giving a shit*.
    Fixed it for you :)

  6. Jennifer says:

    Num­ber 9 is something I think every day of my life lately. Well stated.

  7. cindi says:

    So what are the top 10 things that you *like,* Mr. Lizards and Toads? :)
    Great stuff, but kinda pain­ful, man, kinda painful.

  8. Aaron says:

    Nai­led it Hugh.

  9. Amen to Hugh and Amen to Moses…Amen to Zchamu…Amen to us all!
    Still trying to figure out what makes an expert on all this…cause in the long run…who cares. But ama­zing that peo­ple will pay me for the “exper­tise.“
    Got to admit, we live in the grea­test place in the world if this is the case!

  10. Lee says:

    9. The popu­lar but mis­ta­ken belief that there is a vast, uns­top­pa­ble army of peo­ple in the world who actually care about this shit.
    LOL you’re so right, if all the 2.0 nerds would get out from behind their lap­tops some­ti­mes and min­gle with the rest of huma­nity they might get a clue…

  11. steve says:

    I smell a dose of small-town rea­lity. God bless it.

  12. Lynn Crymble says:

    Thanks Hugh! Nega­tive yes but all true. Hoping this will all turn into more posi­ti­ves someday…soon.

  13. scottie says:

    #6 is why I rarely go to trade shows/conferences/conventions anymore.

  14. > 2. The end­less train of online armchair quar­ter­backs end­lessly trying to engage you with end­less rounds of men­tal mas­tur­ba­tion.
    Zing! I plead guilty, your honour.

  15. steve says:

    Good to know it’s not just me thin­king this!
    Web 1.0 was e-commerce. Web 2.0 is con­tent dis­tri­bu­tion and data mixing with lots of JavaSc­ript doohic­keys. What will 3.0 be? Will O’Reilly try to tra­de­mark it? Have they already done so?

  16. John T Unger says:

    @Daniel Hedrick: Now don’t blame Hugh… you were already dying a little bit every time you do this stuff. Hugh has just called your atten­tion to it so now you *know* that you’re dying when you do these things.
    Awa­re­ness of Web 2.0 inc­re­men­tal mortality

  17. Oh thank you… as I pack for the Enter­prise 2.0 con­fe­rence next week…

  18. Ty says:

    can u say…“Hater 2.0″

  19. Am rea­ding my mind in your article and I go with your 8th and 9th point at 200%- i hate it.

  20. Oh thank you… as I pack for the Enter­prise 2.0 con­fe­rence next week…

  21. mat mccoy says:

    When it boils down to it, aren’t we all just anony­mous loser douche­bags?
    I’m glad it’s Fri­day, because now I need a drink.

  22. Mark says:

    nunc est bibendum

  23. vinny warren says:

    con­vul­sive laugh­ter! nee­ded to be said.

  24. vinny warren says:

    sfx: con­vul­sive laugh­ter.
    that nee­ded to be said. well done hugh!

  25. Antiques says:

    don’t you think the fact that you pos­ted this is con­tra­dic­ting your own point?

  26. Josh says:

    Hugh,
    You say beau­ti­ful things and you say dark things and you somehow always manage to parenthe­ti­cally explain life, the uni­verse, and everything.
    Thanks for that.
    Sig­ned,
    Life­time RSS subsc­ri­ber, future print customer

  27. I espe­cially agree with #9.
    There are bet­ter things to worry about.…like the state of our economy.

  28. meredith.sason.moeckel says:

    gosh, if it were not for you, I would fly there and marry you today.….
    love,
    mere­dith
    p.s. as long as we remem­ber how to spell, that is even more important.….….thanks hugh.….……

  29. phil k says:

    what I won­der is why i don’t feel this way about web 1.0. Sure there were hype­meis­ters then too; but web 1.0, and web 1.x apps and online dbs, they all had a cer­tain cohe­rence, not the sli­ced and diced into exces­sive frag­men­ta­tion and abs­trac­tion the way web 2.0 so far has too oft been. I do think we’ll even­tually find our way to cohe­rence, we just have to work our way through a bunch of bab­ble, once those who think and spout and build lots of mea­nin­gless­ness get exhaus­ted, and good or bet­ter ideas can become more recog­ni­za­ble. imo, it’s fine to admit that real-world con­cerns deserve more atten­tion than the more insu­lar online– or web2.0 cen­tric domains, even though it means drop­ping the illu­sion that the whole world of ama­zing and stun­ningly beau­ti­ful and bri­lliant peo­ple are han­ging on your every twit­ter and remix. Now I’ve got to get back to a per­fect Reu­ben sand­wich that’s on my plate.

  30. BrianDRPM says:

    I can agree with what Josh said, though it often seems to be in spite of your­self. This is my first con­tact, but you have defi­ni­tely been a source of ideas for me des­pite the poten­tial of being one of the anony­mous loser douche­bags (Do I have to work up to that?) For me you are the world’s most opti­mis­tic cur­mud­geon. Its kinda Zen-like. If you are going to refe­rence Fran Lei­bo­witz, see what she says about wine.

  31. Tomas says:

    spot on :)

  32. Hugh
    I disa­gree.
    Anonymous

  33. Indeed. You’re a cou­ple of months behind some of us though:
    http://visionthing.vagueware.com
    Well done for catching up. :-)

  34. Barry says:

    11. The irony of a self-proclaimed PROFESSIONAL BLOGGER and the anony­mous loser douche­bags who hero-worship him hating on web 2.0.

  35. Zo says:

    daniel, i can’t believe it took HMcL, but wha­te­ver gets you thin­king, you’re right, you know,.
    josh, get a life and read a real book,
    mere­dith, you wouldn’t, really.
    anti­ques nai­led it. a cir­cu­lar exer­cise in self-loathing.

  36. 11. The enor­mous amount of time it takes in the day to log into all these ser­vi­ces, try them all, put on and then remove all the wid­gets from my blog, and make use­less deci­sions about whether these tools are use­ful or will even be around nexr year.
    12. The enor­mous amount of time it takes to have 1500 online friends. And ans­wer them,

  37. If you don’t like how some peo­ple handle web 2.0, don’t pay atten­tion to them. It does two things: 1.) helps you main­tain your sanity and 2.) irri­ta­tes them because it means they don’t have an audience. Two birds with one stone.
    Hope all is well in NYC.

  38. tim clague says:

    re:10
    if we all thought the oppo­site of tal­king AND lis­te­ning was doing would we get more done?

  39. Stanium says:

    I can hear the voice of dis­gust in this post :) but I like the list, espe­cially point 7

  40. Rasul Sha'ir says:

    Funny. Very, very funny. Love these opi­nions and pers­pec­ti­ves. Bravo Hugh. Bravo.

  41. espe­cially like num­ber 6 after recent atten­dance at Social Media Infleunce Con­fe­rence — http://www.socialmediainfluence.com — in Lon­don last week — if you are rea­ding this you know who you are

  42. vruz says:

    I might add another one:
    the inflam­ma­tory con­vic­tion that they are onto something really really revo­lu­tio­nary by rehashing old and pas­sing it as new, crea­ting no new tech­no­logy, researching for no novel know­ledge, deve­lo­ping no new science, and more inte­res­tingly: no revenue.

  43. Scott says:

    Phil said, “what I won­der is why i don’t feel this way about web 1.0″
    Maybe because for 1.0, (which wasn’t neces­sa­rily labe­led as such at the time), even with all the hype most peo­ple were too busy buil­ding to over-hype. Now, Hype 2.0, (sorry, couldn’t help it), often overwhelms Real­Deal 1 through a million point oh.
    Also, a lot of what’s going on now isn’t really all that new con­cep­tually. Yes, I know. Peo­ple claim it is. But mostly it’s imple­men­ta­tion and varia­tions on a theme for con­cepts that in a lot of cases are pre 1.0. Even pre-consumer web.
    Maybe you didn’t feel this way about 1.0 because even though the dreams were there, they didn’t have an over-hyped sound­track cons­tantly run­ning along­side.
    Scott

  44. alison says:

    Web 2.0 — what does that actually MEAN?

  45. chantix says:

    there are too many peo­ple with too much time on their hands

  46. Jake Edwards says:

    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0
    Wank 2.0

  47. Unfor­tu­na­tely the same can be said about “art” and twenty other sub­jects we try to ply our livings at.

  48. Pete Steege says:

    Four through ten I get. I sus­pect the first three come with blog cele­brity, to which I can’t relate.

  49. candice-leigh says:

    7A) “my 2.0 approach to winemaking…”

  50. Hope you are able to get out of the bub­ble for awhile and get some clean non-digital air, press some non-web 2.0 flesh, and eat some ana­log icecream.

  51. Neil says:

    Yep, have to agree totally with 7 and 9. Given that you can­not get 2 peo­ple to agree on what Web2.0 is, the others are even more fatuous.
    I think there’s also a large body of peo­ple out there who are angst-ridden as they have been told to believe about this shit, but don’t know where to begin. Belie­ving that is.

  52. […] 10 things I hate about web 2.0 3. The same usual sus­pects whi­ning end­lessly on about the same usual suspects. […]