I’ve always been amused, and at the same time disturbed, by the way the Web 2.0 “community” degrades language. In my opinion, some of the words and phrases it often uses have been degraded to the point where they are essentially meaningless.
I finally decided to jot down a quick list of some of the words and phrases that have become little more than doublespeak in the world of Web 2.0.
In the list below, you will find English words or phrases and what they mean/become in the Web 2.0 community.
It’s the darling of the blogosphere. It’s the subject of debate. And to its investors, it’s .
I’m talking, of course about Twitter - the Web 2.0 service that probably gets as much love (and hate) as any other technology startup today.
My feelings about Twitter are no secret. In short, I think it’s unremarkable, practically useless and will never realistically go mainstream.
But putting my beliefs aside, I don’t think it takes more than a simple analysis of “Twitter by the numbers” to add a dose of perspective to all of the Twitter hype.
Unfortunately, all the babble about Generation Y isn’t going away anytime soon as evidenced by post at ReadWriteWeb - “Why Gen Y Is Going to Change the Web.”
“Gen Y is taking over” according to Perez and “ignoring the voices of Gen Y is something you should do at your own peril.” She notes why members of Generation Y are different when it comes to technology (TV isn’t king, they don’t care about your ads, work isn’t their whole world, etc.) and explains how this will impact the Internet (they want control of their online socializing, marketing has to change, work tools need to mirror web tools, etc.).
You don’t have to be incredibly perceptive to notice that some of the more popular “personalities” (if you can call them that) in the small world of the technology blogosphere have humorously large egos.
In my opinion, the technology blogosphere is no longer even best described as an echo chamber; it’s best described as a circle jerk.
To a certain extent, I believe that it now serves little purpose beyond stoking the egos of a handful of people who are not only out of touch with reality, but out of touch with their place in it.
In my recent post about the absurdity of the predictions and projections frequently promulgated by research firms and analysts, I focused on the amusing dynamic Yahoo-Microsoft predictions offered by Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney:
Another amusing example of just how foolish it can be to rely on “experts” was provided by Citi Internet Analyst Mark Mahaney. On February 2, the day after Microsoft announced its bid for Yahoo, he predicted that there was a 60% chance that Microsoft would wind up acquiring Yahoo, noting a 20% probability that the original bid would be accepted and a 40% probability that a higher bid would be accepted.
If Yahoo shareholders are to get a second lucky break, Carl Icahn will have to be to Yahoo what Gordon Gekko was to Teldar Paper.
After watching actions that I believe to be so against the interests of Yahoo’s shareholders as to be despicable, I personally hope that Icahn liberates Yahoo from the overpaid cronies on its board of directors.
As such, I encourage Jerry Yang and company to start submitting their resumes .
In recent posts ( and here) I’ve made it clear that I apply the “trust no one” mantra to many things, including research firms and well-connected individuals.
This, of course, is not to say that I don’t listen to what “experts” have to say. “Expert opinions” can be extremely valuable when used appropriately.
Unfortunately, some “experts” aren’t “experts” and implicitly trusting that every statement or prediction that comes from somebody you perceive as being an “expert” is accurate or wise is not the best strategy.
Back in December, Ross Levinsohn was quoted by PaidContent as saying:
Shopping: When I asked if they’re running into companies eager to sell now in case things turn sour, Levinsohn said it was just the opposite. “I’m actually amazed by it. A year ago … there was more desperation to sell.” The Facebook platform initiative and, to some extent, OpenSocial, turned that around, adding distribution to companies that once were only features.” They now have tens of millions of users and are raising money at huge multiples—hundreds of millions of dollars—and they’ll get it.”