Digitally Disillusioned

I’m going to violate the cardinal rule of blogging in that I’m going to link to an article that is 17 days old. I know! It is horrifying! I am dropping all pretense of trying to make people believe I’m on the cutting edge of some arbitrary meme and instead I’m going to talk about something of substance.

I’m working late tonight, trying to move ever towards a blissful future where my constantly overactive creativity is actually being put to some useful task. I constantly complain about being underutilized at work, but lets set aside the day job for a moment and just talk about web development in general.

The current idealized form of that trade - filled I am sure with stunningly effervescent 20-somethings - is that of the “Web 2.0 Architect”. I made up that label, by the way, so don’t get confused if it seems strange. I am speaking here of the individuals who are creating this new kind of website (or web service) like Facebook and Twitter and Digg and Reddit and Youtube. These new sites are not only what people using the web are spending most of their time on, they are making the people behind the sites insanely rich. The Web 2.0 bubble is booming, and there is a constant buzz amongst anyone who has anything to do with web to try and imagine the next big “thing”.

I’ve not come up with any good ideas which is why you have no idea who I am. Of course I also lack a super cool name like Biz Stone of Twitter. I bet if I had one I’d be halfway there. Anyway, not having an idea isn’t really a barrier to becoming a Web 2.0 whizkid and a whole cottage industry of professional … er … Web 2.0 Zealots? Internet Imaginationists? I don’t know what to call them. All I know is that they exist, and reflect a fundamental truth of this Web 2.0 nonsense: it’s mostly really dumb. Oh sure some of these sites are really clever and bold and offer something new, but the professional Web 2.0 “creator” is focused on one thing only: if people look at shit, you can make money by putting ads on it.

I really enjoyed that article.

Something like Myspace is one of the best examples of this phenomenon: pages and pages of lousy content that are viewed in large numbers. Hey advertisers! Come … advertise! We have … er … numbers! I guess its the same theory behind late night infomercials: any eyes are better than no eyes. So if you have one hojillion web impressions you can slap adds on it no matter what and - bam! - money in the bank. User generated content isn’t about creative expression, its about having free labour create stuff for you to stick adds on.

I’m sure this is a very sustainable approach to website development.

But it is Facebook that dominates my thoughts on the issue, it being one of the few sites and services I actually use personally. Since I signed up, it has consistently devolved as features have been added that in equal measure diminish the user experience while increasing the ability of Facebook to use me to get advertising. The Facebook Platform, a system to ostensibly deliver tools and services to Facebook users, is nothing but a hideous monstrosity that continually plagues my portal with retarded invitations to do retarded things. Lots of people like these retarded things it would seem, even though each one is basically just a means for someone else to harvest your contact information. Not only are they obnoxious and invasive, but they also make the Facebook profile of a “serious user” cluttered, illegible, and illogical. Instead of community, Facebook is building equity. I only use it still because it has some minimal value. But there is a reason they don’t allow me to automatically reject all application invitations and that they hope I will cave and become a revenue generating sheep.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Of course the true Web 2.0 success stories are the few really clever and innovative things like Youtube, which now have countless immitators as people hope that through mimicry some of the gold dust will shake off the Youtube crown. It would be interesting if more people tried to be creative - like Twitter, who are creative but fill a niche that mostly doesn’t need to exist. But of course that creativity requires actual work, and if infomercials have taught us nothing it is that it is easier to make money through deciet than through effort.