• Share
• Email

According to Jaron Lanier , who coined the term virtual reality, the Web 2.0 is now on the verge of being flat, now reduced almost to a mash of information. I wonder why?

Jaron Lanier

Jaron Lanier , considered by many as a guru of web and new media, the man who invented the phrase " virtual reality ", the famous signature of Wired, the Wall Street Journal calls it "online pioneer, has just published a new book You Are Not A Gadget "which laments the fact that today the Web 2.0 is nothing but "a chorus of voices flattened on themselves", a "collectivism" as defined, that produces nothing but a sense of participation to empty the contents. The fact that everyone can contribute according Lanier is not considered an enrichment. On the contrary. Argues that:

When you order from anyone to collaborate on everything, it creates a dull, average score in all things. You will not get innovation. If you want to stimulate creativity and excellence, it is necessary to introduce some bollards.

And to think that Web 2.0 is moving on principles such as sharing and cooperation. Now it is clear that if we open spaces to increasingly expanded sooner or later we must face the problem of creating a boundary, but I think that, since then the network is a concept already well established. Think that what was created and implemented so far, in terms of dissemination of the concepts that underlie the Internet and Web 2.0 , is nothing but a sensation collectivism seem very simplistic way.

If it is true it is true that the network is free, we must be aware that they can be bred in finding everything. But really everything. And no scandalized. And this does not mean that we can do "culture web 2.0 "just because you are around" blog anonymously with useless comments and jokes frivolous "have flattened the contents of the Web. It seems to me an opinion that does not take into account how wide and varied network. Perhaps all this suggests that Lanier wants to turn everything on the web is a privilege which results only decides the fate of some of the web. And this is an interesting topic to be treated.

"At the time of the revolution the Internet I and my colleagues were being increasingly flouted, because we expected that the Web could give free expression to millions of individuals. Nah, we were told, people like to watch TV, do not stand behind a computer. When the revolution took place, however, creativity was killed, and the web has lost its intellectual dignity. If you want to know something to ask Google , which sends you to Wikipedia, period. Otherwise people end up in the bubble sites angry, the ultras, where only those who listen to strengthen his ideas. "

So the question is how to give priority to the quality and accuracy of content without Ossana be polluted by these internet thugs. Think today that the inside is much more advanced than yesterday is a fact. It 'true that there people who watch the web with some suspicion and superficiality, but there is another and is the majority, that in recent years has grown and matured, it managed to build awareness able to distinguish between what that fits over the web and what is not. E 'already capable by itself to make a similar reflection. And every day is going to choose from google , from wikipedia, from social networking from blogs , what they want to know what you want to read, what they need to learn. I do not think the decline of the network . I believe the opposite. and I also believe that the opinion of a pioneer com Larnier do just fine, as it can be criticized. Because of this we can measure the level of maturity that has reached the network. Overwhelmed by the views of this level would testify, on the contrary, an obvious weakness, giving reason to this current of thought.

We are not gadgets and we are not aiming to be.