Why Web 2.0 Social Media Wil Die

The big flaw with Web 2.0 is the social media aspect - the idea that the “wisdom of crowds” will somehow emerge and flourish, leaving the site/business owner with valuable free content.

The reality is that what is more likely to happen is that the “madness of crowds” will take over.

After all, history doesn’t tend to record so much on the “wisdom of crowds” as much as their madness.

For a site owner, at best, it results in irrelevant prattle. Every successful forum finds this taking up a huge chunk of their presence. Sure, it keeps the community members happy, but the content generated is junk in terms of traffic generation and value.

At worst, it can result in comments that are unhelpful, libellous, or outright dangerous.

Two weeks ago I nearly ended up with another libel threat. I averted it by stepping down, much to my chagrin - but once someone starts bitching about a particular company, it seems to serve as a magnet for other like-minded people, resulting in defamation city.

And today I decided to visit Yahoo! Answers and get an idea of the quality - only to find very little.

For example, here’s an example “dangerous” in the extreme.

Someone posts that they have Aspergers Syndrome and are clinically depressed:
How am I supposed to deal with life?

Unfortunately, someone with a serious mental and emotional vulnerability is met with a whole series of well-meaning but dangerous responses:

I have no idea what Aspergers syndrome is but if it makes you feel any better my life is so dreadful that I too am depressed and do not want to live

I dont know what Asperger’s Syndrome is but what i think is you need to socialise more

I’m sorry to say that i know nothing about your condition but i’m sure that there must be some support out there for you.

You’re lucky you have the support you do to be able to stay home - imagine having to actually support yourself!

I can’t say that I know much about aspergers, but do you have hobbies or things that interest you?

What you describe sounds like solitary confinement; only you never committed any crime!

It’s not the ignorance that’s galling - as much as the sheer useless good intentions, as people with no idea what they are dealing with take the role of “experts” on an “answers” site. The result, as demonstrated above, is dangerous.

I think that example from Yahoo! Answers serves as a pretty clear warning to the fundamental flaws of Web 2.0 - by tapping into social groups, you will always end up with inexpert opinions.

Sites such as Yahoo! Answers are little better in concept than “Ask that bloke Dave at the bar”.

But it’s not a problem specific to Yahoo! Answers, but Web2.0 in particular.

Wikipedia is probably one of the perceivably more successful forays in this area - and search the main and popular articles and it would be easy to think so.

But start digging down to real niche (and non-technical) topic areas, and you enter a world of sloppy presentation, assumptions, and general poor levels of information. Powerfully built, linked to, and represented online, the impression given is that Wikipedia is an authority on everything, when in reality it’s probably more only on popular topics.

Of course, I could always join up and make my contribution - but I tried that before, and ended up hounded by some crazed geek who demanded control of his stable of entries, and had gotten himself far up enough the chain that it was me threatened with disciplinary action, not he, even though his individual contributions in these individual areas were entirely disruptive and destructive.

Again, the madness of crowds becomes the over-riding principle of Web 2.0 developments.

I used to read ancient history for fun - The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides is one of the more engaging ones I’ve ever read. It covers the conflict between Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC, mainly from an Athenian point of view - and clearly demonstrates the lessons history regarding mob rule.

These were the same Athenians who bankrupted themselves by popular demand, lost the war through the unnecessary sacrifice of their own soldiers when flawed strategy seemed good at the time, and then condemned to death their own respected generals - such as the famous philosopher Socrates.

The lesson, I think, is clear - the Web 2.0 era of Social Media has a limited lifespan. If there is to be any development from this then the “wisdom of crowds” needs controlling via a clear hierarchy of authority, which is established outside of the crowd and employed directly to second-guess and mollify their wishes - pretty much like modern day politics, businesses, and other organised groups.

After all, as even those great philosophers who lived through Thucydides times determined - democracy in the hands of the mob was dangerous and foolish - and that only benign dictatorships can really provide stability and value.

Welcome to the foundation of Web 3.0.