The Human Is The Center Of Gravity In Computing

Image via Wikipedia

Web 1.0 was, well, offline you had posters, online you had websites. That was so rudimentary and geeky, cheesy. That was early stage.

Web 2.0 has been way more exciting. we realized the web was meant to be populated by human beings. People like you and me. The ordinaires.

So it bothers me when people talk of a possible Web 3.0 as a way to get back to machine language. They talk of the semantic web.

Web 3.0 has to be even more about people than Web 2.0. That is a vision worth fighting for. The vision war has to be won. People matter.

Web 2.0 has been 2D, Web 3.0 has to be 3D. People are 3D. The rectangle on the screen is too confining. We ask for liberation.

What would Facebook be today without its 200 million people? Facebook is no spaceship to oggle at. People matter. We are the web.

Each human being is unique. That is a scientific truth. No two snowflakes are alike. The web is poorer for every human not yet online.



https://twitter.com/ScienceTweets/status/1547445376

Web 3.0 is about getting more and more people online. 3.0 is about getting every human being online. 3.0 is about seeing the vital center.

Web 4.0, I don't know. I call it next generation software. I don't have the foggiest idea. Web 5.0, though, is face time. Circle complete.

All along, through 2.0 and beyond, what we were really trying to do is communicate, to reach out, to meet, to talk, to converse, to express.

We were trying to hear, to be heard, so we should really value it when we do meet. Web 5.0 is face time. Face time is godly.

In physics there is nothing faster than the speed of light. On the web there is nothing past Web 5.0, past face time. Semantic web is 2.1.

• NY Tech MeetUp Mailing List Web 5.0 Controversy
• Web 5.0 Is Da Bomb
• Competing For the Web 3.0 Definition
• Conceptually Diligent: Web 5.0 Is Repackaging Hello
• Defining Web 4.0
• Web 5.0: Face Time
• A Web 3.0 Manifesto

Related articles by Zemanta

• Happiness around the 2.0 world! (ladyleet.com)
• Top Posts Of 2008 (stoweboyd.com)
• A Better Calling Card: Twitter Challenges Facebook Connect (readwriteweb.com)
• michael arrington: Gmail Now Tells You Who You Want To Email (via TechCrunch) (techcrunch.com)
• Holistic Interaction (futurelab.net)
• Can a Blog Be Useful For Marketing an Offline Business? (davidrisley.com)
• Media Landscape 2008 -- update (battleandbounce.blogspot.com)
• The New Bebo: 50 Percent Growth in One Month (mashable.com)
• One Way Video Could Save the Newspaper Industry (markevanstech.com)
• iLike changes Facebook tune to 'Music' (news.cnet.com)
• Sad Web 2.0 Losers Ready for Web 3.0 (As Soon As They Figure Out What It Is) (gawker.com)
• Drupal: The Semantic Web Enabler (semanticalley.com)
• Shifting values, faster paces and dragging minds will force us to create new solutions. (unstructuredventures.com)
• Thinking Platform Shifts (vcmike.wordpress.com)
• Facebook App Weddingbook Acquired by TheKnot (mashable.com)
• Daily Tech: Apple's iPhone 3.0 OS Beta Is Available to Developers (geeksugar.com)

NY Tech MeetUp Mailing List Web 5.0 Controversy

OMGICU



I have been active with this mailing list only since the last MeetUp (NY Tech MeetUp: 02/03/09), been barely a week, and so far I have not got into the thick of it much, but right now I logged in to look at today's daily digest, and boom, there it was splattered all over the place. Before proceeding to read all the emails, I took this screen shot. Seven of the 20 emails are about my Web 5.0 post.


I am going to read all the emails, and I am going to respond. But before that I wish to respond to an email from Michael Mellinger. (Conceptually Diligent: Web 5.0 Is Repackaging Hello)

In his last email Mike wondered if there will be a Web 6.0, and a Web 7.0.

Web 5.0 And The Speed Of Light

In physics it is said nothing in the universe moves faster than the speed of light. In my classification, Web 5.0 is the same way. There is no Web 5.1, there is no Web 6.0, there is no Web 7.0. Web 5.0 is the ultimate.

Web 5.0 Is Da Bomb
Competing For the Web 3.0 Definition
Conceptually Diligent: Web 5.0 Is Repackaging Hello
Defining Web 4.0
Web 5.0: Face Time
A Web 3.0 Manifesto


Clarifications

I think earlier classification systems have made the fundamental error of thinking of the web only as the software behind the websites. In my classification system the web is the software, the hardware, the connectivity, and, most important, the people, the netizens. How can you miss the people after Web 2.0?

Read

Now let me go read and answer other queries and curiosities.

Nicolas VDB: Stay tuned, web 36.0 coming soon on Paramendra's blog

Tim Mattison: The whole original post feels almost computer generated. I'm so confused. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

James Gillmore: I think the message to be taken away from Paramendra's posts should be a recognition of the enthusiasm, passion and idealism for a subject matter we obviously all love or we wouldn't be here. It doesn't need to illicit jaded "web 2.+ is so cliche" responses. However, Paramendra, I think what you're saying is far from reality and how things will actually pan out--and it's a little to poetic for a lot of us. It's also not very specific. I'd love to see a post from you about simply what technical advancements on and offline you forecast in 2009 and 2010, regardless of what point oh they fall into. What are your predictions for the next 2 years?

Andrew: wahahahaha *snort* *sniffle* ...... ahhhh PB, thanks for the Monday chuckles, Chuckles.

Matthew Zito: Glad we cleared that up. Unfortunately for you, I've already invented the New Web 1.0, which will supplant all versions of Web x.x

Andrew to Matthew Zito: Sorry, but we only recognize Web 1.0 as defined in ISO/IEC 3282-1:1993.

My Reaction

I guess it has not been the controversy I first thought it might be. There is irrational, illogical derision and dismissal. There is mild amusement, but no real technical critique. I should learn to ignore most of the fluff. Perhaps this is not the right venue to be expecting a discussion.

Creating Ground

There are people who don't buy into the Web 2.0 term itself. At one point Google CEO Eric Schmidt was one of them. He dismissed Web 2.0 as a marketing term. I would have to fundamentally disagree. Web 2.0 is very real to me. Web 2.0 was when the web got populated, it became alive, it became dynamic.

And then there are those who think of Web 1.0 as read, Web 2.0 as read-write, and Web 3.0 as read-write-execute. That is a fairly elegant classification. It is not right or wrong, I feel it is misguided. It only makes sense if you think of the web only as the software that powers websites, which I don't.

I look at the software, the hardware, the connectivity, and the netizens, like I said above. There are four components. What others might propose to be Web 3.0, I have proposed to be Web 2.1.

You could disagree with my basic premise and argue but the web is only about software. Or you could take my holistic approach and come up with a different classification system. But I have not seen any so far, and this mailing list perhaps is not the place to look.