A Preemptive Strike: Death to Web 3.0 (and 2.0 while we're at it)

Bloggers, pundits, and industry analysts have been earnestly debating the question for a while: What will Web 3.0 be? Of course, they have their critics, those who call the term a lot of hype. Unfortunately, their critics need to get harsher. Web 3.0 is worse than a meaningless buzzword; its use is bad for communication, bad for the interactive field, and simply stupid.

I should put my cards on the table: I'm a communications guy, and interactive is my medium of choice. In other words, I can geek out like the best of you, but my concern isn't the technologies themselves but the ways people use them. My best work pairs me with someone who loves the technology and wants it to communicate. My friend Nate is like that. This is a guy who can write JavaScript (or XHTML, Flex, Java, PHP, CFM, and so on) the same way a native Frenchman uses his language to seduce an American tourist. Fortunately for Nate's wife, few women have undressed under the influence of JavaScript. But my point here isn't seduction; simply that I'm the communications part of the equation and quite aware that the other parts of the equation must be in place for everything to work.

Today, everyone is obsessed with Web 2.0. Yes, if you work in "the field," you may say the term is falling out of use. If you take a walk outside of the industry, however, it's actually gathering steam. Organizations are asking to Web 2.0-ify their sites — not quite knowing what they're asking for, but well aware that everyone else is doing it.

As someone who has to communicate with nontech people, I'm tired of explaining that Web 2.0 doesn't require a special browser. I'm tired of explaining it's not a thing but a concept … well, a bunch of concepts, even though people don't always agree about which concepts are included in the bunch.