The phone system could be described the same way.

I still say Web 3.0 is when users are directly involved in the creation of web apps. That and increasingly intuitive 3d interfaces.

(Usability will also 'come into its own,' and find itself as an art and science, I believe.)

That equally describes pre-web apps like word processors and spreadsheets.

The difference, as I see it, is that the value in the "social/web2.0" site comes mostly from the community (almost entirely in cases like reddit), rather than the application having much inherent value itself, as word processors and spreadsheets (or phone lines) clearly do.

I guess people get enough value out of it to not worry too much, but there is something to the original quote.

Phone lines are as neutral as reddit. They just cost a lot more to install. So if that's the critical difference, then the above remark about web 2.0 reduces to: it's cheaper now to start a startup.

"A naso", I would say that the underlying economics do differ somehow.

They're obviously different for 'end user' applications, even though network externalities touch on those through file formats.

For phone lines, the network effects are obvious: the value is in 1) connections to people you want to contact frequently, and 2) the potential to contact a wide range of people. No money is made from the actual content, though.

With the "social sites", though, they're aggregating massive amounts of user produced content (most of it pretty insignificant on its own), and making money from that.

At least that's my quick look at it.

The fact that people expect to be paid every time they do something nice for others says more about our culture than the whole Web 2.0 meme ever will.

I am not sure if I prefer a culture where people are expected to give away things for free all the time.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Even if people give away things for free, they usually expect something in return. Even if it is not money, it could be higher social status, a better place in heaven, or whatever. I don't think it is a problem.

Gift economy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

Usually on the web people prefer to give away their PRIVACY for free services. That privacy is in turn converted into advertising.

(This will all change very soon, when people are ready to start paying for a higher - and much more private and secure - level of premium service. You know, the Web will evolve to resemble the "regular' economy more and more, I believe..)

I understood the comment before me differently: I thought it was criticized that the content providers (people putting videos on YouTube) would expect something in return, not that YouTube & Co would expect a payment of sorts. I know that Social Webpages are not really free.

I think it is in the best interest of many Web 2.0 sites to adopt a business model like Revver and share the revenue with users.

please describe web 2.0 to me in 2 sentences or less. you make all the content. they keep all the revenue.

What if your users ask you for money, cos you and your cofounder were bought by google for 1.5billion dollars? Say (big) group of you tube users create an alliance asking founders for money fraction cos "We have created your content you sold!" :) Seems it crazy in social world where people, not you creating your content, generating your visits and advertising income? Seems it crazy in the USA?

My guess is that, eventually, super-rich startup founders will evolve an equally advanced model for public philanthropy:

PHILANTHROPY 2.0

It's an idea whose time has come.