Start here to see what this is i response to.
2.0 is a Tim O’Reilly marketing thing, because he saw a lot of problems with the current technology and wanted to have some kind of dividing line to help people distinguish between things. But like the man at ucov says: no business model, no idea what people want, groovy idea that recycles some stuff other people have already failed at = failure. I’m with Paul Graham on this one – work on something boring and painful (for the punters) and you will see the rewards. Shiny is’t necessarily good1. You seem to have bought the marketing hype.
I applaud people’s enthusiasm – I want technology to work and help us get out of the social and cultural ruts we’re beginning to die from (a rut is a grave that has’t had the ends filled in yet). Debate is healthy and really useful. The best “manifesto” is something people find useful and the culture that coheres around it. I’d rather work on that than an essay, any day.
1 for some reason line from “venus in furs” started going through my head when I wrote that, must get new prescription for meds.