Andrew Keen read from his book. Then he talked some more. And a bit more. And he referenced his book quite a few times. So, essentially it was a lecture. Until Jory broke in. Clearly his point is to be confrontational. He mentioned "debating" some of the tech luminaries at other conferences. So, his job is to create conflict. And when the room got to discussion, there was plenty of conflict. Ultimately a good conversation between people who fundamentally disagree.
He bashes the "Messianic faith" of rich entrepeneurs like O'Reilly (FOO Camp).
He is searching for the ideology of Web2.0. "Democratization" is an overused word in the Web2.0 world. Essentially, he thinks the Web2.0/social media craze is a bunch of hot air.
The ideology of Web 2.0 is actually a confluence of ideas
- couterculture of the sixties: idealized view of the community in the sixties leads to the romaticization of that idea. We don't understand how community works
- freemarket eighties: the market will solve all problems (e.g. Chris Anderson/The Long Tail)
- technophiles of the nineties:he objects to the fanatical notions that technology will somehow resolve our alienation. Millions who have not been able to express themselves can now do so, or at least that's the promise: technlogy liberates all of us.
Media becomes demonized as unjust gatekeepers.
His point:
1. Gatekeepers don't keep out talent: mainstream media works well. He defends mainstream media.
2. There's only a few of us who have something original to say
3. The purpose of media is to educate and entertain (not righting social injustices as Web 2.0 often fashions itself)
4. Maintream media is in crisis: fewer people read newspapers, music business in freefall, television ......
Jory finally interrupted him. A couple of cracks about a traditional media presentation and then into some great discussion.
Peter from Technorati defended the role of communication in Facebook and other parts of social media and he points out that the destruction of media is a constant state (i.e. destruction of movies by TV, etc...).
Andy counters over the point that who is benefiting financially from Web2.0? The owners of the "empty vessels" - My Space, Google, etc... Bloggers aren't making any better a living then the ailing journalists, in fact, they are worse off.
What would he change?
Anonymity - I just don't know that that has a whole lot to do with his core argument. There are plenty of "known" bloggers and social network members who have built up their own credibility based upon....their credible behavior.
Final point from a participant: traditional media and social media can co-exist. The sky is not falling. Still I get the sense that beyond Andrew's bomb-throwing, he is writing about some real changes. Yes, they may be part of an ongoing continuum and not novel today. But he is a smart guy.
Hmmm...maybe I should read the book.....
link to original post