• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
The Sub-Time Crisis in Web 2.0
Dr. Luke O’Connor 16/11/09A few months ago I came across Steve Rubel's post onAttention Crash,where he predicts an imminent bursting of the Web 2.0 information bubble since there is no Moore's Law of exponential growth for our attention. This was a provocative remark, which I worked throughmore thoroughly inMoore's Lore and Attention Crash.Actually, I spent a few days off my laptop scribbling down various ideas and observations on paper, whatever came to mind. Isurprised myself with filling 12 pages in a few hours on a Sunday afternoon and a few trainrides. Some of the smaller asides will find their way into other posts, like theThe Restaurantat the End of the Web. Here I will continue with the Attention Crash theme.The worst case scenario for Web 2.0 is that we are heading for a singularity, precipitated bydividing our attention into informational units effectively rated at zero content. Usingavailable streaming and aggregation tools we can quickly and effortlessly create anoverwhelming flood of information. It is clear that we are building social computingstructures that we do not comprehend. Social computing joins two areas that have the potential for massive scaling - computing technology and social interaction. The Sub-Timecrisis lies at this intersection. In fact it is the intersection.After reading Rubel's original post I subscribed to his blog and even his FriendFeed, and soonfound that while he is concerned about Attention Crash, he is also a major contributor to the pot of Web 2.0 tidbits (links, comments, posts, pictures and so on). He is typical of other Web2.0 luminaries who produce content but then also produce “content” on there being too muchcontent.But is there really a coming Attention Crash? Well certainly not informational equivalents tothe Great Crash of 1929 or the Subprime crisis we are currently experiencing. If there is sucha thing it will be very unevenly distributed and localised. It is clear that certain people aregoing to get rain on their personal web parades, but this is not global deluge.When I was a boy my father regularly asked me “stimulating” questions. He belonged to thegeneration of Australian men for whom intense argument over inconsequential matters wasconsidered both relaxing and invigorating. Apart from the perennial favourite of "How longis a piece of string?", usually recounted when someone asked how much does a reasonablequality car cost (I come from a long line of car people), and "Did you know you can sink atractor in a lake of average depth of 1 inch?", he did ask me one time "What is the difference between a crash and a collision?" And the answer is that a collision involves two movingobjects (say two cars) while a crash involves one moving object and one stationary object(say a car hitting a tree).So when we speak of Attention Crash we may think of our information intake hitting upagainst our stationary capacity to absorb it. This capacity varies from person to person, butthere are alwayshard bounds.But as with the Great Crash, Rubel is probably using Attention Crash to mean a general or systemic collapse - an event that is widespread, foundational and severe. But the comingAttention Crash will not be of this form - there will be enough localised warnings. Unlike our current financial structures, the web is not at threat of collapsing, though many foot soldiers
Email:lukejamesoconnor@gmail.comBlog:http://lukenotricks.blogspot.com/
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...