Prompt:
Is 'Web 2.0' being replaced by 'social media' as a buzzword?
I don't really know what 'Web 2.0' is supposed to mean or whether it's literally a technical distinction, but it definitely feels like a buzzword that is tossed around when media-types and others discuss sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, et al.
I've been around computers since the day I was born in November of 1980. My father has always been extremely "high tech" and always attempted [when we could] to keep up with technologies. There's a picture of me when I'm about 2 or 3 years old with a keyboard the size of a toaster oven [give or take] sitting on a computer desk behind me in our living room in Alaska. [If I find it, I'll try to scan and post it.] As long as I can remember they've always been a part of my life.
Similarly, for me, the "social/creative/interactive" parts of 'Web 2.0' have always been a part of my web experiences. Sure, the technology has changed, but the spirit and the idea behind those things that comprise this supposedly 'new Web 2.0' world we're living in are not all that unfamiliar to me and haven't been for some time.
For example, blogging sites have been around for a very long time. Blogger and Live Journal both sprang into existance in 1999 -- that was eleven years ago. And long before that there were message boards that utilized nested replies and were a way for people to stay in touch, to foster a community, or to simply start a conversation.
And even before that, there was Usenet, which was launched in the year 1980 and is surely the mother of all social media and 'Web 2.0' sites everywhere.
I wouldn't ever say that 'Web 2.0' is a fad, though the term itself may be. But I will say that the ideas behind what 'Web 2.0' stands for, interaction, creativity, user participation, and social networking, are not exactly 'new' ideas at all. They have simply evolved and are now presented in a different way.
