Recently I've been reading some articles about the second dot-com bubble for a paper I'm writing. I studied just a bit of Economics and I'm clearly not an expert in that field, but I wonder if statisticians are the right people for speculating on the web 2.0. Of course it's not my money but still... The profitability of social medias for investors rests on advertising and marketing and this is my industry.
To me "speculating on web 2.0" means trying to answer the question "will mankind really go digital?", and this sounds more like an anthropological problem.
I use a tag I called "limits" on my Delicious account and this is for collecting data that tend to cool you down when you're one of those dreaming of a new world derived from the cyberspace.
The most obvious limit to digitalisation is probably the time it takes to really use social medias (see this article from Sarah Perez). More and more companies tend to forbid access to Facebook because it makes them lose tons of money. Hehe. So what's going on ? Are we all going to wake up with a hangover ? Are we high ? I think it's something you should be interested in if you really want to understand what the web will be like in 10 years.
It's a possibility (among hundreds of others) that Internet addicts are avant-guardists after all, people so involved that they warn us of what it could be like if we all go digital. That's why I try not to forget what my first mentor used to tell me : "the web is designed to help people meet in real life". I don't totally agree, as I have some 100% digital good friends but he made a point.
Actually one of them is taking a PhD in Clinical Psychology in Lyon. We chatted about Facebook last week. He thinks Facebook is fundamentally dirty, exploiting obvious flaws of humans such as perverted narcissism (going to a party just to be shot by a camera just to be able to post a pic on my profile) and voyeurism (spying on your friends and friends of friends). This is well-known.
I don't mean that digital is bad, because I breathe digital, but there are issues to watch carefully.
My point was just that I really don't understand why major firms invest so much money in web 2.0 on basis of mere quantitative data. Well, they probably get in touch with people involved in Anthropology or Psychology but do they really care? ... What do you think ?
To me "speculating on web 2.0" means trying to answer the question "will mankind really go digital?", and this sounds more like an anthropological problem.
I use a tag I called "limits" on my Delicious account and this is for collecting data that tend to cool you down when you're one of those dreaming of a new world derived from the cyberspace.
The most obvious limit to digitalisation is probably the time it takes to really use social medias (see this article from Sarah Perez). More and more companies tend to forbid access to Facebook because it makes them lose tons of money. Hehe. So what's going on ? Are we all going to wake up with a hangover ? Are we high ? I think it's something you should be interested in if you really want to understand what the web will be like in 10 years.
It's a possibility (among hundreds of others) that Internet addicts are avant-guardists after all, people so involved that they warn us of what it could be like if we all go digital. That's why I try not to forget what my first mentor used to tell me : "the web is designed to help people meet in real life". I don't totally agree, as I have some 100% digital good friends but he made a point.
Actually one of them is taking a PhD in Clinical Psychology in Lyon. We chatted about Facebook last week. He thinks Facebook is fundamentally dirty, exploiting obvious flaws of humans such as perverted narcissism (going to a party just to be shot by a camera just to be able to post a pic on my profile) and voyeurism (spying on your friends and friends of friends). This is well-known.
I don't mean that digital is bad, because I breathe digital, but there are issues to watch carefully.
My point was just that I really don't understand why major firms invest so much money in web 2.0 on basis of mere quantitative data. Well, they probably get in touch with people involved in Anthropology or Psychology but do they really care? ... What do you think ?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment