The answer to this question was simpler when there were a few million users online. This number is now around two billion. It seems that internet is rapidly permeating into our analogue world. The pervasiveness of the web is without a doubt one if it's most fascinating aspects. There are many more pervasive technologies such as automobiles, mobile phones and television. What makes the internet different from all these other technologies is its ability to evolve in order to become more and more pervasive. It is evolving and it is seeping into every corner of the world.
Let's have a look at the evolution of the web by considering it's versions. These versions of the web is in no way a definite representation of how the web is evolving. There is no date or one particular technology that separates one from another. But they are very useful in differentiating certain trends.
Web 1.0: Web-as-information source / Encyclopedia Brittanica / Software / Static Content
Web 2.0: Web-as-platform / Wikipedia / Service / Dynamic Content
Web 3.0: ?
It is still too early to have a simple definition for Web 3.0. Some argue that it is already here, some say that it will arrive when the recession ends (who knows when) and some think that it is all non-sense. I think that it is completely obvious that internet as we know it cannot stay the same. There are tons of new technologies constantly changing the world so it is natural that internet will also change. So the question is what will it be like?
Semantic Web is a widely accepted name for the next-gen web. In theory, semantic technologies for the web will enable computers to understand information more like us. Some call this the 'intelligent' or 'sentient' web. In turn, this will result in a radically improved user experience. We will experience the web as if we are having a conversation with another person. This is because a semantic structure will be spread all over the web; or rather the web will be organized around a semantic structure. The actual mechanisms that are being proposed as semantic technologies are all highly technical and frankly I have no idea about any of them. However, it is enough to understand that when or if semantic web emerges, computers will handle most of the work that we are doing right now. They will be capable of analyzing vast amounts of information in a meaningful way. Computers will be able to process information in a way that we understand information so that we won't have to. In a sense, they will do the mining of data, we will just grab the processed information.
There is another name that is proposed for the new kind of web: the internet of things. There are many technologies that is a part of this evolution but the most talked about is Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID). In fact most of have used this technology. It is the thing that is installed on cars so that the payment for motorways or bridges are automatically made. Now imagine that RFID is implemented on a massive scale so that home appliances, streetlamps, pets, baths, and many more objects are online. This is the internet of things. This would create a huge amount of new data which would give us new insights into many things that we couldn't possibly know about. We would never lose any of our socks or run out of milk. Our pets would never be lost and we would not be wasting any products.
As in the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, there won't be a single technology that defines the change from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0. Therefore both Semantic Web and the Internet of Things are coming in one way or shape.
Both technologies will make the web more pervasive. The internet will be permeating into this world more and more in the coming years. Facebook, as a social platform, is one of the most important examples of Web 2.0. Yet it has changed considerably in such a short time. Can we imagine that in ten years, Facebook will still exist? Even if it does, are we going to call it a social platform? The two technologies I mentioned above is going to change our world. Semantic technologies will allow the web to pervade the world vertically. Internet will gain social and cultural importance in a significant way. It is easy to predict that all our social and cultural activities will occur online; or at least have a digital component. O'Reilly borrows a concept from Kuniavsky: "Increasingly, the Web is the world – everything and everyone in the world casts an "information shadow," an aura of data". All our actions will cast digital shadows on the Web. Let's think about this for a moment. How much time do we spend online in a day? For instance, I spend at least 6 hours a day. I cannot imagine being offline for two straight days. Ten years ago, being offline was not such a big deal. But now I care about my online-life. I feel that I have responsibilities here: things that I have to take care of and enjoy caring about. My world is online. But of course, that is just me. I'm aware that majority of people around me still, for the most part, is living as I did ten years ago. They use computers, they become online, but they do it casually. How about their children? They won't be casual online-users. They will have a significant online-life. Human beings will pursue digital lives.
I will stop my rant for now and consider the internet of things. With RFID and other similar technologies, the web will pervade the world horizontally. Every object, every part of this world will cast a shadow on the web. Or in other words, the world will have an online digital representation. This immediately brings to mind Baudrillard's example of the Borges' story "On Exactitude of Science".
Baudrillard's argument is that there is no 'real' anymore. All the world is already a virtual map, a copy of what was real: a giant simulacrum. What we do is copy the copy. In his view, there are only copies without reference to something objective or real. I guess Baudrillard would argue that the internet of things is no different than the internet: Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 is in essence similar insofar as they are mere copies. They do not pretend to be true or false, they just simulate certain things. For Baudrillard, web is a world in and of itself. When asked about the risks of developing internet he answers:
Virtuality retranscribes everything in its space; in a way, human ends vanish into thin air in virtuality. It is not a doom-laden danger in the sense of an explosion, but rather a passage through an indefinable space. A kind of radical uncertainty. One communicates, but as far as what is said, one does not know what becomes of it. This will become so obvious that there will no longer even be any problems concerning liberty or identity. There will no longer be any way for them to arise; those problems will disappear a little below the horizon. The media neutralizes everything, including, in a way, power, and virtuality itself is not able to turn itself into a political power.In the same interviev:
Claude Thibaut : Isn't this radical uncertainty brought about by virtual [Image] reality likely to challenge man's vision of himself and the world?This inverview is from 1996, from Web 1.0. As we have seen, Web 1.0 is just an information source. It was not a social platform yet. So I wonder if his views would still hold true for Web 2.0, let alone Web 3.0. He seems to argue that virtual world is just that, virtual. Therefore there can be no power born from inside a virtual world. Virtual world is only another way of copying oneself: a digital copy inside a network, devoid of all that defines you, you simply disappear in a flow of data. It seems that Baudrillard considers the web to be homogeneous, with no spatial or temporal differences. While this seems true for a digital online library kind of web, Web 3.0 seems to be gaining its own spatial and temporal qualities by latching itself into our world.
Jean Baudrillard : Certainly, because it is the system of representation that is at issue. The image that he has of himself is virtualized. One is no longer in front of the mirror; one is in the screen, which is entirely different. One finds himself in a problematic universe, one hides in the network, that is, one is no longer anywhere. What is fascinating and exercises such an attraction is perhaps less the search for information or the thirst for knowledge than the desire to disappear, the possibility of dissolving and disappearing into the network.
However, I don't think that Baudrillard is concerned with these. And I don't know enough to arrive at a conclusion. But I believe that internet holds the potential to be something more than just media and I believe that it is on its way to significantly alter all aspects of our world. At the beginning, it was mere technology. But with a shift to user generated content and platform-based business model, it became more than a digital information source. It became a social space. With semantic web and other technologies, it will become more than a place to watch and upload videos or connect with your old friends. So the question is, again, what is the internet?
This post was intended as an introductory piece into what I believe to be important trends and issues about the internet. It is not meant to be complete or completely accurate; or even coherent. And that is where you come in! I await all your comments and contributions.
O'Reilly - What is Web 2.0
O'Reilly - Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On
Here photographer Andrew Bruce writes about Google Maps and flickr's World Map and how they copy the world.
