“Pie-in-the-sky” philosophies of what the web could/should be come into conflict with the rigors of practical reality – companies have to actually make money in order to survive. But in the end, it’s the user who loses. Would that there were a better way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range

I’m with candace and sober – these companies are founded on tools like search, messaging, and link-sharing – it’s an inelegant evolution of their business model to focus so much on controlling their content and edging out big media. The people were doing fine on that track themselves, and now everyone online is suffering now that these big names have lost the plot.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al, are all now called media companies because they carry advertising and thereby compete for eyeballs and dollars with media companies. But I think it is confusing to call these very different businesses the same name.

Using phrases like “…content that is being created by other companies, whether it’s Instagram or the New York Times” seems weird. The New York Times creates tons of original content, but Instagram Inc creates a tool. I know this is so naive, but I wish the creators could have some say. I would happily pay for a version of Instagram and of Twitter where they worked together. Why is advertising — which is so 20th century — the only business model these brilliant minds can come up with.

ps: I work in advertising. Lol.

@Lefty, if it wasn’t for Twitter, I’d never have found this article. Or you.

Just to let you know the HCMS will be around sometime next year. What Diaspora can only dream of and the dynamic heterarchical answer to the static hierarchic monopolies of the well-known corporate walled gardens. The deconstruction commences . . .