Web 2.0 and Fake Sharing = CRAZY DELICIOUS!!!
Lawrence Lessig argues that YouTube is a less-than-optimal implementation of the Web 2.0 ideal:
A “true sharing” site doesn’t try to exercise ultimate control over the content it serves. It permits, in other words, content to move as users choose.
A “fake sharing” site, by contrast, gives you tools to make seem as if there’s sharing, but in fact, all the tools drive traffic and control back to a single site.
In this sense, YouTube is a fake sharing site, while Flickr, (parts of) Google, blip.tv, Revver and EyeSpot are true sharing sites.
Why does this matter? Content that is truly shared is "hackable" and "remixable." Being able to do something new and interesting with shared content is (arguably) the whole point of sharing it in the first place.
On the other hand, even in the rarified futuristic Web 2.0 world we live in, there is still a distinction between those who consume content and those who generate it. Web 2.0 is supposed to tear those barriers down, and that's good. But most of the people who e-mailed a link to Lazy Sunday to a friend had no intention of creating their own version of it.
Which is not to say that it couldn't be done:
Lots more examples here. I just like the one above because it looks like something my buddy Ken and I would have done when we were that age, if the technology had existed.
Centralized fake sharing is a good way to distribute fixed content. It's interesting to note that NBC eventually yanked the video from YouTube and other outlets so that they could be the sole source. If you want to watch the original now, there's only one place to find it. Fake sharing models like YouTube and non-sharing models like NBC.com do okay by getting fixed content out to consumers. Meanwhile, the growing class of content producers have sites like Flickr and Blip.tv where the remixability and hackability of shared content allow them to generate new products that can find their way to the fake sharing distribution channels.
It's isn't Lessig's ideal world, where everything would be shared all the time, but it seems like a workable compromise.