I've never been that excited by web 2.0, so I've enjoyed reading two new articles criticising the phenomenon for reasons that I fully agree with. Here's an alternative to the O'Reilly story: it's about a few companies concentrating the diversity of the internet on their web sites, proprietary platforms that encourage sharing but hoard their own assets, enriching themselves off the effective exploitation of "amateurs" hoping to get fame or quick riches. Whatever the promise of the technology, and the wonderful creativity it has unlocked, it remains a far cry from my idea of real cultural freedom.

I got equally excited reading a paper by a good friend on workers' co-operatives, and then this quote set off a connection in my mind:

"To build cooperativism is not to do the opposite of capitalism, as if this system did not have any useful features... Cooperativism must surpass it, and for this purpose must assimilate its methods and dynamism" - Father Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta Madariaga

Since founding Remix Reading I've been as concerned with the material conditions that underpin our ability to create (like having a good space to exhibit your paintings, or enough money to cut a record), and with the availability of training so we can develop the skills to really engage with cultures, as with legal restrictions like copyright. For me, free culture must go beyond merely opposing the excesses of the proprietary approach; as a social movement we should build tools, spaces, projects that enlarge our cultural opportunities. Crucially we should eat our own dogfood: sharing our own assets (e.g. code), encouraging diversity and decentralisation, empowering citizens to participate rather than spectate. Web 2.0 is a far cry from this idea of real cultural freedom - it creates a proprietary space for centralisation, limited expression and exploitation, albeit far more open than the traditional media.

Imagine a co-operative web 2.0 enterprise, then. Contributors would join the co-operative, take on democratic rights and responsibilities, help develop the enterprise for mutual benefit, and share in the proceeds. Their purpose would be to enlarge the cultural freedom of their members, which would entail providing opportunities to consume, create, share and learn. In a way many free culture/software projects are a semi-formal (like KDE) or informal (like ccMixter) version of this, but it would be great to see this ethos getting more attention amongst people like OpenBusiness and iCommons.