Jackie Danicki

Hillary Johnson wonders if Web 2.0 is feminine (which may explain why the friends complaining to me about how they “don’t see the point” of Facebook, Twitter, et al are all men):

There’s something about social networking that is decidedly feminine, I think. That it’s reticular v. heirarchical? I think of estrogen as relational, and testosterone as vertical. We all have a bit of each, in varying degrees. I wonder if we’re not missing something in all our discussions of the web, by always taking a geek cowboy point of view? Networks grow by procreation and proliferation, not by conquest and occupation of space.

And who will determine how that network is used? Adriana Lukas:

[The open network] won’t come about ‘conceptually’ i.e. by someone designing it top down. It will be something simple, useful and usable…It will be something that users adopt easily and make work in more ways than its designers imagined. This is because users are not standing still. They are learning and what they didn’t understand five years ago is now second nature to them. As very few companies are in touch with users, the new technology is rarely, if at all, determined by businesses. Or at least not by business as usual.

Emphasis mine. And here are these two together, at a party here last summer.

Filed under: Life