So, apparently while you were asleep this past March, Web 3.0 started.
Huh?
Oh, right. See, 20 years ago, we created the Web, which sat on top of the Internet like, I don’t know, something that sits on top of something else. Then 10 years ago, somebody said, “hey, I’ve got some great thoughts, I bet people would like to read them, and I’ve got some stuff to sell, I bet I could sell it online. And then others said I think it’d be cool if we could search this thing,” and then out popped Google and with it everyone started getting all “oh hey, this web thing is neat, let’s invent tools so we can write cool stuff and chat or comment about it and be friends, sort of, but you know, anonymously, and I guess get newsy stuff too, but delivered to our virtual doorsteps, and then maybe share stuff with other people that we know and some we don’t, but that’s cool because they have a nice profile picture where they’re smiling.” Along the way, someone may have said “like totally fer sure.” In other words, we learned that the Web (a.k.a., the Internet, Internets, Interwebs, Series of Tubes, Intertubes, or just Tubes) was vast, had some really cool stuff, and we could all hold imaginary hands and say “we have achieved MacLuhan’s dream.” The farther apart we are, the closer we become.
Oops, sorry, not yet.
See, we’re apparently now on to Phase 3 of the Master Plan, where (and I have to quote this): “the focus is shifting to the Stream, and with it, stream oriented metaphors of flows, currents, and ripples.” Attribution, here. I love metaphors, and water. In fact, I would bet over the last 10 years, you’ve gone “surfing” on the Web, which would suggest an ocean, not some small tributary meandering its way about the Tubes. But if you don’t know what “the Stream” is, you should probably take some time to read (in order) Nova Spivack’s “Welcome to the Stream: The Next Phase of the Web,” John Borthwick’s “Distribution … now,” Erick Schonfeld’s “Jump Into The Stream,” and probably most of the links cited in those posts, and the comments too (well, at least half of the comments … aw screw it, just read them all). If you don’t have the time though, here’s what Spivack has to say:
If the Internet is our collective nervous system, and the Web is our collective brain, then the Stream is our collective mind. The nervous system and the brain are like the underlying hardware and software, but the mind is what the system is actually thinking in real-time. These three layers are interconnected, yet are distinctly different aspects, of our emerging and increasingly awakened planetary intelligence. The Stream is what the Web is thinking and doing, right now. It’s our collective stream of consciousness.The Stream is the dynamic activity of the Web, unfolding over time. It is the conversations, the live streams of audio and video, the changes to Web sites that are happening, the ideas and trends—the memes—that are rippling across millions of Web pages, applications, and human minds.
Wow. You know, when I read these guys, this scene from the movie Madagascar keeps running through my mind:
{On cargo ship, penguins talking to monkeys, each locked in cages}
Skipper the Penguin: “You! Higher mammal. Can you read?”
Mason the Chimpanzee: “No, but Phil can. Phil?”
[Clue: I am not Phil.] Seriously, my very simple take on the Stream is this: the Stream is the Web and current events, topically organized by conversational data served up anyway you like it (well, assuming the third party devs give you what you want). The Stream is the real-time conversation, and it’s carrying some kind of data that people think is important. It tastes great (sometimes) and is less filling at the same time, which means you have to take a lot in to get drunk. The problem, it seems, is that it really just makes you overweight.
But wait! There’s more to Web 3.0. See, there’s also this Cloud thing going on, which is really (once again, in my simple view) all about centralization of services to make your life easier. Like electricity. Honestly, I won’t even get into this. You need to read Nicholas Carr’s book “The Big Switch.” Trust me, you will not be disappointed.
The point is this: the Stream is in the Cloud, which suggests a new era: Rain. And yes, it pretty much seems to be pouring. If you, like me, feel like you’re being deluged by a googleplex of free services and real-time data, then you’re not alone. The real question for me has been, what does all this mean for legal research? After all, I’ve experimented with RSS, Twitter, Friendfeed, Tumblr, LinkedIn, and Facebook. I have slowed down on each service (well, except RSS) since I started. I see the attraction of being hyperconnected, but am left to ask myself “to what end”? How is it contributing to my knowledge of the law? How is all of this going to impact how we research and learn about the law?
I’m not sure if you subscribe to David Curle of LexDisruptus.com, but he had an interesting post recently titled “Stocks and Flows: A Metaphor for Information Markets.” In the post, David says that he uses RSS and Twitter to make sure he doesn’t miss anything. Specifically, he states:
Today’s wider array of workflow tools available to legal, tax and compliance professionals are all about dropping exactly the right piece of up-to-date information into my hands just as I need it – pulling it out of the flow. The value is increasingly tied to the timing and the currency of the knowledge, not just its availability or even quality.
David continues by arguing that we are moving away from search-and-retrieve model to a publish-and-subscribe. I don’t completely agree with this view as it relates to the legal market. If you are a criminal or civil practitioner, you know that archived data in the form of case law and statutes is hugely important, and the tools for accessing it must be robust (i.e., search and retrieve). That goes for secondary source material that helps explain large amounts of content quickly and efficiently (again, search and retrieve). But Web 3.0 teaches us that this data has to be married to the Stream in a way that brings the past together with the now-present (i.e., publish and subscribe). And that, my friends, is where I think we are headed.
The next iteration of legal web service is going to be two-fold. The first part will merge at least three things (1) archived data (i.e., primary law), (2) current analytical (i.e., treatises, hornbooks, practice guides), and (3) real-time assessments (i.e., articles, posts, comments). And yes, there are related services tied to this (e.g., Westlaw Litigator that pulls in briefs, jury verdicts, expert testimony reports, etc.), but honestly I don’t count them because I don’t think publishers like Thomson West and Wolters Kluwer will ever let you see that information outside of the walled garden. Honestly, I haven’t been impressed with their efforts in pulling in Web 2.0, much less Web 3.0, content into their gardens up to now. So someone else is going to have to step up to the plate and deliver.
The second part (and this is where more of the Web 3.0 comes in) will be what we will call “Brian Eno’s Box.” If you don’t know who Brian Eno is, go here. Eno was interviewed in March 2005 by Kevin Kelly, which appeared in Wired, some of which I want you to read below:
Kevin Kelly (KK): If I could give you a black box that could do anything, what would you have it do?
Brian Eno (BE): I would love to have a box onto which I could offload choice making. A thing that makes choices about its outputs, and says to itself, This is a good output, reinforce that, or replay it, or feed it back in. I would love to have this machine stand for me. I could program this box to be my particular taste and interest in things.
KK: Why do you want to do that? You have you.
BE: Yes, I have me. But I want to be able to sell systems for making my music as well as selling pieces of music. In the future, you won’t buy artists’ works; you’ll buy software that makes original pieces of “their” works, or that recreates their way of looking at things. You could buy a Shostakovich box, or you could buy a Brahms box. You might want some Shostakovich slow-movement-like music to be generated. So then you use that box. Or you could buy a Brian Eno box. So then I would need to put in this box a device that represents my taste for choosing pieces.
KK: I guess the only thing weirder than hearing your own music being broadcast on the radios of strangers is hearing music that you might have written being broadcast!
BE: Yes, music that I might have written but didn’t!
KK: Will you still like the idea of these surrogate Brian Enos when they start generating your best work?
BE: Sure! Naturally, it’s a modifiable box, you know. Say you like Brahms and Brian Eno. You could get the two of them to collaborate on something, see what happens if you allow them to hybridize. The possibilities for this are fabulous.
To some extent we are already seeing the very, very, very early stages of this with sites like My.Alltop.com that already are letting us get a glimpse of the sites, articles, and posts trusted users are reading. But I see the future as giving us more robust data. Let’s say you’re into copyright law. Now let’s assume that Professor David Nimmer has been actively engaged in Web. 2.0 and 3.0 activities. In the near future, we might be able to construct a Nimmer Box on copyright law, something that might be able to predict trends based on what he has read, is reading, and has written through articles and blog posts, advocated through briefs, and linked to through microposts (e.g., Twitter). Spotting trends in his thinking should not be difficult. And knowing what he is thinking might help your practice. But that’s just a guess.
In the end, this is the byproduct of granularity. The stream came from a river that came from an ocean we surfed. If the stream gets broken down further into flows, currents, and ripples, then the data (which is what we are talking about here) is getting smaller and smaller. If that data is tied to a particular user, it become more predictable, particularly if it is tied to blog posts and other data. I can see it in my tweets already, that is, the things that interest me. At some point, if you’re ever interested, you will know what Jason Wilson the legal publisher is thinking perhaps even before I do.
Shit, I think I just scared myself.
[Disclosure: Much of this post was written under the influence of The Raconteurs, "You Don't Understand Me," from their latest album The Consolers of the Lonely. Also, image is mine, from Mt. Katahdin at Baxter State Park in Maine. If you're ever up Down East during the Summer, give me a shout.]
