It looks obvious

For long time I had the feeling that the term web 2.0 has to much ideology involved. From an exciting innovation and working business model it was made into ideology and start to form rules and ethics that has nothing to do with real development. Some of the people that promotes this phenomena were the usual type, like the crowed that ride on any phenomena and earn a living as consultants of any new trend. But they were not the only camp followers, because this time seemed like great opportunity for the social ideologist that learn nothing from past failures.

but as social revolution tend to develop, and the socialist type provided many examples, we didn’t need to wait long before the commissars arrived to make sure we are following the party line:

This difference, I suggest, in business models should be a focus of those keen to push the values of Web 2.0. Though Tim O’Reilly’s canonical statement of those values implies this freedom is necessary, it doesn’t really expressly say so. The freedom to access the content seems, in my view, related to the Web 2.0 principle that “the service automatically gets better the more people use it.” Or at least the right to access it if the author chooses (another Web 2.0 principle: Some Rights Reserved) seems essential for this ethic to make sense. As O’Reilly puts it, “Design for ‘hackability’ and ‘remixability’” — precisely what hoarding content doesn’t do.

One has to wonder what will be the punishment of those who break from the "canonical statement of those values", and how the web 2.0 gulags are going to look like (Although I think that I know who will be sent first…) .