When you talk about the web as we know, are you talking aesthetics, or ecosytems? I'm having trouble drawing the comparison between technology vs critical mass

When you talk about the web as we know, are you talking aesthetics, or ecosytems? I'm having trouble drawing the comparison between technology vs critical mass of people. How the web looks has definitely changed with technology as we progressed from HTML -> Flash sites -> HTML5 and single-page web app sites, and of course now we can have streaming video that works as opposed to Quicktime or RealPlayer movies. And when you think of Twitter's rise, it's essentially blogging shrunk to one-liners, but what made it different was the ability to aggregate everyone's stream of consciousness to a single feed as opposed to browsing through a newsgroup, blog ring, or RSS reader. This couldn't happen without technology (though I guess a parallel could be forum threads where everyone posts their clipboard contents at that moment). In terms of ecosystems, I feel like they haven't changed too much. I checked Alexa's Top Sites and was able to draw parallels to most of them except for Wikipedia and to a certain extent YouTube. Collaborative editing of a collective source of (arguable) truth is definitely something of the 21st century, and YouTube's celebrity videologgers didn't quite exist unless you count the old Justin.tv (and that still required technology). > And how much of the ability to design modern web app interfaces is responsible for drawing in the masses? I would say the ease of expression is what brings in the masses. People may seem passive when they consume information now, but they still want to interact, and they do now do that through re-tweets or comments. I do think long-form content is diminishing because of our medium.