The Web 2.0: a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The latest notion to generate buzz in the buzz-generating notions of the techno-wonks is that of the so-called Web 2.0.

Yes! A new version of the “Web.” We constantly await the newest versions from Microsoft, but, the new “Web” is larger than a single company or product. This time, it’s the the whole entire “Web” that is being upgraded. It’s socialization! It’s connecting people! It’s sharing! It’s pervasiveness! It’s a dessert topping! It’s a floor wax!

It’s stupid.

If you listen to the pundits espouse the benefits of this new “Web,” you’ll hear numerous variations on the theme of connecting with people, which, to me, seems antithetical to the primary purpose of the “Web” in the first place: to avoid people.

If I want to get my account balance or receive some customer service, the last thing in the world I want is to be on the phone listening to peppy hold music while periodically hearing “Your call is important to us,” or standing in line at the DMV, and ultimately getting a non-answer to my query from some mindless minimum-wage-earning drone.

My free time is a vanishingly short time interval, and I don’t want to spend that time “chatting” with somebody. Send me e-mail, and I’ll add it to my personal processing queue. I’ll respond. Eventually.

I don’t want to see pictures of your friend’s co-worker’s cousin’s darling new puppy. I don’t want to read some anecdote that you thought was amusing about some third-hand account of some guy in Dubuque who had a mishap involving alcohol and a Slurpee machine. I don’t need to read thirty-seven reviews of the latest Hollywood Hogwash.

I don’t care what anybody else thinks.

“But, Jeff,” you say, “It’s more than just interconnectedness. It’s rich internet-enabled applications. It’s AJAX. It’s prevasivenss. It’s presence. It breaks the shackles of the traditional stationary computer.” I’ll agree with that. I’m all for breaking traditional models. I really like the idea, for example, of paying a small chunk of money to download a recent TV show to watch on a hand-held device (except, of course, that I don’t have any spare chunks of money, nor do I have a hand-held video-watching device, nor do I watch TV, but, I like the idea.) But, please, don’t call it the new “Web.”

To me, the “Web 2.0″ cheerleaders sound like they’re hoping to catch the “next big thing,” bitter that they missed the last “big thing.” In retrospect though, I wonder what the “big thing” actually is that they thought they missed? To be sure, there were some Very Big Things, like Amazon, eBay and Google, but, beyond that, there was just a steady stream of cool things people thought they could do with technology. Some things stuck, and others didn’t.

The next several years will bring us more of the same: a few Very Big Things, an abundance of incrementally-better things, and lots and lots of stupid things. For this we need a new “Web” version?

“But, Jeff,” you say, “What about the inherent contradiction between what you say and the forum in which you say it? You lambaste the ‘Web 2.0′ champions, yet you yourself are leveraging such ‘Web 2.0′ concepts such as personal blogging, rich internet applications (the WordPress UI), content syndication and reader feedback.”

Well, you might be correct. But as I said before, “I don’t care what anybody else thinks,” and rightfully so.