This may be heretical, but I question if social is a foundation for the current networked capabilities. It's a nebulous term that is often promoted as the raison d'etre of Web 2.0. However it looks to be the result of innovation and participation, rather than a means in itself. The innovation of sites like flickr, YouTube, etc. that connect people based on common interests. The participation of users who create connections that are meaningful to their current work, needs and interests. The result is social, but it has no meaning in itself.
I was recently at the Geek Entertainment TV turns 1000 event which was fun. I said "Hello" to a group of guys and asked them what they thought of the party. One of them declared that it's just like the dot.com bubble all over again: People partying, drinking, and so on. I was a bit taken aback. Then later a friend talked on about how wonderful things will be with Web 2.0. This equally seemed strange.
It's just as much a mistake to say "no ostentatious parties" as it's a given that all will be great now that we have "Web 2.0". Such judgments are based on the appearance rather than their content and value of things. A raucous, zealous party is only inappropriate when undeserved. Apple had party blowouts long before the dot.com period and it was for hardworking employees that deserved to splurge and enjoy.
At the same time, to assume that the fuzzy identifiers of Web 2.0 are a given. That we are in a state of technological bliss is similarly superficial. Technologies are advancing and making an impact on people's overall usage of net software with AJAX, microformats, RSS, and so on. But none of these technologies are a given, some will likely not pan out as expected and all require serious work into the future.
