Perhaps the most pernicious proposition of the “everything must be open” crusade is the notion that curation is bad and anti-freedom. Soldiers of this crusade confuse freedom with competition. Our museums are not football-field sized warehouses where art objects are indiscriminately dumped and our magazines and blogs are not amorphous containers of randomly selected articles. Our classrooms, restaurants, hospitals and indeed all our civilized institutions are firmly reliant on curation of one kind or another. The goal should be for curators to compete, not for curation to be declared illegal and unholy by the “open” zealots.
By the way, Tim, what is it when Google, at will and without any explanation, removes the ranking of a web site and, effectively, removes it from search results, if not curation of the web? Google is itself the biggest curating goggles through which a truly huge amount of people see the web.
The problem isn't with Google curating the web (and a big chunk of the online advertisement business). Actually the point is, precisely, that the relevance in search results is a direct product of curation. And to paraphrase Steve Jobs, if Google enjoys up to 90% market dominance in certain countries, it must be doing something right. Right?
The hypocrisy lies in refuting Apple the right to curate its own ecosystem, which by the way isn't anything as public as the web is.