If you read the postings on the interwebs, it can get confusing when trying to draw a hard line around web 2.0 and social media. The two seem intrinsically linked, which I think is a problem. Consumers don’t like confusion (typically.) Following most booms of new technology (or often, just old technology spiffed up with new buzzwords) there is always a cycle of consolidation where consumers “choose” with their time and their wallets.

But if EVERYTHING is social, and social is web 2.0, is web 2.0 automatically social and does that make everything 2.0? Holy crap. Here is where it gets hilarious (and by hilarious, I mean confusing.)

Twitter is social. Twitter is web 2.0. Twitterpost or Tweeter are web 2.0, and allow you to post to Twitter, but are not inherently social because they are just software. SO…it’s possible to be 2.0, but not be social. Unfortunately, it’s not possible to be social without being web 2.0. Blogging is both, Twitter is both, Facebook is both, Myspace is both, and so on.

But now, if you’re paying attention, every site is “social” too. New website Sazze is adding a social component to consumer product reviews. Which isn’t different than Amazon or Yelp really, only that the design of the site is a little more 2.0.

Which I failed to mention before - web 2.0 also defines a style of design. Amazon might have set the tone for social business models, but they aren’t often mentioned as a 2.0 company partly because their design is pretty 1.0…and because they were actually a web 1.0 company. So maybe that’s the real reason, but still, I’m on a roll.

I guess I’m sick of the grey area that is social media, web 2.0, and just general websites with new buzzwords.

Where is good consolidation when you need it.