If you’re involved in any aspect of the web or technology, you’re probably aware of Web2Expo. Spun off the Web2Summit, it’s now become the go-to conference for people who have to deliver on the things that VCs and board members dream up in their reality distortion fields.

We’re involved in a couple of things with Web2Expo. First of all, Sean Power and I are teaching a three-hour course on web monitoring, which is a synopsis of our Complete Web Monitoring book (AKA the Raven Book) coming out from O’Reilly later this year. It’s called Watching Websites: A Report from the Frontlines of Web Monitoring. We’re hoping to provide a holistic view of all the tools and techniques companies need to use to understand their presence online (no small task for just three hours!)

Second, I’m moderating a panel on cloud computing with Benjamin Black of Opscode, Lew Moorman of Rackspace.com, Kevin Gibbs of Google, and possibly a fourth participant we’re still confirming. This will be a great discussion — everyone’s been so busy talking about how cloud computing is utopian idealism that we often forget about the job of managing all those virtual components.

There’s lots of speculation about Twitter’s business model, from the serious to the comic. The firm’s backers claim the company has plenty of money for the long haul. In fact, given the openness Twitter has traditionally shown with its APIs, the model could be to let all of us speculate about it, then pick the winners.

But I’ll bite. I have an idea how Twitter could make money.

Most of the business models I’ve seen charge the publisher. Why not charge the audience?

We live in an attention economy. We’ve moved beyond the information economy — now, anyone can get access to anything. Instead, we want to know what’s worth our time. Google makes money by ranking information based on relevance; Paris Hilton makes money by pointing us at the scandalous; newspaper editors make money by selecting topics they think their readers will find interesting.

Lots of people are experts on things. I’d pay to follow someone smart and knowledgeable. Maybe only $10 a year, but in return, they’d search for useful information and tell me about it. They might be an expert on cloud computing, or web monitoring, or sustainable food, or transparent government. I’d follow them. I’d get links from them (which only susbscribers would receive, of course) to reports they’d written, or news they’d found.

[Read more]

I’m listening to YouTube. And I’m loving it.

Funk producer/performer Kutiman released Thru-You, a remixing of YouTube audio that’s what would happen if Girl Talk, DJ Shadow, and Thievery Corporation surfed the web together.

This is what the Internet is good at. It’s a wonderful example of what Clay Shirky calls Organizing without Organizations — millions of video clips of people showing their chops, selected by an editor with decent taste. And with modern editing tools that can combine video and audio, it makes for interesting viewing, too. It’s a ready-made collaborative video.

It also underscores the huge gulf between how people are using technology today and where copyright law stands. With Girl Talk, the artists’ source material was recognizable; in this case, the clips were uploaded with members’ express approval, saying they had the right to them. But they probably didn’t envision them being re-used in this way; some of the clips are from music teachers hoping to promote their classes.

Within a few hours, the site had the following message:

Due to overwhelming traffic we had to go down to re-charge (again). Working on it. Check back later.

Well, it’s back. Manager Boaz says “at this stage there are no plans for an official release of the “Thru-You” project.” Wanna support the guy? Go buy his stuff from Amazon, iTunes, or eMusic; it’s similar, although he plays most of the music himself. But first, give the site a listen.