According to Kleiner and Wyrick ,Web 2.0, first of all, is a business model. In their article InfoEnclosure 2.0 they state, that this business model means the private capture of community-created value. “No one denies that the technology of sites like YouTube, for instance, is trivial. The real value of YouTube is not created by the developers of the site, but rather it is created by the people who upload videos to the site. Yet, when YouTube was bought for over a billion dollars  worth of Google stock, how much of this stock was acquired by those that made all these videos? Zero. Great deal if you are an owner of a Web 2.0 company.” Kleiner and Wyrick conclude that this “private appropriation of community created value is a betrayal of the promise of sharing technology and free cooperation. With all of the emphasis on community created content and sharing, it’s easy to overlook the other side of the Web 2.0 experience: ownership of all this content and ability to monetise its value.”
Contributing to an art installation within a museum situation, or contributing to a Web 2.0 platform structurally is the same: the technical infrastructure is not under the control of the users and content producers, which is the opposite of an emancipatory or even revolutionary situation of owning the means of production. The rhetoric, which has been borrowed from the political left only serves to obscure the actual power structures within a profit-driven business or art environment. The user is seduced to share his/her work for free, while the owners of the machinery do not even think of sharing their profits. That is why Web 2.0 platforms are hardly used by professional artists. The platforms are amateur environments, where work does not get paid, where the producer stays anonymous (with no cultural capital being added to an artist name/brand), where the aesthetics are “low”, quick and dirty, due to cheap and easy-to-use means of production. In general, Web 2.0 is not about high quality content.
Many of the videos on YouTube however show intriguing similarities to the performance and radical self-portrayals of the 1960s and 1970s actionist and fluxus art. The potential of video as a personal means of expression has arrived in an unexpected dimension, and one might ask, if these aesthetic expressions have the potential to democratize or even replace the elitist art system? If art would be about self-expression, then yes. If art would be about reflection and contextualisation, then no. The art world always knew, how to integrate and thus neutralize serious attacks, and it still knows how to make use of and exploit naive self-expressions in order to stablize its’ hierarchies . And within the corporate platforms, the user-generated contents mainly serve to market commercial goods.
The Italian artist group 0100101110101101.org, aka Eva and Franco Mattes, has carried the corporate exploitation of users in online environments to perverse extremes. Their work ‘portraits’ is a selection of the 13 most beautiful avatars in Second Life  which captures perfectly the desire of people for beauty and eternal youth. In an interview, the artists also relate their work to Pop Art, explicitly to Andy Warhol. Like him, they claim to borrow from popular culture, but it is not only the aesthtetics they borrow. Like Warhol, the work of 0100101110101101.org is extremely smart, turning corporate surplus into the surplus of the artists. However, ultimately this is a cynical art project that uses only the tools available and does not attempt to support or explore the emancipatory potential of new technologies, which undoubtedly does exist.
And what is this emancipatory potential and how can it be developed and utilised by artists? As Kleiner and Wyrick point out: “The real hope for a genuine, community enriching, next generation of internet-based services is not rooted in creating privately owned, centralised resources, but rather in creating cooperative, P2P and commons-based systems, owned by everybody and nobody”. Instead of working in the interest of the new info-landlords, this could be a challenging field of work for artists–beyond the traditional art world.
 Museum und Urheberrecht im digitalen Zeitalter, (Museum and Copyright in the digital age), Gerhard Pfennig, Wiesbaden, 2005, p. 167
 Media Planning for the Postindustrial Society – The 21st Centruy is Now Only 26 Yeras Away, in: Nam June Paik. Werke 1946–1976. Musik – Fluxus – Video, Kölnischer Kunstverein, Cologne, 1976.
 YouTube is a website for hosting videos where users can upload, view, and share video clips, founded in February 2005: youtube.com
 InfoEnclosure 2.0, www.metamute.org/en/InfoEnclosure-2.0
 One year after it has been founded YouTube has been sold to Google für 1,65 Billion $
 A good example for this tendency is Nam June Paik. He started out to revolutionize communication system and turned into a video artist who built huge, commdifyable installations.
 Second Life is an Internet-based virtual world which has been released in 2003. It became widely known in late 2006 and early 2007 when mainstream news media reported about it. In traffic ranking is holds place no. 1791, and after the extreme hype about 6 months ago, now, the hype slowly peaks off.