Web 2.0 doesn’t share its toys

In an interesting detour in the question of what “Web 2.0” really means, Nicholas Carr (of “Does IT Matter” fame) takes on Lessig in his weblog post Web 2.0lier than thou and challenges Lessig’s claim that Web 2.0 is synonymous with unrestricted sharing of information (and consequently that services with built in restrictions such as YouTube are not Web 2.0). Carr asserts that this is not an accurate portrayal of the current web, and that Lessig’s moralistic take on Web 2.0 is idealistic utopianism. All of the sharing just furthers industry and in fact exploits th creative individual by asking them to provide the content from which industry will now profit without any financial benefit to themselves. If anything, Carr claims, Web 2.0 is exploitive.
I know that except for a de.licio.us account I basically avoid contributing content off of my own domain because I don’t want to give up that much control. But, really, I don’t see the essential difference between Facebook and YouTube as compared to usenet and personal webpages and weblogs and Wikipedia. There’s no revolution – the media just wants a new buzz word under which to rerun the same gee whiz stories they’ve been running for the past decade.