cdfox: You're clearly mixing your terms here, because many of the highly-valuable Web 2.0 services out there are not open source. They're revenue-generating proprietary systems... and what's wrong with that? If someone designs an infrastructure and an application solution that's so revolutionary that everyone wants to take part, why not use it to generate revenue? Isn't that the point of capitalism?
I'm a supporter of open source, too, but you have to realize there's a crapload of time, energy, and money that's required to keep something like Wikipedia online, and someone has to pay the bills. There's only so much you can reasonably expect for free.
If you don't like Google's search results, you can always use DuckDuckGo. I've tried them both, and I find Google still gives me more useful results, even if the first three are ads. If you're worried about privacy, you can always switch to the https version of the page and access it through a public proxy server.
And this statement here is just wrong:
No, there isn't a Web 2.0 browser at the moment; probably because private industry wants to steer people to commerce and advertising revenue than free, public, open source material. That's part of the problem from my perspective.
Web 2.0 isn't fundamentally different from Web 1.0 from a technological standpoint... it's just a buzz-phrase for web content that's collaborative and user-generated. This is a Web 2.0 site, and you're using a Web 2.0 browser right now.
