I find that there are obvious parallels between cultures based on orality and the society that is being created through the widespread and massive use of web 2.0.
In the world of orality, library is memory. Every past event that deserves to be remembered is accessible only through the memory of a custodian, and through his verbal exposition. Furthermore, when he narrates, this custodian is projected towards the present, not towards the past. Each chronicle of this type chooses only some events, because they are functional to the purpose it aims to achieve. He also has the function of codifying the present, not the past. It happens, therefore, that collective memory (the result of the sum of individual memories) tends to eliminate what is not needed for the present, to relegate it to oblivion.
In the same way, the excess of information, news, comments, ideas and opinions means that collective heritage becomes only those elements that are functional to the present context. As soon as this usefulness disappears (and this generally happens quickly), they disappear. Everything that is not needed is deleted.
Of course, what is forgotten - in any case - does not vanish: it remains in the network. But lost in the immense sea of texts, information, news, etc. present.
Then, the ways of fruition, transmission and diffusion change. The web society is structured as a network and a set of layers of networks linked together: the common thought, the dominant arguments are generated by the actions of a mass of individuals; however atomized this mass is.