Yes. Now let’s move on to more worthwhile endeavors
Is Web3 Bullshit?
11–20 of 383 posts
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#12Web3 is not bullshit, nobody actually defined it properly, just like nobody defined properly what is Web0, Web1 and Web2. Web versioning methodology is bs, not the general concept of pinpointing what makes a big leap. Does anybody here have a link to proper methodology for versioning the Web? ps. Web is simply referring to a web of connected “pages” through links. Pretty much anybody who claims to work on Web3 says n…
This. As soon as I first heard about web3 I thought did I miss web2?
Yes, fifteen to twenty years ago, it was used to refer to the emphasis on user-generated content and the generalization of social media.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#13Web3 is not bullshit, nobody actually defined it properly, just like nobody defined properly what is Web0, Web1 and Web2. Web versioning methodology is bs, not the general concept of pinpointing what makes a big leap. Does anybody here have a link to proper methodology for versioning the Web? ps. Web is simply referring to a web of connected “pages” through links. Pretty much anybody who claims to work on Web3 says n…
This. As soon as I first heard about web3 I thought did I miss web2?
Web 2 was the idea of user generated content and commenting etc - digg/reddit, twitter, youtube etc have no content of their own (c.f. a news website or whatever) but everything there came from the users.
Now it seems obvious and not worthy of a label, but at least at the time I guess it kinda captured the imagination and people imagined new/different ways to do things (I think it also coincided with a lot better tooling and tech around javascript).
Perhaps web3 will do the same, but so far it just feels like "it's the web as you know it, but now you need to also buy some bitcoin to use it"
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. As soon as I first heard about web3 I thought did I miss web2?
Yes, fifteen to twenty years ago, it was used to refer to the emphasis on user-generated content and the generalization of social media.
What is a regular personal "Web 1.0" website other than "user generated content" though. If anything, "Web 2.0" was the perversion of the original WWW idea by "big tech". We already had the "decentralized web" for a few golden years before the bean counters discovered the internet.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#15[deleted]
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#16It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.
social networking 'web2' had little lot to do with web also
I'd disagree with that. Web 2 was the idea of site content being dynamic and user generated, and not curated by journalists/editors/whoever working a 9-5 or whatever.
For many things like reddit, digg, youtube etc there was only a web interface to these things. They were of and for the web
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#17Web3 is not bullshit, nobody actually defined it properly, just like nobody defined properly what is Web0, Web1 and Web2. Web versioning methodology is bs, not the general concept of pinpointing what makes a big leap. Does anybody here have a link to proper methodology for versioning the Web? ps. Web is simply referring to a web of connected “pages” through links. Pretty much anybody who claims to work on Web3 says n…
So far, all "WebX" names turned out to be bullshit (or at best, pointless). Besides, the cryptobros seem to have a somewhat short memory: "Web3" was going to be the "Semantic Web" (which of course turned out to be bullshit too), so if anything, we're now at "Web4" for the next pointless hype cycle.
For context, the definition of web 3.0 from Tim Berners-Lee gives a good idea an the level of hazyness of this concept:
> People keep asking what Web 3.0 is. I think maybe when you've got an overlay of scalable vector graphics — everything rippling and folding and looking misty — on Web 2.0 and access to a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you'll have access to an unbelievable data resource.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#18Reading through the linked article on "real world uses for Web3", most of them seem to consist of things that public key cryptography has been able to solve for decades (persistent identity, multiple persistent identities) or things you could do anyway ("right now, people can only go to facebook or Google. With Web3, everyone can have their own space!!") because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server.…
> because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server.
This is a constant issue I have with crypto advocates. Most of the use cases can be done with crypto, but also with other techs (sometimes it's as simple as "we need a database for this"). But there's never a serious analysis of why those use cases have not been covered with previous tech, and when you point out that there might be issues other than the tech then you get labeled as a "crypto hater". And I wouldn't care too much if random people called you a hater, but when all crypto people label dissent as "haters" it makes me think it's like a cult where all you need to do is believe.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#19Web3 is not bullshit, nobody actually defined it properly, just like nobody defined properly what is Web0, Web1 and Web2. Web versioning methodology is bs, not the general concept of pinpointing what makes a big leap. Does anybody here have a link to proper methodology for versioning the Web? ps. Web is simply referring to a web of connected “pages” through links. Pretty much anybody who claims to work on Web3 says n…
So far, all "WebX" names turned out to be bullshit (or at best, pointless). Besides, the cryptobros seem to have a somewhat short memory: "Web3" was going to be the "Semantic Web" (which of course turned out to be bullshit too), so if anything, we're now at "Web4" for the next pointless hype cycle.
I think the problem is that we are lacking distinction between Web and the and IT tech in general. Web is just making all this accessible - links. Blockchain adds big benefit to the general usefulness of the Internet - for instance possibility of doing anonymous transactions, with all of its downsides of course.
Not enough for a major version bump though. It’s just a small blip on entire spectrum of IT tech.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, fifteen to twenty years ago, it was used to refer to the emphasis on user-generated content and the generalization of social media.
What is a regular personal "Web 1.0" website other than "user generated content" though. If anything, "Web 2.0" was the perversion of the original WWW idea by "big tech". We already had the "decentralized web" for a few golden years before the bean counters discovered the internet.
Your personal page is likely largely static (in content, if not tech) and defined by you, the site owner. Web 2 allowed the public site users to generate/curate the content on the site.