Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Web3 Bullshit?

maxread.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 383 posts

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#21

Post by Kbelicius »

flohofwoe wrote: post #14
Canotdohng wrote: post #12

Earlier 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.

> What is a regular personal "Web 1.0" website other than "user generated content" though.

It wasn't user generated. User in this case being the visitor to a website and not its creator.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#22

Post by say_it_as_it_is »

Web3 seems like a response to every facet of Facebook. Facebook offers valuable services for free in exchange for data about its users. Web3 pays users for data they own and control with money grown on trees. There are limitless forests where money grows on trees if you just close your eyes and dream hard enough. Advertisers will pay users for their data, cutting out the middleman who creates any sort of meaning about them. Who needs valuable services, after all? Just send the money directly from advertiser to user.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#23

Post by [deleted] »

Kbelicius wrote: post #21
flohofwoe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> What is a regular personal "Web 1.0" website other than "user generated content" though. It wasn't user generated. User in this case being the visitor to a website and not its creator.

[deleted]

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#24

Post by wisty »

gjulianm wrote: post #18
_se0c wrote: post #2

Reading 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…

I love pointing out that if it becomes a serious currency banks would offer bitcoin-denominated loans (causing an increase in money supply); and if there's then a credit crunch the Fed could offer bitcoin-denominated (but unbacked) bonds.

It would be like the gold standard all over again.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#25

Post by creamytaco »

mattlondon wrote: post #20
flohofwoe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is either outright bullshit or a clumsy attempt at historical revisionism. Web2 didn't introduce technology that wasn't existing before. It was the unwashed masses flooding what had previously been a space of high SNR AND the big corporations seizing control (and terms like "web2" were used to that effect) in order to exploit the herd.

This is happening again now with the web3 fad. A new generation of gullible idiots and sociopaths to take them for a ride.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#26

Post by onion2k »

mattlondon wrote: post #16
cblconfederate wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

web1 was reading other people's content, web2 was about creating content and handing it to someone else to publish online, and web3 should be about retaining ownership of your own work. In theory, a web3 website could aggregate content produced by users while the users would be free to revoke the site's access, or they could move their content to a different site if they want, or they could delete it entirely. In a web3 world it should be the case that Reddit's access to content is by looking it up on a blockchain to publish, rather than claiming joint ownership of it.

This, obviously, assumes that you believe users retaining ownership of the content they make is a real and necessary benefit. I'm not sure about that yet. I don't really see why people need to.

Unfortunately however, regardless of whether web3 content ownership is a good thing or not, the current cohort of web3 businesses and evangelists seem more interested in shilling their own coins and many-thousands-of-dollars coding courses instead.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#27

Post by flohofwoe »

mattlondon wrote: post #20
flohofwoe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Web 2 allowed the public site users to generate/curate the content on the site.

This distinction only matters with centralized platform like AOL, Medium or Facebook though. Wikis existed long before big companies hijacked the web.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#29

Post by flohofwoe »

mattlondon wrote: post #16
cblconfederate wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wikis existed long before the term "Web 2" was invented, "Web 2" wasn't about user generated content or "socializing", but simply a commercial land grab.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#30

Post by nathias »

mattlondon wrote: post #7

It 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.

Dry your tears, then you might see better and see what the fuss is about.
Post reply on HN