4 ms·

> The interoperability is what we've lost in the Web 2.0 era This is a huge claim that doesn't match reality. We still use browsers, HTTP clients still respect

> The interoperability is what we've lost in the Web 2.0 era This is a huge claim that doesn't match reality. We still use browsers, HTTP clients still respect mediatypes, and websites still return HTML. We have even more standards now than we did at the beginning of Web 2.0, with things like microdata, opengraph, etc. Even non-HTML HTTP APIs are even more standard with things like grpc, json-api.org, and graphql. Maybe since my job is to literally do this I have a different take.

throaway6942 5y ago
I think there is some weight to the claim. This is especially true for public user generated content. Any public content should be accessible without limits, but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc). ofcourse, there are some server costs but the primary reason the walled-gardens do this is more business related than to reduce costs.
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  There is zero weight to the claim. Not only does it ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's, it seems to completely ignore what Web 2.0 was about. > Any public content should be accessible without limits, This is not related to the discussion, even if I did agree with it. > but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc). Twitter and "forums" are all completely accessible via a browser, which is literally what the original claim suggests we've "lost". You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client, you read it with the any HATEOAS client. I urge developers to actually read some history.
  - ttybird 5y ago
    The accessibility of public web is what web 3.0 is about however. With semantic web and stuff. Twitter is accessible except "this nitter instance has been rate limited", and don't forget instagram...
    - krainboltgreene 5y ago
      > The accessibility of public web is what web 3.0 is about however. The definition of web 3.0 changes depending on who I am talking to and how deep into crypto they are. > semantic web That's Web 2.0, it exists just fine now and hasn't gone away like the original poster claimed. > Twitter is accessible Okay, glad we agree on reality. > "this nitter instance has been rate limited" If you think there won't be rate limiting in whatever "web 3.0" distributed service is out there, I have a bridge to sell you. > and don't forget instagram Multiple "web 3.0" services that exist today have their content gatekeeped to those who have accounts.
      - throaway6942 5y ago
        if "web3" works anything like crypto, there wouldn't be any rate limiting as long as you have control over your own node(it might be more expensive / harder to set one up though). In the same way torrents are not rate limited.
      - ttybird 5y ago
        Web 3.0 refers to the semantic web specifically, nothing to do with crypto. You are confusing it with "web3". And no, web 2.0 is not the semantic web. "Okay, glad we agree on reality." We don't.
  - throaway6942 5y ago
    > ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's That's not the point. having massive improvements since 90s does not imply that we are going to continue from the same path from here on. > completely accessible via a browser accessible via a browser is not the same as accessible / interoperable broadly. > You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client YES, some people want to. or maybe I want to do some data analytics, maybe I want to create a localized twitter, or I want to do take public social graphs and do something with it. web2.0 was about standardizing transport level protocols, web3 is(imo) about standardizing application level protocols using commitment guarantees. When I use some web2 service, there is almost no commitment guarantees(you can get censored, your data might be access gated or deleted, banks can stop you from doing certain transactions). Crypto and web3 is about fixing these issues. If Bitcoin promises to work in a certain way today, it will more likely than not work in the same way 10 years from now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dgudkov 5y ago
>This is a huge claim that doesn't match reality. You have a point that the interoperability that existed pre-Web 2.0 is still here and wasn't taken away (except for things like RSS). My point is that we didn't move significantly ahead with interoperability and stuck with centralized proprietary services and niche protocols. >grpc, json-api.org, and graphql. You're totally missing the point. With an email client I can connect to any IMAP service (and there are tens of thousands of them). With an SFTP client I can connect to any SFTP server (and there are thousands of them) and download files. Again, without coding, just by configuring the connection. What public service can I connect to with a GraphQL client (do they even exist?) without coding, just by configuring the connection settings like with an email client?
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  What public service can I connect to with a GraphQL client (do they even exist?) without coding GitHub? https://docs.github.com/en/graphql https://docs.github.com/en/graphql

throaway6942 5y ago

I think there is some weight to the claim. This is especially true for public user generated content. Any public content should be accessible without limits, but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc). ofcourse, there are some server costs but the primary reason the walled-gardens do this is more business related than to reduce costs.

krainboltgreene 5y ago
There is zero weight to the claim. Not only does it ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's, it seems to completely ignore what Web 2.0 was about. > Any public content should be accessible without limits, This is not related to the discussion, even if I did agree with it. > but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc). Twitter and "forums" are all completely accessible via a browser, which is literally what the original claim suggests we've "lost". You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client, you read it with the any HATEOAS client. I urge developers to actually read some history.
- ttybird 5y ago
  The accessibility of public web is what web 3.0 is about however. With semantic web and stuff. Twitter is accessible except "this nitter instance has been rate limited", and don't forget instagram...
  - krainboltgreene 5y ago
    > The accessibility of public web is what web 3.0 is about however. The definition of web 3.0 changes depending on who I am talking to and how deep into crypto they are. > semantic web That's Web 2.0, it exists just fine now and hasn't gone away like the original poster claimed. > Twitter is accessible Okay, glad we agree on reality. > "this nitter instance has been rate limited" If you think there won't be rate limiting in whatever "web 3.0" distributed service is out there, I have a bridge to sell you. > and don't forget instagram Multiple "web 3.0" services that exist today have their content gatekeeped to those who have accounts.
    - throaway6942 5y ago
      if "web3" works anything like crypto, there wouldn't be any rate limiting as long as you have control over your own node(it might be more expensive / harder to set one up though). In the same way torrents are not rate limited.
    - ttybird 5y ago
      Web 3.0 refers to the semantic web specifically, nothing to do with crypto. You are confusing it with "web3". And no, web 2.0 is not the semantic web. "Okay, glad we agree on reality." We don't.
- throaway6942 5y ago
  > ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's That's not the point. having massive improvements since 90s does not imply that we are going to continue from the same path from here on. > completely accessible via a browser accessible via a browser is not the same as accessible / interoperable broadly. > You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client YES, some people want to. or maybe I want to do some data analytics, maybe I want to create a localized twitter, or I want to do take public social graphs and do something with it. web2.0 was about standardizing transport level protocols, web3 is(imo) about standardizing application level protocols using commitment guarantees. When I use some web2 service, there is almost no commitment guarantees(you can get censored, your data might be access gated or deleted, banks can stop you from doing certain transactions). Crypto and web3 is about fixing these issues. If Bitcoin promises to work in a certain way today, it will more likely than not work in the same way 10 years from now.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dgudkov 5y ago

>This is a huge claim that doesn't match reality. You have a point that the interoperability that existed pre-Web 2.0 is still here and wasn't taken away (except for things like RSS). My point is that we didn't move significantly ahead with interoperability and stuck with centralized proprietary services and niche protocols. >grpc, json-api.org, and graphql. You're totally missing the point. With an email client I can connect to any IMAP service (and there are tens of thousands of them). With an SFTP client I can connect to any SFTP server (and there are thousands of them) and download files. Again, without coding, just by configuring the connection. What public service can I connect to with a GraphQL client (do they even exist?) without coding, just by configuring the connection settings like with an email client?

madeofpalk 5y ago
What public service can I connect to with a GraphQL client (do they even exist?) without coding GitHub? https://docs.github.com/en/graphql https://docs.github.com/en/graphql