4 ms·

if Web2 became a dystopic Zuckerbergia and Web3 is a disguised Cryptobrosia is there maybe a chance for a Web 2.5 that doesn't suck? Like something that isn't f

if Web2 became a dystopic Zuckerbergia and Web3 is a disguised Cryptobrosia is there maybe a chance for a Web 2.5 that doesn't suck? Like something that isn't fake techno-solutionism on steroids? What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix? but more importantly what would be the governance and incentives that would prevent it from rapidly degenerating as with all other versions

agumonkey 5y ago
Make it slow and size constrained. People will only use it when it matters then.
mrkramer 5y ago
>if Web2 became a dystopic Zuckerbergia and Web3 is a disguised Cryptobrosia is there maybe a chance for a Web 2.5 that doesn't suck? Nobody is forcing people to use Facebook or any of Facebook's family of apps. I personally don't use FB or any of its apps for the last 10 years and I'm totally fine. >What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix? IP, TCP and HTTP are not going away anytime soon. Nobody really knows how would next stage of WWW look like therefore you can't even think about candidate protocols and standards.
- ThalesX 5y ago
  > IP, TCP and HTTP are not going away anytime soon. Nobody really knows how would next stage of WWW look like therefore you can't even think about candidate protocols and standards. IPFS is supposed to also be able to replace HTTP in the stack. Whether that'll succeed or not is a different discussion, but turns out people are thinking about candidate protocols and standards.
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  > Nobody is forcing people to use Facebook or any of Facebook's family of apps. I personally don't use FB or any of its apps for the last 10 years and I'm totally fine. Sorry, this so unbeliably the wrong attitude. Compare with food producers, car manufacturers etc building toxic, addictive, dangerous products and being allowed free access to the market on the basis that "nobody is forcing consumers to buy their products". The vast majority of people cannot judge whether the use of a digital product is safeguarding their interests and welfare, both individually and as a society. Unless and until there is recognition of this fundamental fact we must acknowledge that one industry in particular has been excempted from oversight for reasons that are not doing the political class any favor.
  - mrkramer 5y ago
    Yea nobody is forcing consumers to buy any products, essentially you vote with your money or in Facebook's case with your time and attention.
i386 5y ago
> What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix? Wrong way of looking at it. What are people going to do differently and then what technology gets us there.
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  in principle, and in the long term, I agree that is the correct attitude. but in the short term the characteristics of the various tech building blocks shape what can be solved as "low hanging fruit" and that creates a dynamic of its own.
evv555 5y ago
>What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix? but more importantly what would be the governance and incentives that would prevent it from rapidly degenerating as with all other versions. Everything you listed is Web3 in my opinion. I don't think the idea is to put everything on Ethereum. It's to provide niche but critical services like DNS, identity/auth, and some connecting governance logic to other federated/distributed systems.
rslabbert 5y ago
The alternate path is one the free software community has been pushing towards for decades. The ability to voluntarily associate (and disassociate) from trusted communities, software and communities that works for users and not the other way around, and autonomy coupled with mutual aid/benefit. Compare the focus of the GNU, Mastodon, Matrix, etc. projects to blockchain world and the fundamental difference is they're not trying to create a world in which we don't trust anyone except a the idea that human nature runs on greed and can be exploited by making us have to pay (spend tokens) for everything.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  >making us have to pay (spend tokens) for everything. If you have to pay, or someone else has to pay for something (in FOSS it is just done in a more distributed way), why use a massively corrupt and degenerate currency to do it?
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  > the fundamental difference is they're not trying to create a world in which we don't trust anyone This. Massive effort and talent seems to be directed towards what is intuitively a dead end: trust is something between people, not something between devices. Any protocol no matter how ingeniously crafted will be subverted when it leaves the silicon layer and hits the human layer (unless you create the ultimate dystopia where people are collared and tracked on permanent basis or something equivalent) Nevertheless, imho the human-centric vision of computing is misfiring, losing battle after battle (from self-sovereign computing, to social media, to mobile etc) and at some point it will lose the war. Maybe the silver lining of the cryptofunded "web3" marketing onslaught for "alternatives" is to give the real-deal one more window of opportunity...

agumonkey 5y ago

Make it slow and size constrained. People will only use it when it matters then.

mrkramer 5y ago

>if Web2 became a dystopic Zuckerbergia and Web3 is a disguised Cryptobrosia is there maybe a chance for a Web 2.5 that doesn't suck? Nobody is forcing people to use Facebook or any of Facebook's family of apps. I personally don't use FB or any of its apps for the last 10 years and I'm totally fine. >What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix? IP, TCP and HTTP are not going away anytime soon. Nobody really knows how would next stage of WWW look like therefore you can't even think about candidate protocols and standards.

ThalesX 5y ago
> IP, TCP and HTTP are not going away anytime soon. Nobody really knows how would next stage of WWW look like therefore you can't even think about candidate protocols and standards. IPFS is supposed to also be able to replace HTTP in the stack. Whether that'll succeed or not is a different discussion, but turns out people are thinking about candidate protocols and standards.
streamofdigits 5y ago
> Nobody is forcing people to use Facebook or any of Facebook's family of apps. I personally don't use FB or any of its apps for the last 10 years and I'm totally fine. Sorry, this so unbeliably the wrong attitude. Compare with food producers, car manufacturers etc building toxic, addictive, dangerous products and being allowed free access to the market on the basis that "nobody is forcing consumers to buy their products". The vast majority of people cannot judge whether the use of a digital product is safeguarding their interests and welfare, both individually and as a society. Unless and until there is recognition of this fundamental fact we must acknowledge that one industry in particular has been excempted from oversight for reasons that are not doing the political class any favor.
- mrkramer 5y ago
  Yea nobody is forcing consumers to buy any products, essentially you vote with your money or in Facebook's case with your time and attention.

i386 5y ago

> What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix? Wrong way of looking at it. What are people going to do differently and then what technology gets us there.

streamofdigits 5y ago
in principle, and in the long term, I agree that is the correct attitude. but in the short term the characteristics of the various tech building blocks shape what can be solved as "low hanging fruit" and that creates a dynamic of its own.

evv555 5y ago

>What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix? but more importantly what would be the governance and incentives that would prevent it from rapidly degenerating as with all other versions. Everything you listed is Web3 in my opinion. I don't think the idea is to put everything on Ethereum. It's to provide niche but critical services like DNS, identity/auth, and some connecting governance logic to other federated/distributed systems.

rslabbert 5y ago

The alternate path is one the free software community has been pushing towards for decades. The ability to voluntarily associate (and disassociate) from trusted communities, software and communities that works for users and not the other way around, and autonomy coupled with mutual aid/benefit. Compare the focus of the GNU, Mastodon, Matrix, etc. projects to blockchain world and the fundamental difference is they're not trying to create a world in which we don't trust anyone except a the idea that human nature runs on greed and can be exploited by making us have to pay (spend tokens) for everything.

maccolgan 5y ago
>making us have to pay (spend tokens) for everything. If you have to pay, or someone else has to pay for something (in FOSS it is just done in a more distributed way), why use a massively corrupt and degenerate currency to do it?
streamofdigits 5y ago
> the fundamental difference is they're not trying to create a world in which we don't trust anyone This. Massive effort and talent seems to be directed towards what is intuitively a dead end: trust is something between people, not something between devices. Any protocol no matter how ingeniously crafted will be subverted when it leaves the silicon layer and hits the human layer (unless you create the ultimate dystopia where people are collared and tracked on permanent basis or something equivalent) Nevertheless, imho the human-centric vision of computing is misfiring, losing battle after battle (from self-sovereign computing, to social media, to mobile etc) and at some point it will lose the war. Maybe the silver lining of the cryptofunded "web3" marketing onslaught for "alternatives" is to give the real-deal one more window of opportunity...