3 ms·

This. As soon as I first heard about web3 I thought did I miss web2?

Canotdohng 5y ago
Yes, fifteen to twenty years ago, it was used to refer to the emphasis on user-generated content and the generalization of social media.
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  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.
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mattlondon 5y ago
    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.
    - creamytaco 5y ago
      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.
    - flohofwoe 5y ago
      > 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.
mattlondon 5y ago
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"
- JohnFen 5y ago
  > Web 2 was the idea of user generated content and commenting etc I keep hearing that, but that's been the thrust of the web from well before the term "web 2" ever left anyone's lips.
- hbbio 5y ago
  Quite a good summary! However, web3 has nothing to do with Bitcoin which does not provide smart contracts or wallets connected with web apps. Most decentralised apps are built with the Ethereum code (either using the original chain or one of the many forks).
- agumonkey 5y ago
  To me web3 is financializing internet activities all the way down. Web3 was data. The money/asset/whatever was still going through classical channels.
booleandilemma 5y ago
You’re commenting on a website, so no, you did not :)

Yes, fifteen to twenty years ago, it was used to refer to the emphasis on user-generated content and the generalization of social media.

flohofwoe 5y ago
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.
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mattlondon 5y ago
  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.
  - creamytaco 5y ago
    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.
  - flohofwoe 5y ago
    > 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.

mattlondon 5y ago

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"

JohnFen 5y ago
> Web 2 was the idea of user generated content and commenting etc I keep hearing that, but that's been the thrust of the web from well before the term "web 2" ever left anyone's lips.
hbbio 5y ago
Quite a good summary! However, web3 has nothing to do with Bitcoin which does not provide smart contracts or wallets connected with web apps. Most decentralised apps are built with the Ethereum code (either using the original chain or one of the many forks).
agumonkey 5y ago
To me web3 is financializing internet activities all the way down. Web3 was data. The money/asset/whatever was still going through classical channels.

booleandilemma 5y ago

You’re commenting on a website, so no, you did not :)