4 ms·

I can't stand anything about a "Web3" that is not inclusive of existing ecosystems using actual, working, standardized protocols like those adopted by the Indie

by riffic 5y ago

I can't stand anything about a "Web3" that is not inclusive of existing ecosystems using actual, working, standardized protocols like those adopted by the IndieWeb and Fediverse communities. "A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory" as the adage goes coined by Elinor Ostrom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom#Ostrom's_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom#Ostrom's_law). You don't need blockchains to be decentralized. Continuing to dunk on "web3" over here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Web3Skepticism/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Web3Skepticism/

rapnie 5y ago
Web3 has been co-opted to such extent by cryptocurrencies and blockchain tech that it may be better to come up with a different name for sane open-standards based decentralized technologies. The whole Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 has never been a good fit anyway and used quite arbitrarily. How long has the 3.0 versioning been in use already?
- genezeta 5y ago
  > The whole Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 has never been a good fit anyway and used quite arbitrarily The actual problem is that there's a fundamental distinction between the "2.0" -and "1.0"- tag and the "3.0" tag. "Web 2.0" was a term coined to describe something which had already occurred, at least to a substantial extent. This is made obvious by the fact that it was coined in conjunction with "Web 1.0". It was defined on some -more or less defined- characteristics that were there already and were used to point out a change that had already happened. It was "Ok, this has happened; let's call it 2.0 (and, for contrast, let's call 1.0 what existed previously)". People generally agreed on the name and that was it. "Web 3.0" was never anything like that. It has always been co-opted to promote someone's ideas/hopes/vision/technologies. It is always "Ok, I/we want to go in that direction; I/we will call that "3.0" and hope the world shares my view and allows me to use that name for my vision". As a fairly old example: > The Semantic Web (sometimes known as Web 3.0) ... [0] But, of course, being something which isn't there just yet, a lot of groups want to own the term for their thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web
brandonmenc 5y ago
Yeah, but you can’t extract a payment from every micro interaction with those dusty old protocols. Imagine if you were earning money every time someone read that comment you posted!
Gigachad 5y ago
What sours me to the whole concept is how everything crypto touches becomes a hive of scammers and salesmen, and hype all focused on making a dollar rather than creating valuable technology. The whole NFT thing has been a net negative on the world and now crypto promoters are pushing for companies to integrate with it to take what was once free and put a price tag on it. For what benefit?
- rapnie 5y ago
  Indeed. They even start to push it on the free software community with stuff like GitNFT [0] and DAO's + NFT as a sustainable FOSS biz model [1]. [0] https://gitnft.quine.sh/ https://gitnft.quine.sh/ [1] https://nebairevelations.substack.com/p/a-successful-business-model-for-open https://nebairevelations.substack.com/p/a-successful-busines...
- Ambolia 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't think in the internet anybody cares about "ownership", but about authorship. But because of the incentives of crypto all of the energy of NFTs gets poured into "ownership" which provides zero value to anybody using the technology except as an investment. I would be more interested on the web3 as an end-user if there was zero change of it being used as an investment.
Ambolia 5y ago
The fediverse still has many issues: - You don't own your content unless you run your own node - You don't own your username, unless you run your own node - From the previous 2, you can't easily move your stuff to a different node. If the node dies it's an issue. - Nodes decide who they federate with, so you depende on your node to build your social network relations
- riffic 5y ago
  running your own node isn't that much of a barrier to entry. Get a wordpress up on a shared host and install the ActivityPub plugin for the minimum viable fedi presence. I'm not trying to discount the issues you bring up.

by riffic 5y ago

rapnie 5y ago

Web3 has been co-opted to such extent by cryptocurrencies and blockchain tech that it may be better to come up with a different name for sane open-standards based decentralized technologies. The whole Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 has never been a good fit anyway and used quite arbitrarily. How long has the 3.0 versioning been in use already?

genezeta 5y ago
> The whole Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 has never been a good fit anyway and used quite arbitrarily The actual problem is that there's a fundamental distinction between the "2.0" -and "1.0"- tag and the "3.0" tag. "Web 2.0" was a term coined to describe something which had already occurred, at least to a substantial extent. This is made obvious by the fact that it was coined in conjunction with "Web 1.0". It was defined on some -more or less defined- characteristics that were there already and were used to point out a change that had already happened. It was "Ok, this has happened; let's call it 2.0 (and, for contrast, let's call 1.0 what existed previously)". People generally agreed on the name and that was it. "Web 3.0" was never anything like that. It has always been co-opted to promote someone's ideas/hopes/vision/technologies. It is always "Ok, I/we want to go in that direction; I/we will call that "3.0" and hope the world shares my view and allows me to use that name for my vision". As a fairly old example: > The Semantic Web (sometimes known as Web 3.0) ... [0] But, of course, being something which isn't there just yet, a lot of groups want to own the term for their thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web

brandonmenc 5y ago

Yeah, but you can’t extract a payment from every micro interaction with those dusty old protocols. Imagine if you were earning money every time someone read that comment you posted!

Gigachad 5y ago

What sours me to the whole concept is how everything crypto touches becomes a hive of scammers and salesmen, and hype all focused on making a dollar rather than creating valuable technology. The whole NFT thing has been a net negative on the world and now crypto promoters are pushing for companies to integrate with it to take what was once free and put a price tag on it. For what benefit?

rapnie 5y ago
Indeed. They even start to push it on the free software community with stuff like GitNFT [0] and DAO's + NFT as a sustainable FOSS biz model [1]. [0] https://gitnft.quine.sh/ https://gitnft.quine.sh/ [1] https://nebairevelations.substack.com/p/a-successful-business-model-for-open https://nebairevelations.substack.com/p/a-successful-busines...
Ambolia 5y ago
Yeah, I don't think in the internet anybody cares about "ownership", but about authorship. But because of the incentives of crypto all of the energy of NFTs gets poured into "ownership" which provides zero value to anybody using the technology except as an investment. I would be more interested on the web3 as an end-user if there was zero change of it being used as an investment.

Ambolia 5y ago

The fediverse still has many issues: - You don't own your content unless you run your own node - You don't own your username, unless you run your own node - From the previous 2, you can't easily move your stuff to a different node. If the node dies it's an issue. - Nodes decide who they federate with, so you depende on your node to build your social network relations

riffic 5y ago
running your own node isn't that much of a barrier to entry. Get a wordpress up on a shared host and install the ActivityPub plugin for the minimum viable fedi presence. I'm not trying to discount the issues you bring up.