3 ms·

Reiterating the fundamentals of Moxie's post doesn't change anything, and I agree with the way you've described it, except you've missed MY point entirely. I'm

Reiterating the fundamentals of Moxie's post doesn't change anything, and I agree with the way you've described it, except you've missed MY point entirely. I'm not trying to be elitist and deny access to everyone to contribute, but there is a vast difference in outcome between your examples you gave. In no way would I ever propose that if someone wants to post a picture (the example you gave) that they should go to all the efforts you described hosting their own server for that purpose. That's ridiculous. That problem is well solved with Web2. What I'm saying is that for the Internet to exist you need people prepared to get their hands dirty (sometimes quite literally) and build low level infrastructure. Instagram and other platforms can't get fibre in to people's homes, or backhaul cities together, or get signal to your mobile phone.

tsimionescu 5y ago
> What I'm saying is that for the Internet to exist you need people prepared to get their hands dirty (sometimes quite literally) and build low level infrastructure. I think no one is contesting this. > That problem is well solved with Web2. Maybe this is the major disagreement? Many are dissatisfied with Web 2 because it has concentrated the web, for the vast majority of people, in the hands of 2-5 platforms owned by major corporations (Facebook and all its apps, Google and YouTube, Microsoft's Office 365). The promise of web 3 is a decentralized Web - same capabilities, but provided by distributed apps run and financed by blockchain techs. This is the promise that Moxie likes, but that hasn't matched his actual experience with the actual technologies being implemented - which seem to resemble Web 1 / Web 2 much more than the promise of Web 3.