I think O'Reilly's take makes a lot of sense. The "Web 2.0", as he says, was the natural evolution of the web after the dot-com bubble exploded. It was not a b

I think O'Reilly's take makes a lot of sense. The "Web 2.0", as he says, was the natural evolution of the web after the dot-com bubble exploded. It was not a buzzword or marketing term, at least at the start. It turned into a dumb gimmick after a year or two, where every ridiculous and impractical idea was justified as "being Web 2.0", but the vast majority of those gimmicks went away on their own, simply because they didn't bring anything interesting or useful to the table. The obsession with labelling things "Web3" and other buzzwords to justify absurd (and often predatory) schemes right now feels like little more than a bunch of carnies trying to sell us fancy new blockchain carts for horses that don't actually exist. It's a solution looking for problems to solve. And, at least from the common discourse around blockchains, it seems like those pushing Web3 solutions rarely understand what the problems are in the first place, beyond a very simplistic and superficial level.