4 ms·

This sort of argument reminds me of the old doctrinaire Marxists, who insisted communism could work if only it could be done without authoritarianism. Turns ou

This sort of argument reminds me of the old doctrinaire Marxists, who insisted communism could work if only it could be done without authoritarianism. Turns out Web3, in theory, sounds fine, but the implementations and uses of it all fall back to centralised networks and nefarious purposes. I think it's time to recognise Web3 for what it is: a massive con fronted by people who sell a fantasy of open, decentralised computing designed to free everybody from the excesses of government, but are actually implementing something far worse than the system it's supposed to replace.

uncomputation 5y ago
This is precisely correct. I am hugely sympathetic to the theoretical benefits of web3, but it clearly does not deliver on these promises. Rather than move on to something else which can deliver, its proponents are insisting the emperor is fully clothed because honestly most of them don’t care a single bit about the philosophical or political dimensions of the technology but only about the profit margins they can get by deluding others to join in.
- lal 5y ago
  Yeah. Tech (hell, humanity) already has a big enough problem with cults forming around bad or discredited ideas and defending them to the death, but the intrinsic characteristics of crypto make its adherents substantially more aggressive -- specifically the fact that crypto fans are not only emotionally and ideologically invested, but generally also quite heavily materially and financially invested, usually to the tune of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. The consequences if they're wrong are so much worse which necessitates a completely different level of self-deception and defensiveness.
vmception 5y ago
Okay. The disconnect here is what you think that I think web3 to be. I recognize the decentralized capabilities and find it marginally interesting and optional when convenient. I don't think it is a sales pitch. And therefore I dont think the whole concept is a con. I empathize with people that come to the space and products within the space for an inaccurate sales pitch. I like the platforms. I would be fine with an optional EVM that was not censorship resistant, where I could deploy my existing products on simply because the code was compatible. I want the other censorship resistant ones to exist too. You are assuming I care about the sales pitch and am trying to sell that fantasy. I think people should be aware of how to use that part of the technology.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > I would be fine with an optional EVM that was not censorship resistant, where I could deploy my existing products on simply because the code was compatible. This sounds sort of like AWS. Or if you want decentralization then something built on DHTs.
vanveenada 5y ago
I mean this is neither here nor there, but "communism could work if only it could be done without authoritarianism" is not a Marxist take, doctrinaire or otherwise. If you're a bolshevik, you believe that having and defending a revolution requires a vanguard of devoted party members who run shit. If you're a democratic socialist, likewise you think there needs to be a centralized group in control during the revolution -- you just think that this centralized group should be selected by vote rather than self-appointed. If you're an anarchist (and anarchists are typically not marxist), then you're someone who thinks that managing a revolution without centralized control is possible. And you might be thinking: why on earth would someone argue that putting the centralized party in control is a good idea? There's a simple reason for that: the Paris Commune. Why does the Paris Commune matter? They tried to run a revolution on anarchist lines... and so, instead of immediately marching on Versailles to take down the extant government, they just sort of faffed around in committee meetings until a couple of months later the extant government's army came and killed them all. Leninism (the centralized, essentially authoritarian stuff) was a reaction to that. Because they observed how thoroughly fucked over the Commune was, specifically due to the lack of the sort of centralized control that would get people to take up arms and march on Versailles, the bolsheviks decided that they would do everything they possibly could to centralize the fuck out of everything. And I mean, they lasted for longer than the commune did? At the very least, the bolshevik experiment had some measure of democracy until Stalin came along 7 years after the revolution. So, yeah. people don't believe "communism could work if it could be done without authoritarianism." Instead there's an active debate (running for a century and a half now) about what type and level of centralized control is necessary to do a revolution without being immediately killed by the old government, and what level of centralized control is so hyper-centralized that it makes a Stalin happen.
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  Interesting - thanks for clearing that up.

uncomputation 5y ago

This is precisely correct. I am hugely sympathetic to the theoretical benefits of web3, but it clearly does not deliver on these promises. Rather than move on to something else which can deliver, its proponents are insisting the emperor is fully clothed because honestly most of them don’t care a single bit about the philosophical or political dimensions of the technology but only about the profit margins they can get by deluding others to join in.

lal 5y ago
Yeah. Tech (hell, humanity) already has a big enough problem with cults forming around bad or discredited ideas and defending them to the death, but the intrinsic characteristics of crypto make its adherents substantially more aggressive -- specifically the fact that crypto fans are not only emotionally and ideologically invested, but generally also quite heavily materially and financially invested, usually to the tune of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. The consequences if they're wrong are so much worse which necessitates a completely different level of self-deception and defensiveness.

vmception 5y ago

Okay. The disconnect here is what you think that I think web3 to be. I recognize the decentralized capabilities and find it marginally interesting and optional when convenient. I don't think it is a sales pitch. And therefore I dont think the whole concept is a con. I empathize with people that come to the space and products within the space for an inaccurate sales pitch. I like the platforms. I would be fine with an optional EVM that was not censorship resistant, where I could deploy my existing products on simply because the code was compatible. I want the other censorship resistant ones to exist too. You are assuming I care about the sales pitch and am trying to sell that fantasy. I think people should be aware of how to use that part of the technology.

UncleMeat 5y ago
> I would be fine with an optional EVM that was not censorship resistant, where I could deploy my existing products on simply because the code was compatible. This sounds sort of like AWS. Or if you want decentralization then something built on DHTs.

vanveenada 5y ago

I mean this is neither here nor there, but "communism could work if only it could be done without authoritarianism" is not a Marxist take, doctrinaire or otherwise. If you're a bolshevik, you believe that having and defending a revolution requires a vanguard of devoted party members who run shit. If you're a democratic socialist, likewise you think there needs to be a centralized group in control during the revolution -- you just think that this centralized group should be selected by vote rather than self-appointed. If you're an anarchist (and anarchists are typically not marxist), then you're someone who thinks that managing a revolution without centralized control is possible. And you might be thinking: why on earth would someone argue that putting the centralized party in control is a good idea? There's a simple reason for that: the Paris Commune. Why does the Paris Commune matter? They tried to run a revolution on anarchist lines... and so, instead of immediately marching on Versailles to take down the extant government, they just sort of faffed around in committee meetings until a couple of months later the extant government's army came and killed them all. Leninism (the centralized, essentially authoritarian stuff) was a reaction to that. Because they observed how thoroughly fucked over the Commune was, specifically due to the lack of the sort of centralized control that would get people to take up arms and march on Versailles, the bolsheviks decided that they would do everything they possibly could to centralize the fuck out of everything. And I mean, they lasted for longer than the commune did? At the very least, the bolshevik experiment had some measure of democracy until Stalin came along 7 years after the revolution. So, yeah. people don't believe "communism could work if it could be done without authoritarianism." Instead there's an active debate (running for a century and a half now) about what type and level of centralized control is necessary to do a revolution without being immediately killed by the old government, and what level of centralized control is so hyper-centralized that it makes a Stalin happen.

smackeyacky 5y ago
Interesting - thanks for clearing that up.