I think the difference is cryptocurrency, and the fact that sites are made by programmers, and programmers have a high tolerance for hassles. When there was le

I think the difference is cryptocurrency, and the fact that sites are made by programmers, and programmers have a high tolerance for hassles. When there was less distinction between programmers and just everyday people, convenience was a high priority in the authoring tools. Web3 could be amazing. There's no reason it couldn't just be like BitTorrent, but for web pages, with even better performance on mobile. JS frameworks are just files. Nothing really troublesome about that, besides the fact modern expectations demand a backend and CMS, unless you really want the full retro experience. Even then, most of what backends do could be done by some hypothetical extension to WebDAV for search. Or just like, add a SQLite query verb to HTML with a standard permissions file or something. There are ways this could all be easy. SSL is another problem. There used to be one protocol and one thing to set up. HTTP. Now you need certs, and it takes a bit more effort, and it's possible to mess up in a way that takes a half hour to fix. Not quite frictionless. Facebook is free, but personal sites aren't. Web3 could be exactly what saves us, giving us a standard platform to make sites for free, that does the security for us, doesn't need a domain name, and is generally really easy while still following modern standards. We could literally have a browser with a "Make a site" button that works like a file manager, with a "Link to seedbox" button. IPFS and the like are trying, but none quite reach BitTorrent's level of practicality, and they're all weighed down by cryptocurrency. I think we really do need a Web4.