4 ms·

> They monopolize social media, e-commerce, games, telecommunication platforms. Billions of people go by assuming that Facebook is the internet. how exactly we

> They monopolize social media, e-commerce, games, telecommunication platforms. Billions of people go by assuming that Facebook is the internet. how exactly web3 is supposed to fix that? > or you already got so used to be manipulated by Big Tech assuming without knowing is the worst form of arrogance. but even if that was true, I don't believe that the guy in the small village here in Italy that makes olive oil and sell it on Amazon to markets he could never even imagine existed is going to go decentralized and trustless just because Amazon is virtually a monopoly. FAANG provided opportunities that have much more value for people than idealism (that doesn't even work!)

rglullis 4y ago
> how exactly web3 is supposed to fix that? By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation. > FAANG provided opportunities Sure. It also blocked them. It also has created massive costs to people. It has also created Surveillance Capitalism. It employs thousands of people whose sole job is dedicated to keep its users addicted. It is creating a society of people who can "connect" with anyone on the other side of the world, but who get anxiety attacks if they have to talk with their own neighbor next door. It is destroying all chance of civil discourse, making groups increasingly polarized and isolated. > that have much more value for people than idealism To some people. Good for them. When it works, it is great. The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage? > (that doesn't even work!) It works for some cases, and it works for some people. There is no technology in human history that was "born" perfectly ready for mass-usage. And there shouldn't be. I'm not advocating here that we should all be dropping the systems and institutions that work, just to adopt something for the sake of "new tech". What I am saying is that there are whole lots of groups who are not being served by the current systems and institutions, and that we can do more than collectively shrug our shoulders and/or attack those who are attempting to create a solution.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation. How exactly is it gonna make people do the switch from Google search, Google maps, WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Netflix, iPhones/MacBooks etc.? > The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage? Make your own website, communicate via e-mail, host your own mail server, etc. FAANG is not "the web" and "the web" is not the Internet. > It works for some cases, and it works for some people I don't think it actually works, or to put it in other words, it works like casinos in Las Vegas work. But that they improve society it's highly questionable IMO.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > How exactly is it gonna make people do the switch from Google search... I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The issue is not in getting people to consume the services that are "freely" available. The issue is in enabling people to participate both as consumers as well as producers in the larger economy without depending on intermediaries. Instead of "get people out of Google Search", think "allow people to buy and sell things online without depending on Paypal" or "how can we have an alternative for the small olive oil producer in Amazon if for some reason Amazon decides to enter the market and abuses its power?"
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > The issue is in enabling people to participate both as consumers as well as producers in the larger economy without depending on intermediaries. larger than what exactly? How web3 is gonna make it possible? I can already send my tomato sauce produced by my family to Japan by simply putting up a website. what could web3 make for my family? > allow people to buy and sell things online without depending on Paypal it's been possible for at last 20 years. I pay using my credit card, not Paypal. In Europe I can use SEPA transfers (usually free), SEPA Instant Credit Transfer (they cost me about 90 cents, money is transferred in seconds), the new PSD2 directive allow merchants to withdraw money directly from customers' accounts after being authorized and I believe GNU Taler is a much better option than any wallet solution web3 is proposing. People can pay using any channel already available, they can also send me cash in an envelope if they want to, I'll gladly accept it. And any of those systems (except cash in an envelope) are protected from fraud, insured, and refundable in full. What about Web3? Technically depending on Paypal is a choice. Of course if you are talking about the possibility that your shady or illegal business will be banned from using one of those payment systems, well, that's a feature, not a bug.

rglullis 4y ago

> how exactly web3 is supposed to fix that? By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation. > FAANG provided opportunities Sure. It also blocked them. It also has created massive costs to people. It has also created Surveillance Capitalism. It employs thousands of people whose sole job is dedicated to keep its users addicted. It is creating a society of people who can "connect" with anyone on the other side of the world, but who get anxiety attacks if they have to talk with their own neighbor next door. It is destroying all chance of civil discourse, making groups increasingly polarized and isolated. > that have much more value for people than idealism To some people. Good for them. When it works, it is great. The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage? > (that doesn't even work!) It works for some cases, and it works for some people. There is no technology in human history that was "born" perfectly ready for mass-usage. And there shouldn't be. I'm not advocating here that we should all be dropping the systems and institutions that work, just to adopt something for the sake of "new tech". What I am saying is that there are whole lots of groups who are not being served by the current systems and institutions, and that we can do more than collectively shrug our shoulders and/or attack those who are attempting to create a solution.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation. How exactly is it gonna make people do the switch from Google search, Google maps, WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Netflix, iPhones/MacBooks etc.? > The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage? Make your own website, communicate via e-mail, host your own mail server, etc. FAANG is not "the web" and "the web" is not the Internet. > It works for some cases, and it works for some people I don't think it actually works, or to put it in other words, it works like casinos in Las Vegas work. But that they improve society it's highly questionable IMO.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > How exactly is it gonna make people do the switch from Google search... I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The issue is not in getting people to consume the services that are "freely" available. The issue is in enabling people to participate both as consumers as well as producers in the larger economy without depending on intermediaries. Instead of "get people out of Google Search", think "allow people to buy and sell things online without depending on Paypal" or "how can we have an alternative for the small olive oil producer in Amazon if for some reason Amazon decides to enter the market and abuses its power?"
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > The issue is in enabling people to participate both as consumers as well as producers in the larger economy without depending on intermediaries. larger than what exactly? How web3 is gonna make it possible? I can already send my tomato sauce produced by my family to Japan by simply putting up a website. what could web3 make for my family? > allow people to buy and sell things online without depending on Paypal it's been possible for at last 20 years. I pay using my credit card, not Paypal. In Europe I can use SEPA transfers (usually free), SEPA Instant Credit Transfer (they cost me about 90 cents, money is transferred in seconds), the new PSD2 directive allow merchants to withdraw money directly from customers' accounts after being authorized and I believe GNU Taler is a much better option than any wallet solution web3 is proposing. People can pay using any channel already available, they can also send me cash in an envelope if they want to, I'll gladly accept it. And any of those systems (except cash in an envelope) are protected from fraud, insured, and refundable in full. What about Web3? Technically depending on Paypal is a choice. Of course if you are talking about the possibility that your shady or illegal business will be banned from using one of those payment systems, well, that's a feature, not a bug.