> it wouldn't fit any common definition of web3. To be clear, in my opinion, in summary, mastodon = "twitter without the centralised company", and web3 = "use

> it wouldn't fit any common definition of web3. To be clear, in my opinion, in summary, mastodon = "twitter without the centralised company", and web3 = "useless crypto shit". So I don't need or want mastodon to "fit" web3. I'm just pointing out that the above proposed definition of web3 can't be right, as it fits something that thankfully isn't and doesn't aspire to being web3.