4 ms·
It's so dumb to call it "Web 3.0". It's like "New York City 3.0". It's a big system with a lot of different things that evolve at different speeds. If you think
by titzer 4y ago
It's so dumb to call it "Web 3.0". It's like "New York City 3.0". It's a big system with a lot of different things that evolve at different speeds. If you think you can characterize New York City by how things look from a couple different street corners and what's playing on Broadway right now, haha, no.
- aimor 4y agoI hate it too, it stretches the cute "Web 2.0" analogy (used to summarize the dramatic changes the web would undergo) much too far. I understand the appeal in co-opting "Web 3.0" -- every movement needs a catchy name -- but it's so acerbic to anyone with any taste at all, it reeks of showiness and empty promises. I hope the next movement of the web isn't going to be hoisted on us, I want it to be something that emerges organically from our collective effort much like the current web evolved. Fragmented Future (1999) https://web.archive.org/web/20111110143942/http://darcyd.com/fragmented_future.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20111110143942/http://darcyd.com...
- JohnFen 4y agoI rather feel that the current web was more foisted on us than organically emerged from our collective effort.
- jholman 4y agoIt's also dumb because "Web 3.0" isn't web at all. I guess in a way that makes it like New York, which isn't a replacement for York.
- rchaud 4y agoWell, they did try going with "Dapp" as in decentralized app, and that went about as well as one would expect.