• kambusha@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I’d have thought that web3 would be seen as a positive thing, since it’s a lot about decentralisation, and taking back privacy & ownership of data. Is crypto why it’s considered blasphemous?

    If anything, web2.0 has seen rampant abuse of privacy, that is slowly being reigned in.

    • TheFogan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, in terms of use… Name all the decentralized networks that the general public is aware of? Mastadon roughly 1 million active users, at a time when musk has let Xitter shit the bed to drop… to like 200 million users.

      Meanwhile there’s a bitcoin option on every ATM I go to in every gas station. Fact is if you ask around the table at thanksgiving, unless you have a very nerdy family… odds are no one will be familiar with any web 3 items you name, other than crypto… and largely crypto will mostly only be known for it’s worse applications. A speculative gambling investment that is popular to use to buy illegal goods with.

      • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Internet WWW Udp Tcp Email P2P Tor I2P … … …

        I think a lot of web 3.0’ers forget the internet was founded on a free and open principle and things as fundamental as NAT were considered hugely controversial because it wasnt %100 open but money and time corrupts everything, just because these protocols are used as a means to an end now doesn’t mean they weren’t the primary source of network communication when they were first invented and later proprietary protocols were built on top of them, in that way WEB 3.0 isn’t a revolutionary idea but a return to form with all odds against them swimming upstream and the competition has already won the race.

          • TheFogan@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah I would say more accurately, if you asked 100 people specifically about “have you ever heard of Mastadon, or Lemmy” you’ll get 99% “huh”.

            if you ask the same people about crypto… I’d expect closer to 80-90% to have at least heard of crypto… Especially now that we have a president about to lead a crypto scam.

  • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Guys Lemmy itself is web3. Web3 is about decentralization. Don’t get fooled by those claiming decentralization implies blockchain, Lemmy is doing fine without it

    • perishthethought@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      No idea why you were downvoted. You’re right about decentralization. It’s just there’s no obvious way to become a billionaire without adding a blockchain scam to decentralization. :(

  • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    To me, while the crypto markets are a form of web3, it’s still following the central idea of decentralization.

    We do it a lot better, granted…

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Funny thing is, Web 1.0 was mostly decentralized. Websites were hosted in locations all over the place. IRC and news groups ran across a ton of providers.

      I really wish we would just shore up IPFS maybe work out of some kind of decentralized database solution, clean up centralized name service for it all.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Web 2.0 was good though. It signified the change from the “original” web mostly being publishers running their own individual, mostly static sites with no user interaction, to user-generated content (social media, photo and video sharing sites, forums, wikis, etc) with some level of interoperability between sites.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        The switch from hosting your own sites to instead having a presence on centralized oligopoly sites is the worst thing that ever happened to the internet.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I didn’t say I like centralized sites though. Web 2.0 didn’t necessarily bring centralized sites; it brought user contributions and user-to-user communication. Forums and wikis were big for example. It also popularized interoperability with things like RSS and Atom.

          • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah its wasnt really directed at web 2.0 just at the general state of the web. Ofcourse many cool things are only possbile due to the many generations and iterations of cool protocols and APIs that make things like this website work.