everyone needs equal access to public data. right now only big tech can download the many web pages (without thottling or being ip banned) on linkedin (microsoft), youtube (google), facebook, github (microsoft) and billions of more pages. this also leads to a gap on AI training sets to give big tech even more entrenchment. for instance, only microsoft can build that ai coding application they did because other companies can't access all of github without being throttled or ip banned (last time i checked - but i could be wrong now)[microsoft owns github]. regardless, we need some sort of bot 'bill of rights' to ensure equal access going forward. perhaps the answer is legislation or perhaps it is some massive p2p proxy net. i think it is legislation because the p2p proxy net is too hard to implement, and it would have to solve turing tests.<p>but perhaps web 3.0 (dweb) can just bypass all this nonsense and make its own versions of these popular services with baked-in accessibility for all.
Dorsey's arm wavey Block is a reboot of Nelson's Xanadu dream. Replace transclusions and zippers with blockchains.<p>Though Nelson never pretended Xanadu would or could be democratic, explicitly stating it'd be a new rent seeking regime. Eschewing ads for fees.<p>I wonder if Dorsey feels any contrition over Twitter.<p>Square (SQ $77b) runs on fees and uses ML to mitigate fraud and protect commerce.<p>Twitter (TWTR $36b) runs on ads and uses ML to amplify fraud and sabotage civil discourse.<p>Imagine if Twitter had been run like Square. Would Twitter's market cap be more proportional to it's cultural impact? Or would it have simply ceded the parasocial mediums to the other amoral profiteers of fear and outrage?<p>Stretching my capacity for both creduality and principle of charity, I hope Dorsey is trying to find out with Block.<p>And if DeSo, DeFi, FyFoFum, or whatever other magic beans fiction serves the end goal of restoring civil discourse, the suspension of disbelief would be a small price to pay.
When do you know "Web3" isn't going to meaningfully change anything? When the same powerful people who benefited from web2 are pushing it as a "revolution".
There are lots of more compelling ways to reboot the internet that we're currently neglecting. I think we should begin by enacting government regulation to strip more power from the big tech companies, and transfer that back to the hands of everyday users. GDPR was a step in the right direction. We should go one step further, and actually enact the data portability promises that GDPR failed to deliver. We should develop internet-wide schemas for ubiquitous concepts and then require companies/governments to use them as their public-facing data representations. Data rights should be extended to ensure that users can migrate that data around. And no, I'm not talking about transferrable NFT's. I'm talking about internet standards and protocols that are designed for interoperability.
billionaires != revolutionaries<p>Billionaires never want to revolutionize the system that made them billionaires in the first place. It would be tantamount to admitting their gains were ill-gotten.<p>At best, they're just figuring out new ways to transfer more wealth in the existing frameworks. At worst, they're pulling up the ladders they climbed up after them so none may follow (and challenge) them.
Right now this Web3 "solution" seems completely divorced from the problem. Right now the big "problem" we have is that the big tech companies hold way too much power to control speech. I don't understand how Web3 is supposed to solve this problem.<p>The real solution IMO is the Metaverse. Rather than a centralized authority with control over all the content, everyone would contribute to a protocol, much like email works. This I feel will kill the debate (as in, resolve it forever) over speech online. It's not that censorship will go away, I'm sure some providers will try to censor content, but it will be a non issue, cause you can just go and get the same content from another provider.