Web3 vs Web2: fundamental ideological differences

Foreword: In this article, I will use Web3 to refer generally to communities and projects that support decentralized ownership through blockchain technology, and Web2 to generally refer to communities and projects specific to the “normal” part of the Internet, such as Tumblr, Reddit or Wikipedia. FOSS refers to Free and Open-Source Software.

The current argument in favor of Web3 (and NFTs in particular) is that Web3 is the only option against predatory centralized ownership systems: you either get a decentralized ownership record on the blockchain through NFTs, or Facebook will use them Devour your immortal soul in a terrifying centralized database.

@punk6529 exemplifies this position:

Web3 vs Web2: fundamental ideological differences

Some Web3 critics take a completely different stance on the subject, arguing that there is no need for ownership records on the Internet, or even ownership at all. Their argument goes as follows: The Internet is not based on property, but on abundance. A very strange property of native digital content is that it is naturally rich. If you create a GIF or JPEG, you can generate unlimited copies and distribute them to everyone. The Internet community thrives on remixing and sharing content for free, and it works very well: memes, copy-paste, webcomics, all because of that. So if the internet was built on abundance, why would you divide the commons and sell them? Why introduce scarcity? Why introduce property rights? Why are you so greedy?

This is reminiscent of Rousseau:

“Whoever was the first to encircle a piece of land and think: This is mine, and find some simple-minded person who actually believes him, is the founder of civilized society. If someone pulls up stakes or fills in ravines , and shouted to his fellows: ‘Don’t listen to this liar, if then you forget that the fruits of the land belong to everyone and that the land belongs to no one, then you will suffer!’ This man should save mankind from How many crimes, wars and killings, how much misery and terror have been spared!”

—Rousseau, On the Origin and Foundation of Human Inequality

A recent tweet from Web2 content creator @eevee followed this line of thought and garnered widespread participation from both sides of the debate. Interesting to understand the criticism against Web3:

Web3 vs Web2: fundamental ideological differences

Source of tweet: https://twitter.com/eevee/status/1484748148169793537?s=20&t=d9VC8f8CISsf002rwQGgmA

The truth is, copyrights already exist, and the internet was never truly free. But there is an anarchist or communist-like ethos at the heart of the internet. We cannot deny the influence of the counterculture on the original dream of the Internet. This is where the phrase “information desires freedom” comes from.

History tells us that we don’t need ownership records, token incentives, ICOs (initial coin offerings), or even money, to build compelling projects. Consider what the free/open-source software movement has achieved: Linux, Wikipedia are all testament to the legacy of this spirit. The blockchain community cannot forget that we create most of the incredible things that run on the internet without a record of ownership or funding.

If someone were to recreate Wikipedia today, the first comment from a Web3 proponent would be: “Where’s the token incentive? Why do people spend time writing articles? It won’t work.” It turns out that people love to create things, Then distribute it for free. To be more precise, a small group of crazy elite super-creators make up most of the content creation on the internet .

So when someone comes along and says “let’s create token incentives, let’s create DAOs and build everything”, it triggers a knee-jerk reaction from these Web2 communities: “So far so good, why would you want to change it? How can this make things better?”

That’s why I don’t necessarily like Web3 as the definition of a blockchain technology paradigm. Compared to before, Web3 is not a strictly necessary improvement, it is not an optimization, but an option. Web3 is a technological paradigm capable of creating things that were not possible before (such as native digital ownership), but that does not mean it is strictly superior or will replace the ways of the past.

I like to compare blockchain technology to a sort of “uchronia,” another version of history: ownership exists natively on the internet. Imagine how different the world would be if we invented blockchain technology in the 90s.

But the fact that we’re living in a version of history where ownership doesn’t exist natively on the internet is rather odd looking back. But we had to make do with it. That’s why we have an “attention economy,” an advertising-based business model, and a centralized record of ownership. It has its flaws, yes, but we built a lot within those constraints.

I think @eevee’s point is a bit naive. Ultimately, (Web2) To monetize Internet content, you have only three ways:

  1. (Attempt to) Enforce Copyright : This is where Web3 and FLOSS (Free Open Source Software) agree that this falls short. Copyright is ubiquitous on the Internet precisely because copyright is one of the only ways to make money on the naturally rich Internet. If you create digital art, nothing stops others from copying it and selling it, other than the threat of copyright infringement and sometimes digital rights management (DRM).
  2. You get paid to create new content : that’s what Stallman said in 1984. That’s why we have Patreon (a crowdfunding platform for artists), commission art, and more.
  3. Ads : Place an ad on your video, an option primarily for content creators like YouTubers, not digital artists.

NFTs offer a new way to make money : selling a digital copy of a piece of content.

NFTs are a way of representing scarcity on the internet : NFTs are like digital objects you can sell, just like you sell a painting. Creating an NFT does not require closing access to the content. I think NFTs are a new option and a very natural way to make a lot of money on the internet. This is what the CC0+NFT movement is trying to achieve: publish a work of art in the public domain, allow anyone to reuse, remix and copy it at will, and record ownership on the blockchain so that it can be monetized (profitable) . (Editor’s note: The CC0 agreement means that the author contributes the work to the public domain and gives up all copyrights. Generally speaking, materials that comply with the CC0 agreement can be used, processed or deductively edited without restrictions, and there is no infringement.)

The NFT series actually follows different intellectual property strategies , and content creators are free to choose the strategy that suits their needs. E.g:

  • No rights granted to NFT holders : Buying a Cryptopunk or Cryptokitty does not grant you rights to any intellectual property, their intellectual property belongs to the parent company.
  • Grants some rights to NFT holders : Buying a Bored Ape actually grants you the right to mint derivatives and earn money from derivatives.
  • Does not grant anyone any rights (CC0) : Buying Noun or CrypToadz does not grant you any rights as its IP (Intellectual Property) is in the public domain.

You can continue to create content as before. You also now have the option to create an NFT to sell it. This is not contradictory . If you sell your art prints, you can also sell NFTs.

To give a concrete example: Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, released it for everyone to reuse, and successfully auctioned the World Wide Web source code in the form of NFTs for over $5.4 million. As Berners-Lee told The Guardian:

“It’s totally in line with the values ​​of the web. The problem I get is that they’ll say, ‘Oh, this doesn’t sound like the free and open web.’ Well, but the web is as free and open as ever. The core code on the web And the license is royalty-free, like they always have been. I’m not selling the web – you don’t have to pay to click the link. I’m not even selling the source code for it . I’m selling a copy that I use A picture made by a Python program I wrote myself , as if the source code was posted on the wall and signed by me. If they don’t think it’s appropriate for me to sell an NFT for a poster, how about I buy a book? I would There is money involved in doing things like this, but the free and open web is still free and open.

– Source: The Guardian

Web3 vs Web2: fundamental ideological differences

World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee

There is no fundamental difference between a tokenized community like Friends With Benefits (FWB) and Patreon. In my opinion, compared to Patreon, a community controlled by a token gives content creators and fans more control because they are not subject to scrutiny by a central authority. With porn increasingly under scrutiny on social networks, Web3 offers some communities a viable alternative.

In the end, I believe both frameworks have their own room for development. Just like video didn’t really kill radio (does anyone like listening to podcasts?), Web3 won’t kill Web2.

Digital ownership will not kill abundance.

“Utopia is a framework of utopias where people can freely and voluntarily join forces to pursue and try to realize their own vision of a good life in an ideal society, but no one can impose their utopian vision on others.”

—Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia

As web3 evangelist @damedoteth said, when you hear critics of blockchain say “we don’t need a blockchain”, try to understand where their arguments stand, rather than building a straw man argument that thinks They must be advocating full luxury data centering. They might be saying, “We’ve built so many things without blockchain, I don’t understand what it can bring.”

They may be saying that compared to Web2, Web3 needs to prove everything.

And they might be right.

So let’s keep building.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/web3-vs-web2-fundamental-ideological-differences/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-06-06 10:12
Next 2022-06-06 10:16

Related articles