I've been very critical of "web3" over on 🐦 recently: twitter.com/ilikebeans.

On @matt@write.as, I wrote about how the , if anything, seems like the closest thing we have to a true "web3" (without blockchaining all the things): write.as/matt/what-would-a-rea

The way VCs are using the "web3" term is kind of silly. It's branding that sounds incredible, but basically comes down to "financialize the entire Web." Which sucks.

So now I'm thinking, why don't we just co-opt the term for the fediverse?

I've already been calling some of my things "web3", just to be cheeky. But hey, it sounds cool too, and doesn't come with all the terrible aspects of "web3" that its proponents are pushing now. Could be fun.

Thoughts?

Follow

I feel like this could be done in a self-aware way -- something sorely lacking in the web3 space -- while also shaping the whole "future of the web" story that *someone* is going to tell, whether they're the right person to or not.

Why shouldn't it be us telling that story?

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 3

At the ActivityPub conference in 2019, @maloki actually started this exact conversation, that ActivityPub pointed to a more community-oriented and human-centric "Web 3.0". I agree, and I think many people here can recognize it too. We just haven't really tooted that horn.

If we ever wanted to, it seems like this would be a good moment for it.

@matt i have a feeling folks on here would have thoughts on this, for sure

personally, i'm slightly skeptical just because (as @yaaps mentioned) there's already a lot of money involved, but otoh, no time like the present, not to mention: why not? i mean, seriously.

@poiseunderchaos @yaaps Right. I mean nothing is written in stone. This is the general sentiment I'd echo:

RT @SilvermanJacob@twitter.com:
No technology is inevitable, nor is a particular techno-political order a fait accompli, even if it's underwritten by billionaire anarcho-capitalists.

twitter.com/SilvermanJacob/sta

@matt @yaaps Agreed. Also, pushing back on them calling themselves anarchists (or libertarians, for that matter) is sort of a good footnote to add into all of this, at least. (Because they're neither, even though they do very much map to being "anarcho-capitalists").

@matt @yaaps Which may sound pedantic, until you look at, say, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Emma Goldman, etc. None of whom remotely resemble them.

Even their self-referencing is as fake as their hollow promises of a brighter future.

"Billionaire capitalists" definitely works, though.

@matt @maloki We could try to coopt the term "web3". My title of decentralization engineer is deliberately provocative in that regard. But the blockchainers probably have a lot more capital than we do, and so can do all sorts of marketing and branding.

@matt I actually always thought of #fediverse as an implementation of #web3. You can imagine my surprise upon hearing blockchain mentioned in the same context.

So yeah, I think we can use terms like web3 & decentralization when describing fediverse. Also terms like self-hosting & smol/small web, for example stuff that @aral is wotking on.

It might be a bit verbose, listing all that, but throwing a few of those "safe words" might change people's perception.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Writing Exchange

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!