@stevefoerster They are weird terms as well because the people who use them often use them to signal that they believe something is NEW! and REVOLUTIONARY! and DISRUPTIVE! when, in fact, the terms semantically indicate something much more iterative and evolutionary. It's like the actual meaning of the phrases have been bastardized to fit the DISRUPTIVE! mindset. It's ground zero mentality manipulating semantics to fit their own narrative.
Web(1) to Web 2.0 makes more, mostly reasonable sense to me now than it originally did. Maybe Web 3.0 will too, though it’s burdened by far more hypesters and hucksters and cryptobros. Which makes me wonder how one’s feelings about it might vary by age if a corpus were examined.
@fncll At a technical level, a lot of it makes a lot of sense. A simple example: content addressability. Elements of this are already in use - at the core of GitHub, in content distribution networks, etc. But individual browsers still locate content by address, instead of content. So we're always looking at 404s, or retrieving content from around the world. In web3 this is addressed; the user only notices that the URLs look funny (until we get a naming system). Web3 is full of stuff like this.
I’m not ignorant of the technology. But “until we get a naming system” is doing a lot of work here on the human side where using terms like this really matter (and to whom the hype is being directed as a sales pitch). There have been, and will be, scores of technical revolutions within each time given an epochal title.
A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.