9 ms·

I think there is some weight to the claim. This is especially true for public user generated content. Any public content should be accessible without limits, b

I think there is some weight to the claim. This is especially true for public user generated content. Any public content should be accessible without limits, but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc). ofcourse, there are some server costs but the primary reason the walled-gardens do this is more business related than to reduce costs.

krainboltgreene 5y ago
There is zero weight to the claim. Not only does it ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's, it seems to completely ignore what Web 2.0 was about. > Any public content should be accessible without limits, This is not related to the discussion, even if I did agree with it. > but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc). Twitter and "forums" are all completely accessible via a browser, which is literally what the original claim suggests we've "lost". You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client, you read it with the any HATEOAS client. I urge developers to actually read some history.
- throaway6942 5y ago
  > ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's That's not the point. having massive improvements since 90s does not imply that we are going to continue from the same path from here on. > completely accessible via a browser accessible via a browser is not the same as accessible / interoperable broadly. > You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client YES, some people want to. or maybe I want to do some data analytics, maybe I want to create a localized twitter, or I want to do take public social graphs and do something with it. web2.0 was about standardizing transport level protocols, web3 is(imo) about standardizing application level protocols using commitment guarantees. When I use some web2 service, there is almost no commitment guarantees(you can get censored, your data might be access gated or deleted, banks can stop you from doing certain transactions). Crypto and web3 is about fixing these issues. If Bitcoin promises to work in a certain way today, it will more likely than not work in the same way 10 years from now.
- ttybird 5y ago
  The accessibility of public web is what web 3.0 is about however. With semantic web and stuff. Twitter is accessible except "this nitter instance has been rate limited", and don't forget instagram...
  - krainboltgreene 5y ago
    > The accessibility of public web is what web 3.0 is about however. The definition of web 3.0 changes depending on who I am talking to and how deep into crypto they are. > semantic web That's Web 2.0, it exists just fine now and hasn't gone away like the original poster claimed. > Twitter is accessible Okay, glad we agree on reality. > "this nitter instance has been rate limited" If you think there won't be rate limiting in whatever "web 3.0" distributed service is out there, I have a bridge to sell you. > and don't forget instagram Multiple "web 3.0" services that exist today have their content gatekeeped to those who have accounts.
    - throaway6942 5y ago
      if "web3" works anything like crypto, there wouldn't be any rate limiting as long as you have control over your own node(it might be more expensive / harder to set one up though). In the same way torrents are not rate limited.
    - ttybird 5y ago
      Web 3.0 refers to the semantic web specifically, nothing to do with crypto. You are confusing it with "web3". And no, web 2.0 is not the semantic web. "Okay, glad we agree on reality." We don't.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

krainboltgreene 5y ago

There is zero weight to the claim. Not only does it ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's, it seems to completely ignore what Web 2.0 was about. > Any public content should be accessible without limits, This is not related to the discussion, even if I did agree with it. > but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc). Twitter and "forums" are all completely accessible via a browser, which is literally what the original claim suggests we've "lost". You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client, you read it with the any HATEOAS client. I urge developers to actually read some history.

throaway6942 5y ago
> ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's That's not the point. having massive improvements since 90s does not imply that we are going to continue from the same path from here on. > completely accessible via a browser accessible via a browser is not the same as accessible / interoperable broadly. > You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client YES, some people want to. or maybe I want to do some data analytics, maybe I want to create a localized twitter, or I want to do take public social graphs and do something with it. web2.0 was about standardizing transport level protocols, web3 is(imo) about standardizing application level protocols using commitment guarantees. When I use some web2 service, there is almost no commitment guarantees(you can get censored, your data might be access gated or deleted, banks can stop you from doing certain transactions). Crypto and web3 is about fixing these issues. If Bitcoin promises to work in a certain way today, it will more likely than not work in the same way 10 years from now.
ttybird 5y ago
The accessibility of public web is what web 3.0 is about however. With semantic web and stuff. Twitter is accessible except "this nitter instance has been rate limited", and don't forget instagram...
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  > The accessibility of public web is what web 3.0 is about however. The definition of web 3.0 changes depending on who I am talking to and how deep into crypto they are. > semantic web That's Web 2.0, it exists just fine now and hasn't gone away like the original poster claimed. > Twitter is accessible Okay, glad we agree on reality. > "this nitter instance has been rate limited" If you think there won't be rate limiting in whatever "web 3.0" distributed service is out there, I have a bridge to sell you. > and don't forget instagram Multiple "web 3.0" services that exist today have their content gatekeeped to those who have accounts.
  - throaway6942 5y ago
    if "web3" works anything like crypto, there wouldn't be any rate limiting as long as you have control over your own node(it might be more expensive / harder to set one up though). In the same way torrents are not rate limited.
  - ttybird 5y ago
    Web 3.0 refers to the semantic web specifically, nothing to do with crypto. You are confusing it with "web3". And no, web 2.0 is not the semantic web. "Okay, glad we agree on reality." We don't.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]