Following the publication of "Rebuild the Internet Narrative," I received a discussion from Besee Chan. It was a very good comment, and I wanted to use the discussion to express my thoughts on what was correct and incorrect about the Web3 critique.
This is written by Besee.
Good day, MornMushroom.eth. If I simply and brutally interpret current Web3 expectations as a revolutionary vision "to avoid platform companies becoming like in Cyberpunk," is it true that even if the revolution succeeds, its strength will be as great as the once Apple computer subverted era of the status quo. There is a legend about a brave man who slays dragons and then transforms into an evil dragon himself. Will the new dragon slayers will be destined to become evil dragons? Are the new dragon slayers destined to turn evil? Is it possible for large corporations to exist solely as providers of services? Are we likely to see a better online environment if entrepreneurs only use the Internet to start a business?
I've been talking to Internet practitioners around me for the past six months about how Web3 is a relatively better and freer environment, but I've discovered that they couldn't care less. It's as if parents who are used to standardized testing don't understand homeschooling. For these people, education is synonymous with a higher degree. Earning money is the same as adhering to the rules established by the large platform. Even if some people are excited about the possibilities offered by Web3, it is because they believe there are new earning opportunities available. This is not some kind of idealism.
This is true for Internet practitioners, but it is even more true for Internet users. Many Internet users have no idea what's wrong with the Internet these days, and it has nothing to do with their paycheck or way of life.
You stated in your article that for most people at the time, Web 1.0 as a one-way source of information was just another newspaper. And there doesn't appear to be any difference between today's delivery riders, who have time to watch TikTok after delivering their orders, and the cab driver sitting on the street reading a tabloid in his spare time a century ago. If newspapers will always be just newspapers, even if a small group of people knows exactly how a better newspaper should work and what content is more valuable, is it possible that the majority of newspaper readers will be the ones who shape the shape of newspapers?
Even if information sources become multi-directional, the majority of people will always be one-directional, regardless of era. Is it the people themselves who are the problem, or technology?
I completely agree with you on the parallelism of ideological change and technological progress, and even the idea first, but I always believe that whether it is hacker spirit or geek spirit, anti-mainstream culture or hippie spirit, the small part of the awakened is like living in the zion of the matrix, unable to fight the entire system because it will always be a part of it.
Whether it's a revolution or a counter-revolution, the majority of those involved are merely instigators. They don't need to understand the agenda or the ideological progress; all they need to do is stand in line and vote with their feet to determine the situation. Perhaps even if Web 2.0 can roll back and redo the sides, making the pros and cons widely known, most users will still choose to believe in the platform, believe in the algorithm, choose convenience, and amuse ourselves to death.
In terms of media reform, while I am a pessimistic collectivist, I am also an optimistic individualist. Even though we now believe that Web 2.0 is full of manipulation, there are some corners that can make me feel relieved, such as quality creators via simple means such as VIP only. Before the arrival of Web3 to circle a small world, it can let traditional currency play its token nature to create a small threshold. So, whether or not the Internet improves in the future, I believe that good people will be increasingly able to be amplified, and you are a good example.
My ideas are very limited and may be rather chaotic, and there are no points worth discussing, so if you can't read or feel embarrassed about replying, don't embarrass yourself out of courtesy, but if you can, I'd like to hear some more of your ideas. Thanks!
Thank you for your comments! That is all any creator can hope for: that someone will come and read my words and reflect on common themes. It's a moment when I realize I'm not alone.
Your text, as I understand it, contains three questions (please point them out if they are not correct).
- Can we break the Internet's cycle? Do most practitioners disregard the Internet? Are users passively accepting everything?
These are three excellent questions. These three questions, in my opinion, go beyond the distinction between Web3 and Web 2.0 and address a broader issue: can our time move forward? How do we move forward in a world where dragon slayers keep turning into evil dragons while others just watch and the villagers don't care?
The question's transformation has already implied the conclusion: I believe it will move forward; the key is how it will move forward. To return to our previous example, it may not be in the name of Web3, but a better Internet will undoubtedly emerge. My belief in Web3 and a better Internet is a choice of perspective on the world, not a belief in a specific technology.
Are all of the new dragon slayers doomed to become evil dragons as well? This question is applicable to almost all changes. Those familiar technology companies, unlike some of the old big players, appear to have a good vision—there are more examples of dragon-slaying teenagers turning into evil dragons. After all, the little evil dragon growing into a big evil dragon is normal, the fall of the hero is an eternal source of tragedy.
But the main issue with this example is that some people will always be good because they do nothing; others will become evil because they act. In other words, being conservative is healthy; moving forward is falling.
Standing on the unchanging conservative viewpoint, the criticism of becoming an evil dragon after moving forward is always correct, and moving forward may result in degradation—I'm not being shady here. Moving forward should be with the knowledge that you will fall. Those who remain seated have the right to criticize those who advance because they fall.
However, this criticism implies that those who hold this discourse have not participated in the advancement and thus cannot see the resistance, difficulties, and joys encountered along the way. The more specific the criticism, the more he/she must stay out of the way and keep a cool head. He or she can see who has fallen, but can not be the one who does not fall. This is not to say that one cannot criticize; rather, it is about how to criticize: whether to criticize in order to move on or to criticize the "change" itself. Some criticism is not directed at moving in the wrong direction, but rather at moving forward itself.
For example, while I agree that "personal data ownership cannot solve the fundamental problems of Web 2.0," I disagree with the statement that "Web3 will become the next big platform sooner or later." I simply cannot accept it. It's not because I don't believe Web3 will be a big platform, but because... People are born to die, and a critique of death at birth ignores what people can create throughout their lives.
Mamiya7ii.eth, the first reader of this article, said this after finishing it.
All those stupid things in human history would not have appeared if the Australopithecus (southern ape) had not climbed down the tree. But, if you think about it now, would you be okay with not getting out of the trees?
How can we solve existing problems if we stop because moving forward will introduce new ones? Here's how I see these issues: So, if I don't become an evil dragon, will the other evil dragons simply vanish? I may become an evil dragon, but I'm more concerned that before we become evil dragons, we'll be eaten by evil dragons who already exist.
It is not because heroes have special abilities that allow them to become heroes rather than evil dragons. It is because she or he is willing to accept mistakes and try to find a way to start over from them.
Web3's solution may not be the best one, and it should not be assumed that the problem it poses (the dragon) does not exist. If we are to defeat the dragon, we must first acknowledge its existence. Then try to find a solution that does not result in the creation of a new dragon.
I understand the criticism of Web3 because of the fear that it will turn into a dragon, but I disagree.
My friend went to Tanzania last year to build a dam, and the dam project is currently consuming nearly half of the country's electricity. Perhaps after this dam is completed, Tanzanians' lives will improve qualitatively. Tanzania will soon face all of the issues that have plagued the other countries. However, the root cause of those problems will never be found in one, two, or a thousand dams of this type of infrastructure. He writes in one of his articles.
So what? So we have to come to a halt?
Despite the thorns ahead, there's a cliff behind you. It is far better to die clearly than to live in obscurity for those who have opened their eyes. Even if one is aware that progress may result in upheaval, a person who has been illuminated by the light of an electric lamp will never look back. Who would dare to say that this person will not survive the challenge of becoming a more robust individual?
There is a middle-aged with a beer belly between the teenager and the evil dragon.
On the second question, I'd like to begin with a quote from an article I haven't yet posted.
If we had considered these questions at the start of the Internet, we could have waited a decade or so for the dust to settle before reexamining the process. We would have had a more objective perspective, a more accurate judgment, and a more definitive outcome—but there would have been no way to change the outcome. It has been said that history always appears at a critical juncture and reveals its true colors. When such a moment arrives, we have the opportunity to participate in it and thus change its face.
The vast majority will pass by when history reveals its true colors. Practitioners may have a deep understanding of a specific industry, but truly transformative technologies often emerge when multiple technologies converge or when society changes. It is very easy to go beyond our practitioners' comprehension of a single technology.
In this article, I discuss how the vast majority of innovation in the drone industry is not done by aircraft experts—because drones are too simple compared to large aircraft to be worth studying. If practitioners are always the ones who changed the things, then drones should be designed by large aircraft engineers. This is not true. There are numerous examples. Of course, there are numerous changes brought about by practitioners. However, it is only one of the prerequisites for change, and it is never required.
Being perceived as indifferent to something by the general public is almost the norm in human history.
My response to this question may be different: we all belong to the masses in some ways. Practitioners in any industry lament the banality of the masses, forgetting that they are, in the eyes of others, part of the masses. Mass denotes a large number of possibilities for change in various directions. Because the masses are made up of people like you and me, we all have different goals. We can't expect everyone to ask the same questions about the same things at the same time because we're all working on different challenges in different directions. Maybe our efforts will make the Internet a little bit better, but it will not be enough to make the world a better place. In the eyes of activists working to combat disease, famine, and inequality, we are also the masses.
But, as you stated, "but I always believe that whether it is hacker spirit or geek spirit, anti-mainstream culture or hippie spirit, the small part of the awakened is like living in the zion of the matrix, unable to fight the entire system because it will always be a part of it." Consider this: our society has been launching one charge after another for a similar vision since Web 1.0, or even since the counter-culture. That, in and of itself, is a fact that can boost our confidence.
Because you mentioned wanting to discuss concerns about Web3 together, I'd like to share with you what really concerns me about Web3: most (but not all) of the current discussion of Web3 has an inherent dependency, and it cannot exist independently of Web 2.0.
Almost all of the arguments for Web3 include some criticism of Web 2.0: Web 2.0 does not protect privacy, whereas Web3 does; Web 2.0 does not give creators a cut, whereas Web3 does; Web 2.0 does not allow users to share in platform revenue, whereas Web3 sends tokens to vote together.
Web3 is not necessarily a better Internet; however, it is currently opposed to Web 2.0.
Give a random Web 2.0 platform a problem today, and you can use Web3's discourse system to write the introduction to a white paper on the project in an hour. It is a dependent discourse that requires Web 2.0 for survival but cannot exist without it.
Web 2.0 and Web3 are two sides of the same coin, and without Web 2.0, Web3 is a rootless tree. Can you and I write an article about how Web3 can help build a better Internet while ignoring Web 2.0? This is a problem in my own article. We are good at asking questions but not so good at providing answers.
Of course, I expect many people to disagree with me on this point. Aren't Web3 technologies addressing the shortcomings of Web 2.0? Is it incorrect to solve the problem?
It isn't wrong, but the Internet versus Web 2.0 and a better Internet is most likely not synonymous. It's as if there's a barrier between criticizing my friends and improving myself. To see the wise is to see the foolish and reflect on oneself, not to see the foolish and simply criticize them.
Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think" is a good example. This article is one of the most accurate predictions of our time's information society. It was a forward-thinking look at what new technology could do for us by figuring out the science.
Because of the atomic bomb, Bush revised the first draft of this article. He is not simply opposing technology. Rather, after warning us about the dangers of technology, he considers what kind of world we should be creating. And what role technology can play in creating a brighter future. Even after all these decades, this is still a worthwhile read.
Opposition is only one tool for achieving a better future; it is not the only one.
Web3 has been one of the fastest-growing industries in recent years, and our thinking is evolving on a daily basis. It may be some time before I have newer or even completely different thoughts on these topics, but this is a true reflection of my heart at the time.
I've ended several articles in the past with arguments from Japanese postwar thinkers, and this one also quotes from the end of Masao Maruyama's lecture notes for his course at The University of Tokyo:
It is necessary to constantly place something other than oneself in one's mental structure and to improve and enrich oneself by rubbing against it. Even if you affirm the same proposition and reach the same conclusion, there is a significant difference in the depth and richness of thought between affirmation over negation and direct affirmation without negation.
This article belongs to Fire Lily: a DAO comprised of serious debaters with a sense of humor who meet to discuss the big issues of the Internet and society.
Join us: