欧雷流 on-Ch@iN

When you hear the term "Web3," how do you react?

Based on the comments from the first two articles I published, most people left comments like "going to jail" and "being exploited." It is clear that they do not understand Web3, and Web3 has been demonized.

It is reasonable and necessary to question Web3. Everything needs to be questioned in order to get closer to its essence. However, they are not questioning, but discriminating with prejudice.

This article will explain my understanding of Web3 and give it a proper name.

Why Decentralization?#

Being a content creator is one of my many identities. Although I have been running a personal website for over 10 years, if I want more people to see the content I create, I have to rely on the potential traffic of content platforms.

As a content creator, the most frustrating thing is that no one sees the content I create with care. If it is due to my own skill level, I can accept it. But what if it is because of content platforms limiting visibility or making it visible only to the author?

The system notifications received after being processed often say "your content does not comply with the guidelines," without specifying which part of the content violates which guideline.

What's even more unreasonable is that there is usually no effective way to appeal. Either there is no appeal process at all, or the appeal is ignored, or the handling is arbitrary. In the face of content platforms, do creators have any dignity?

This is just one example among the various problems encountered by me and others. The commonality among them is that centralized platforms find it difficult to maximize fairness, mainly due to:

• Power is concentrated in the hands of the operators, with no external participation in decision-making.
• The platform rules are not detailed enough, resulting in a large gray area that can be interpreted and manipulated due to ambiguous wording.
• The platform's handling of user-generated content is opaque, lacking a system for user supervision.
• The feedback mechanism for reporting and appeals is very imperfect, making it complex to protect rights and may even be impossible.

The relationship between users and centralized platforms is not completely adversarial:

• Platforms can have their own rules and punish users when they violate them, which is reasonable.
• Platform rules can be imperfect, and when users raise objections with reason, the platform should be open-minded and willing to improve, rather than stubbornly insisting on its own views. This is what a well-run platform should do.
• Users produce data for the platform, and the platform provides traffic or other value to users. This should be a win-win situation.

However, as mentioned above, centralized platforms find it difficult to accomplish these seemingly simple things. As a result, user rights cannot be well protected, leaving only three options:

1. Leave directly.
2. Try to appeal with the last hope.
3. Continue to endure endless humiliation until it becomes unbearable.

Regardless of which option is chosen, the result is likely to be "leaving."

But after leaving, what's next? Does it mean no longer doing related things? Or is it switching to another centralized platform? Is it highly likely that the new platform will protect user rights well?

The rough outline of a truly user-centered digital service is described in my article "Chatting about Personal Services: Revolutionizing 'to C'."

In the end, those who care about their own rights and have ideas will turn their attention to decentralized platforms and see them as a lifeline.

How to Achieve Decentralization#

When talking about "decentralization," it is necessary to clarify what is being decentralized, such as data ownership, data control, computing methods, communication methods, etc. Otherwise, it will be like talking nonsense.

Some people adhere to absolute decentralism, but it is like wanting absolute freedom and egalitarianism—a foolish dream.

Achieving "decentralization" relies on a distributed network structure, where nodes in a network can communicate directly with each other without going through a central node with control. That central node is the "center."

Some may wonder—without a "center" to command and coordinate, won't the nodes in the network be chaotic? How can they communicate and collaborate with each other?

Leaving aside computer networks, let's look at how humans do it—

Communication between human individuals requires the use of symbols, language, and other media that can convey information. The same unit of media may have different meanings in different systems. Communication can only happen when two people are in the same system, such as both using the Chinese language.

So, how do human individuals work together towards a common goal without a commander? There are several ways:

• Civilization, culture, traditions, customs of a nation.
• Laws and regulations of a country.
• Rules and regulations of an organization.
• Unspoken understandings developed among individuals.

These are the consensus reached among participants or the rules they must follow. They rely on the resulting consistent rules to constrain and coordinate the actions of each individual to complete a specific task.

To sum up, "the same media system" and "consistent rules of action" are the key to achieving "decentralization"!

Bringing the perspective back to the field of computers, "the same media system" refers to data types and encoding, while "consistent rules of action" refer to protocols and standards.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, absolute "decentralization" does not exist—in a network that appears to be distributed as a whole, one of the nodes may also be a smaller network with a "center."

The Evolution of the Web#

People's digital lives today are inseparable from the Web. Whether it is browsing web pages or using native client applications, we rely heavily on it.

Since its birth in 1989, Web-related technologies have developed vigorously to meet various needs. Even the current development direction has deviated from the expectations of its inventor.

In these 35 years, due to changes in production and life practices and ideological trends, there have been centralized characteristics every few years, dividing the Web into different periods, with an incrementing number added to "Web" to name each period.

Many materials introducing Web3 describe it as "Web 3.0" and compare it with "Web 1.0" and "Web 2.0"—as someone sensitive to wording, it is difficult to agree.

If we replace the number representing "generation" with "X," there are two ways to name it: "Web X.0" and "WebX." They have significant differences in meaning.

The different generations of the Web do not replace each other but coexist. The one with a higher proportion becomes the "mainstream," while the one with a lower proportion does not disappear completely but is "neglected."

Web X.0#

The Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN. Its initial purpose was simply to share documents and data primarily in the form of text and images on the Internet. It had the inherent genes of "decentralization," and one's own computer could serve as a server.

At that time, CSS and JS did not exist, let alone PHP and Java. Web pages were not only completely static and non-interactive but also looked simple—just like people's thoughts at that time—just knowledge sharing.

With the emergence of supporting technologies that made web pages more beautiful and dynamic in various ways, web pages began to develop towards personalization and commercialization. This led to the emergence of a wide range of personal and commercial websites, making the Web vibrant.

Around 2004, the mainstream application form of the Web shifted towards socialization and platformization. A large number of SNS and XaaS products emerged, occupying various aspects of people's daily production and life. Platform operators gained a large number of users and data, increasing their commercial value.

Around 2004, the application form of the Web before that mainly consisted of information publishing websites, where users could only "read" content. This was called "Web 1.0."

Afterward, the application form of the Web shifted to platforms where users could participate in content creation, sharing, and interaction. This was called "Web 2.0," where content became "readable and writable." It clearly showed centralized features, contradicting the original intention of the Web.

The division mentioned above is based on the application form of the Web. However, Tim Berners-Lee, as the inventor of the Web, does not agree with this division. In his own notes, he divides it based on technological development and problem-solving:

• Web 1.0—Building a global web of documents and data.
• Web 2.0—Enhancing the security of information access.
• Web 3.0—Constructing a semantic web that improves data interoperability.

In Tim Berners-Lee's vision of "Web 3.0," a series of protocols, standards, and technologies are used to make web content structured data that can be easily read and understood by machines. This turns the entire Web into a vast knowledge graph and intelligent network.

The "Web 3.0" envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee can be applied to knowledge engineering, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, social networks, and other fields in a decentralized manner.

WebX#

In Tim Berners-Lee's vision of the Web, "decentralization" is natural and does not need to be emphasized. However, in actual applications, it deviated from expectations and became a centralized platform-dominated model.

At this time, another decentralized blockchain-related technology, different from Web-related technologies like Bitcoin, emerged. It carried a rebellious meaning of "decentralization" due to the dominance of centralized platforms at that time and its inherent currency system.

Cryptocurrency transactions and tamper-proof records are the basic characteristics of blockchain. This has led to the development of various financial activities centered around cryptocurrencies.

Currently, the most mature field of blockchain-related technologies is decentralized finance, or "DeFi." Due to its characteristics similar to stock and forex trading and the lack of regulation, it can easily lead to economic losses and requires extreme caution.

The application areas of blockchain-related technologies tend to have financial attributes and have formed corresponding cultures and industries, which is "Web3."

The term "Web3" is closely related to the centralized features of the Web application form mentioned earlier as "Web 2.0." At the same time, it can be said to have significant differences from Tim Berners-Lee's vision of "Web 3.0."

To distinguish it from Web-related products and industries that do not adopt blockchain-related technologies, they are called "Web2."

Conclusion#

Based on my personal experience and understanding, this article discusses the reasons and underlying logic of decentralization and attempts to explain the meanings of "Web X.0" and "WebX" as two forms of dividing the Web into periods.

I am committed to exploring and researching solutions for individual and household decentralization and digitization. From this perspective, it doesn't matter whether it is Tim Berners-Lee's "Web 3.0" or "Web3." However, considering my career development, "Web3" is the only choice.

Web3 is a dark forest, lurking with people who covet one's assets. One must be vigilant at all times, treat everything with caution, in order to protect oneself—this is the downside of being unregulated, the price of freedom!

Read this article on my personal website or WeChat Official Account.