Agreed. To be a threat to the freedom of the internet, web3 would have to do something useful enough for people to actually want to use it. So far there is no evidence of that.
Also agreed - I don't think it would be a threat to the freedom of the internet.
Look, no one forces any of us to use the obnoxious websites. For many of them, there are alternatives (email), and for the worst offenders, abstaining is easy, and the only option (social media).
The old-school internet and web will always be available, ready to use, and superior in almost every way to the dumpster fire of modern websites.
Did anyone else experience a palpable feeling of euphoria when visiting OP's website? For me, it was blissful and uncanny. Here is a webpage with design pulled non-ironically straight out of 1999, which also somehow feels like it was made in 1999. Not a hipster's prerequisite "indie-web" presence, not an emulation or demonstration built in a framework -- a simple, flat-file webpage that speaks to the defense of the original web, and in the native tongue.
Perhaps we should encourage web3. After all, it is by virtue of this crisis that so many more people are realizing why even web 2.0 was mostly just a commercialization of web, and has changed us for the worse.
>> Look, no one forces any of us to use the obnoxious websites.
<Not really true. The network effect. You get to be isolated and lose your friends if you don't.
I may be misunderstanding your point (if so, my apologies), but if someone is a friend, an actual, real friend, not an online acquaintance, there are many, many ways to stay in touch and maintain those relationships that have nothing to do with online social media sites.
I'd posit that if someone is unwilling to interact with you because you don't wish to use the same social media site, they're not really your "friend," just an acquaintance on (or a shill for) some social media site(s).
People say this but that's not my experience. People just don't keep up by other means and some people just don't even have or use other means at all. In some places, Facebook is the entire Internet, for example. I have exchange student friends from all over the world and I would 100% lose contact with them if I left certain platforms/apps. This has no bearing on whether we have deep friendships (and sometimes more) or not.
>I have exchange student friends from all over the world and I would 100% lose contact with them if I left certain platforms/apps.
Then those folks aren't your friends. Feel free to disagree (as I'm sure you do), but if such folks actually gave a rat's ass about you, they'd use one or more of the dozen or so other ways to stay in touch should you leave such social media sites.
I can't (and wouldn't pretend to) speak for anyone else, but I want to be around folks who want to be around me. And not all of those.
tl;dr: If someone's "friendship" is contingent on the use of a particular website/app, then they're not really your friend.
I definitely disagree with you and you're being extremely condescending, patronizing and dismissive. Have some respect. You have no say in who my friends are and who cares about me. You have no knowledge about that. They definitely do care about me and I definitely do care about them.
I think you live in some kind of bubble where people have more choices than they do. You also forget that your friends would stop visiting you if they couldn't drive, even if bus, train and walking were available. That's just the way things are. People have lives and limitations, and that doesn't make the connections or exchanges between them any less valuable to any party.
>I definitely disagree with you and you're being extremely condescending, patronizing and dismissive.
Yes, we do disagree. But there's no reason to attack me for not agreeing with you.
I don't know you and don't care about you (except in a general, wishing all sentient life a positive experience, sense), nor do I care about your friends or family.
I related my experience and the views those experiences have engendered in me.
There was no intent to be any of the things you ascribe to me and it appears that you take offense to my point of view. Fair enough.
And since I want to be around folks who want to be around me and you're clearly not one of those, we can avoid the dishonesty of false pleasantries (which, it seems, you've already decided to do) and get on with our lives.
I wish you a good day and much success in whatever endeavours you undertake.
I mean, you were being a bit condescending? You're also quite wrong, in that you define "friendship" in a very strict way that doesn't comport with how other people use the term. It's quite possible to have friends that aren't close friends; people whom you have fun with, whose lives you would prefer to be able to know something about, but whom you wouldn't go out of your way to keep up with if it became inconvenient. These people still count as friends.
To put it another way, I have family I would lose touch with if I left Facebook. They're still family and I would still prefer to know if they graduated college or got cancer or died. Same with friends-who-aren't-close.
>I mean, you were being a bit condescending? You're also quite wrong, in that you define "friendship" in a very strict way that doesn't comport with how I use the term.
If we're diving to /. depth here (as you seem to want to do), I'll go with it.
I have never used social media sites like Facebook, and I have not lost touch with any of my friends.
Not even kidding, the postal service still works quite efficiently, and email is very useful.
Part of the problem here may be generational definitions. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think the definition of "friend" has changed quite a bit since the pre-web days.
All of these technologies are tools. If your friends are really friends, you'll use whatever tools you need, and even if significant time passes, you'll still be friends when you finally connect on the other side.
