Other tech (like, RDF) already tried to claim the term “web 3,” years ago.
That was Web 3.0. Which in some ways makes this even more egregiously cringe. It's just different enough to be different and just similar enough to be confusing, while simultaneously conveying no semantic information at all (which to be fair, neither did "Web 3.0", which is kinda ironic...).
The "Web 3" promoters want to drive away any critical thinking or critical thinkers: they can't afford to have anything between feeling FOMO and pushing the "buy" button.
They don't mind if people on the cluetrain are offended by "Web 3" or Bored Apes or other junk, they only want to speak to people who aren't on the cluetrain.
Comments
Other tech (like, RDF) already tried to claim the term “web 3,” years ago.
That was Web 3.0. Which in some ways makes this even more egregiously cringe. It's just different enough to be different and just similar enough to be confusing, while simultaneously conveying no semantic information at all (which to be fair, neither did "Web 3.0", which is kinda ironic...).
For that matter isn't the thing that "Web 3" is going to replace "Web 2.0?"
My take is that "Web 3" is a deliberate choice in the sense that the Nigerian scam emails are deliberately badly spelled.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
The "Web 3" promoters want to drive away any critical thinking or critical thinkers: they can't afford to have anything between feeling FOMO and pushing the "buy" button.
They don't mind if people on the cluetrain are offended by "Web 3" or Bored Apes or other junk, they only want to speak to people who aren't on the cluetrain.
Thus there is no fixing "Web3", just killing it.