Could Tim Berners-Lee's Web 3.0 solve the ills of the internets current iteration?

[99call]

I was only exposed to this the other day on another topic. TBL's plan to decentralise the internet, and place users back in charge/ownership of their own data, sounds like absolute dream scenario to me. Does this have a real chance on pulling the plug on what TBL calls "surveillance capitalism" and other negatives like misinformation, monopolies etc. 

NOTE: there also appears to be a common point of confusion 'Web 3.0'.  is not 'Web3' 

 

https://solidproject.org/about

[99call]

[El Presidente]

Delusional. Albeit well intentioned.

AI started at Oxford. Unfortunately, much like Oz, there is a lack of entrepreneurialism.

Two geezers in their 110's are not going to move the needle..

But please continue dreaming 😉

[99call]

49 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Delusional. Albeit well intentioned.

AI started at Oxford. Unfortunately, much like Oz, there is a lack of entrepreneurialism.

Two geezers in their 110's are not going to move the needle..

But please continue dreaming 😉

I don't understand you're mentioning of AI, is it relevant in this discussion? I know it's relevant to everything these days, but it doesn't seem central to this specifically. 

TBL gave away the web once, and is looking to do it again. He's 69, he's hardly on the knackers yard Rob, how old are you? Are you considering the scrap heap?

I don't think you can simply discredit something out of hand, if the technology is at a point where a country (Belgium) has started adopting it into their systems of government. 

Millions of users and in some cases government institutions (Germany) are fleeing X in favour of Bluesky. If your talking about entrepreneurialism, there is a growing cohort of people that are sick to the guts of the current state of play. You could argue that there is the same if not more money available to be made, but the power would simply be in the end users hands. People need to use the internet, people want to use the internet, they would simply have more say over who they support. There is competition in the online CC merchant space. I have assessed which is the most appealing option to me, and FOH is my pick. Why should I be railroaded into spending my money with companies I find to be repellent, just because a specific marketplace has been monopolised?

For you personally Rob, if your data was held in a 'pod' and you controlled which companies you interacted with, would that not be the ideal, would you not build a bespoke experience, whereby A, you don't get bombarded with shit, B, your not constantly concerned about security  and C, you actively get the ability to support and promote businesses you wanted to support and build.      

I don't get where this is anti-business or actually and improvement to entrepreneurialism. 

[El Presidente]

Last thoughts before I retire.

More folk have joined X in the last month than left. Good on them.

Bluesky is tbe left version of Fox. Good on them.

Peeps will find their mojo. 

Governments on three or four year terms are quickly realising the influence of social media platforms and podcasts. 

Govs are going to war on them. I am not sure they will win as they are voted in by an addicted electorate. 

In a democracy, you get what you deserve. Good bad or otherwise.

 

What peeves me off about videos like this?

They have built nothing

They have no influence 

They will change nothing

I largely agree with them

It is cerebral masturbation.

 

[99call]

8 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Delusional. 

You do realise more folk have joined X ( i am not one of them),than have left it in the last month?

God bless Bluesky. It is the current left wing solace. Know your market. They are positioning themselves as the Fox of the left and there is nothing wrong with that.

Entrepreneurism in the digital space? I have a cackle at the number of non US needle movers. Tick-tock. CCP. Outside of that...squat.

NIVIDEA is as big as UK, German, French stock markets combined.

I wish the geezers  in the vid the best.

Here's the rub...Rob. 

You could argue that Amazon is the Lada of the current market space. A dead eyed socialist nightmare, one size fits all...the daily gruel dispensers right wingers like to get oh so frothy about. 

- I've got what you want in stock, come to my web page...haha! I don't really, but look at all this advertising. -> F-you pay me!

- You've paid for overnight delivery? Ok, your package is in the back of a 3rd parties Honda Civic, and he's got the sniffles...so you'll get it in 3 days. -> F-you pay me!

- Have a important signed-for package?...I'll leave it in full view on your doorstep in the rain. -> F-you pay me!

- Item arrived open and broke...ring our non existent customer services team, that will direct you to do all the leg work yourself. -> F-you pay me!

(Shit! I think I just got temporarily possessed by Ken)

With regards to Bluesky, I'm not on it...but I can observe the to and fro, and largely it looks like people sharing ideas, factual articles and not threatening to sodomise or behead one another every 5 seconds. All the bedwetting over free speech, just seems to be preserving the right to be offensive = the right to get more traction and keep people in a hate filled doom loop.   

Just got this from AI  🤣  ->.  In 2023, Twitter attracted 368.4 million monthly active users to the platform however in 2024 this dropped by 5% to around 335.7 million. This drop in use is likely due to the changes in ownership and rules around allowing previously banned public figures back on the platform and content moderation.

As per my comments on Bluesky Rob, this is not an argument about merits of right or left wing platforms/services. This is about shit and not shit platforms/services. I agree with you that maybe they will struggle to get it to market, beyond all the flashy lights, competition, and attacks (but then again, they are just going to give it away it seems). Surely it's a damning inditement of where we are...there is a service that places the customer 1st and the supplier 2nd...but...we are not going to have that because???  Of...well...greed and control.

[El Presidente]

I wish them well mate.

But the whole video was a plug. A sales pitch. Nothing wrong with that and I wish them well. Still, maybe announce it up front 😉

X numbers have collapsed since Elon made the buy. I only made reference to the last month's numbers. He paid 44 billion for X (from memory) and overall stock up $150 b since election...so he is not crying. 

I hope I am wrong but I doubt we will ever hear of these minions again.

[99call]

7 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I wish them well mate.

But the whole video was a plug. A sales pitch. Nothing wrong with that and I wish them well. Still, maybe announce it up front 😉

X numbers have collapsed since Elon made tbe buy. I only made reference to the last month's numbers. He paid 44 billion for X (from memory) and overall stock up $150 b since election...so he is not crying. 

I hope I am wrong but I doubt we will ever hear of these minions again.

As a theoretical Rob, 

If the product was brought to market, and worked as they suggest it would, and was given to you for free, do you think you personally would want it/use it, or are you opposed to it on a point of principle? 

[El Presidente]

7 hours ago, 99call said:

As a theoretical Rob, 

If the product was brought to market, and worked as they suggest it would, and was given to you for free, do you think you personally would want it/use it, or are you opposed to it on a point of principle? 

Bring it to a commercial level. We would no doubt have our team test it.

Motherhood statements/promises are all good and dandy.

Still, great advertisement. Snake oil or no.

[99call]

8 hours ago, El Presidente said:

They have built nothing

But you're just wrong about that Rob. From what I can gather the Solid organisation, seems to be inviting programmers to the platform to develop apps etc. Yes, none of them are house hold names, but they (from what I can work out) are designed to work on Solid...and Solid is not a house hold name. 

https://solidproject.org/apps

You keep on talking about 'bring to market' 'sales pitches' etc. He didn't bring the WWW to market, he just gave it to us. To me that is the greatest hurdle, giving stuff to people that are so hardwired by capitalism. 

Is TBL invention of the WWW a success? or is just a non-entity to you and you can't measure it in Dollars? If he had monetised it. he would be a multi trillionaire and would make Elon look like chump change. But who cares, he's not motivated by money, but rather positive change...is that an unworkable pitch? Here's a golden ingot, put it in your hand, its yours...it's free...is that a bad sales pitch??

[El Presidente]

7 hours ago, 99call said:

Is TBL invention of the WWW a success? or is just a non-entity to you and you can't measure it in Dollars?    

As much as a success as Two Oxford Scientists inventing AI. The UK could have been a central driver and tech powerhouse. Instead. 

People rabbit on about how the UK needs to tax more to solve issues regarding NHS/Housing/Schooling/inequality, etc.   They don't need to tax more, they simply need to to provide the right environment so that  entrepreneurial spirit ignites and prospers where UK taxpayers benefit. Same in most of Europe. Same in Oz. 

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda. 

The reality is that for whatever reason...they didn't.

[99call]

23 hours ago, El Presidente said:

As much as a success as Two Oxford Scientists inventing AI. The UK could have been a central driver and tech powerhouse. Instead. 

People rabbit on about how the UK needs to tax more to solve issues regarding NHS/Housing/Schooling/inequality, etc.   They don't need to tax more, they simply need to to provide the right environment so that  entrepreneurial spirit ignites and prospers where UK taxpayers benefit. Same in most of Europe. Same in Oz. 

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda. 

The reality is that for whatever reason...they didn't.

Firstly your Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda, is nonsense. TBL 'DID' revolutionise the world, by giving us the WWW free of charge or shackled by rules or regs. He hoped that it would be a tool of liberation and collaboration, and there is no doubt, much good has come from his endeavour, but sadly also lot so bad, it tells you a lot, when the creator is on the record as saying he was "devastated" upon learning Amazon and Google had filed patents to listen in on user 'mood shifts' and how that related to voting etc.

I see your Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda. as referring to the commercialisation of the product, and delivery to the end user. While I see that as obviously integral, and hugely important, and I'm grateful to those people of industry that have provided that service...it's not a bloody gift! I did buy my computer, I do pay for my internet etc etc. I would also be happy to pay a monthly charge to have control of my data. 

Basically what this all boils down to is that post 9/11 moment when industry hoped on the back of a bonfire of laws about accessing peoples personal data. 

Web 2.0. puts the the customer 2nd, and the supplier 1st and the user experience is terrible.

Web 3.0. illustrates the possibility where the supplier can still make as much money as they want (potentially more), but the customer is in control of their data. It actually makes it easier for the supplier to deliver what the customer wants in a bespoke manner. 

You mention the 'right environment' private companies have had an open goal and free reign in the UK for the last 15yrs, and the only brain power they have exerted is how to cook the books, fake performance statistics and completely rob the public purse dry. The reality is, they've done this because they are politically opposed to 'big government' and it's been a managed decline/demolition job. They haven't failed...they've succeeded. The UK press were really confused when there was so much laughter, joy and festivities at the last conservative party conference (after they had there biggest loss ever). It's because they knocked the ball out of the park, mission achieved, pats on the back all round. 

I can vaguely remember as a kid in the 80s Thatchers and Majors privatisation of public services.  As a kid I saw the media's portrayal, of the super clever city boys are coming to sort everything out, and making perfect sense to me. My dad was a public architect, I saw him as one of these clever people in suits. Growing up, I realised the difference. My dad chose to be a public architect, he genuinely cared about living standards, building standards, the communities that lived there. He was a hugely dedicated, talented, and growing up, I was always very proud of the contribution he'd made. I realised there were people like this, the builders, the creators, and there were people looking to strip public wealth, de-stabilise public assets, and replace them with private business. It's fair to say the scales fell from my eyes.

Now if the delivery from private business was superior for normal peoples lived experience, then I would be the 1st to start clapping, but it's not. As other countries have proved, you get one part of society spending £100.000's for best cancer treatment in the world, and others begging people NOT! to ring them an ambulance, after being knocked over, because they have no insurance, and the cost will financially ruin them.         

As ever very interesting to hear your thoughts Rob. I'll leave it there. I remain hopeful that one day they internet will look more like TBL original vision of what he created, and less like what developers have chosen to do with it. 

Cheers

[99call]

Updating this, as I’d be really interested in the opinions of members like @BrightonCorgi & @ha_banos. 

A few questions:

1, So many of today's ills seem to point to a re-imagining of personal date protection. Do you see TBL’s suggestion of “Personal Online Date Store” or PODS (and de-centralisation of the internet) the only logical path forwards? and if not, is it simply big techs unwillingness to give up that power, control and surveillance, the only real argument against it? 

2, Why does there seem to be a momentum within more established tech industries to try and muddy the waters by pushing “Web3",  which seems to be a completely different offering from TBL’s Web 3.0,  Is this purposeful distraction/obfuscation?. See.——>  https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/04/web-inventor-tim-berners-lee-wants-us-to-ignore-web3.html

On a personal note, It was great to hear that my own fair city of Manchester was trialing the use of TBL’s company Solid to try and fix and revolutionise the NHS’s data use/storage. See -----> https://www.ft.com/content/01480644-3ca3-486e-907d-4abf8aac1719

[BrightonCorgi]

Solid sounds like a cool technology. Centralized identity storage can have its own negatives should threat actors try to manipulate the data. If they are able to, everything about you in every aspect is now affected. It doesn't stop replicas of your data and ownership of a user keeping their pod accurate could be a challenge.

Solid sounds like a better alternative than relying on companies to comply with GDPR. If the companies only had a hash to store (for instance) and relied on an agreed API with the user, their burden on compliance would be much less.   

[99call]

10 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

If they are able to, everything about you in every aspect is now affected

I guess this is sort of the point, I would say huge swaths of the populations (rightly or wrongly) already feel this way. 

I've heard arguments to suggest, large data storage make it easier for hackers to throw all their resource at one singular victim/company. Whereas if you are just one of billions of average joes, it makes it harder for them to resource. I haven't the knowledge to know if there is any validity to that argument.

10 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Solid sounds like a better alternative than relying on companies to comply with GDPR.  If the companies only had a hash to store (for instance) and relied on an agreed API with the user, their burden on compliance would be much less. 

To me one of the greatest positives of 3.0 is that is does away with the poisonous nature of algorithms, profiling etc. I am very pro 'genuine' business and entrepreneurialism, but so much of business these days seems based on some version of theft or a scam, I think 3.0 would naturally benefit quality products and suppliers, and snuff out the hucksters. It will make the market place more competitive, more accurate, put invasive advertising in the bin, etc etc. I think it has the potential to detoxify the internet and improve it dramatically. 

Do you have any thoughts as to why there seems to be a huge effort push 'Web 3' to obfuscate as to what 'Web 3.0' is? To me, Web 3 just sound like tech bro bilge and another version of a scam, and trying to silence the conversation around 'Web 3.0'.

[BrightonCorgi]

10 hours ago, 99call said:

To me one of the greatest positives of 3.0 is that is does away with the poisonous nature of algorithms, profiling etc. 

Profiling and algorithms are still present in 3.0. Users still agree to data sharing for use of "free services". Companies can still have a copy of the user data that was agreed to be shared. I suspect there will be further GDPResque legislation in the future on what data can actually be store regardless of handling and hygiene. 

I'd be concern that threat actors could inflict more harm be taking control of someone's pod as that will corrupt everything associated to it. If someone hacks Facebook, it's only their data on you that is at risk. Not everywhere.

[99call]

8 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Profiling and algorithms are still present in 3.0. Users still agree to data sharing for use of "free services". Companies can still have a copy of the user data that was agreed to be shared. I suspect there will be further GDPResque legislation in the future on what data can actually be store regardless of handling and hygiene.

To my understanding, the data would be in owned by the user, and the advertising would in effect work in reverse. Say if I wanted to book a holiday, I could (temporarily) make the data in my POD available to a selected provider who could then intelligently and specially make myself offers designed specifically for me, based on my history. Once the purchase is made, that access is then removed. 

We need to get back to a recognition that we actually f**ing pay for things!!! That's the trade...not personal data + money in exchange for a service. It should just be money for the service...end of! Full stop! 

I don't know how that gets policed, but to me that's how I read the service they are describing. 

[BrightonCorgi]

8 hours ago, 99call said:

 To my understanding, the data would be in owned by the user, and the advertising would in effect work in reverse. Say if I wanted to book a holiday, I could (temporarily) make the data in my POD available to a selected provider who could then intelligently and specially make myself offers designed specifically for me, based on my history. Once the purchase is made, that access is then removed. 

We need to get back to a recognition that we actually f**ing pay for things!!! That's the trade...not personal data + money in exchange for a service. It should just be money for the service...end of! Full stop! 

I don't know how that gets policed, but to me that's how I read the service they are describing.

Users would end up waiving that right in order to be able to use their products.  

Personally, I avoid any free service. I don't use webmail and I pay for storage and email with my own domain. I don't use phone apps if there is a website that does the same.

[99call]

8 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Users would end up waiving that right in order to be able to use their products. 

I think is sort of depends how materialistic, or ethical a given consumer is. The web3 people seem to be trying to sell that model, i.e. some dead eyed capitalistic model, where people continue to opt to sell off their all privacy for 5% off a new garden hose.     

Yes, I'm sure many people will be tempted to bargain off their data for tidbits, but It would also allow people like me to have their choice, whereby, I would happily make all sorts of compromises not to give business to services I thought to be unethical. Basically, everyone gets to manage their POD as they see fit, but the core option should be to have your data safe and owned by you.

[ha_banos]

I do think once your data is accessed, well...it's out there. So consider yourself compromised. There's little value in one persons data. There's obviously a lot in everyone's data. Sad but true.

[BrightonCorgi]

5 hours ago, ha_banos said:

I do think once your data is accessed, well...it's out there. So consider yourself compromised. There's little value in one persons data. There's obviously a lot in everyone's data. Sad but true. 

Think of it beyond just name. DOB, and address. You add links clicks, terms queried, location data, seconds per page, etc...It does get pretty valuable. Add in machine learning and they can make you a sucker for a purchase/promotion pretty easily.

[ha_banos]

5 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Think of it beyond just name. DOB, and address. You add links clicks, terms queried, location data, seconds per page, etc...It does get pretty valuable. Add in machine learning and they can make you a sucker for a purchase/promotion pretty easily. 

My point stands I think. All that data for one average Joe. Not valuable. For millions of people, different story. How much might companies pay for this data one by one? Who knows. How would a smaller company find people? People would need to go find the company though. 

I'll admit I'm blind about web3. We do need to solve digital identity though.

[99call]

4 hours ago, ha_banos said:

How much might companies pay for this data one by one? Who knows. How would a smaller company find people? People would need to go find the company though. 

To me, this is the core mentality that needs addressing, i.e. how do we manage the transaction/taking of data? We've become so used to it, that we need to remember, it shouldn't actually be part of the transaction at all. It should just be money for a service...period. The popping of the balloon for mega monopolies in cutting them off from that data. If the principle of data for sale went out the window completely. 

100yrs ago, if I found out Robert Lewis Cigars had took the liberty, of selling the records of my buying habits, address to a third party for cash etc etc. I would be horrified and cut business with them immediately. We need to get back to the customer being in charge, not the service provider. 

Again, if someone wanted to sell their data off, that would be their choice, but unless I've completely got the wrong end of the stick, what Solid is suggesting is returning transactions back to simply money for services, with the data being retained by the customer.   

[BrightonCorgi]

3 hours ago, 99call said:

To me, this is the core mentality that needs addressing, i.e. how do we manage the transaction/taking of data? We've become so used to it, that we need to remember, it shouldn't actually be part of the transaction at all. It should just be money for a service...period. The popping of the balloon for mega monopolies in cutting them off from that data. If the principle of data for sale went out the window completely. 

100yrs ago, if I found out Robert Lewis Cigars had took the liberty, of selling the records of my buying habits, address to a third party for cash etc etc. I would be horrified and cut business with them immediately. We need to get back to the customer being in charge, not the service provider. 

Again, if someone wanted to sell their data off, that would be their choice, but unless I've completely got the wrong end of the stick, what Solid is suggesting is returning transactions back to simply money for services, with the data being retained by the customer.  

In all fairness, in regard to your example, Robert Lewis would've had you sign something that said they could do this. Just as you agreed when you clicked the check box to use "fill in the blank".

[99call]

3 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

In all fairness, in regard to your example, Robert Lewis would've had you sign something that said they could do this. Just as you agreed when you clicked the check box to use "fill in the blank". 

I disagree completely. It would have been a relationship of trust,  the 'good chaps' principle. I.e. if for their business they needed to keep ledgers and records etc, I would not have any issue with that, as long as it was kept in trust, kept safe, and nothing was done with it that benefited anyone else but me. 

The problem now is the 'good chaps' principle, is in the dirt, it's the wild west. People accept hidden agendas and underhand dealings as par for course like it's accepted human nature. I don't accept it, I think it's tragic, and depressing that this is what the marketplace has become. 

On a brighter note, I hope there is a path back to something more traditional, something more ethical, and enjoyable. On paper Web 3.0 seems to offer that.