Join the chatroom to ask for an account or meet the community!

When I coined the term "Web 3.0", the term "Darknet", in my eyes, meant an anonymous network overlaying the internet, such as I2P/Tor. Therefore, I crafted the term Web 3.0 to describe an envisioned network that would create a colony of Redditors on I2P, in light of possible SOPA censorship which could shut down Reddit.

Since I had worked on making I2P communities for {a certain notorious anarchic group}, and they all described such their network as a "darknet", my experience caused me to transpose their goals onto the "darknetplan". All espoused a far off dream of making a mesh network, where they expressly stated was not a "darknet" as they understood it.

However, the goal of this project was expressly to make a hypothetical mesh network, completely independent from the internet. And therefore, No Tor, and No I2P.

I would strongly suggest working otherwise, since we should start with solutions that can be implemented immediately, not in an indeterminate amount of time, because of the looming threat of the SOPA. Get to the moon before mars right? However that is another argument entirely.

Also, Web 3.0 can still seem like a great name, when you think that Web x.x defines how users use the internet. It would have been a great analogy if the terms were right, Web 1.0 was when companies fed users content, Web 2.0 is where users make their own content. So it seemed like a logical extension to say that Web 3.0 will be

I probably got this thought from reading "The World is Flat", where Friedman takes the "Web 2.0" buzzword and spun it to encompass the globalization of nations (Globalization 1.0), then of companies, (Globalization 2.0), and finally of the individual (Globalization 3.0).

As a media buzzword, this may be true in popular usage, but it is totally illogical in the eyes of a web developer. In their usage, Web 1.0 was only how websites were developed with hyperlinks and a top-down content distribution system. Also, the true definition of Web 2.0, in their eyes, means the technology that gives users the ability to create content, not how people actually act on the internet. In fact, the buzzword has nothing to do with the internet at all (which is defined here as TCP/IP)

Web 3.0 should be when users take control of the infrastructure of the internet itself

This statement has therefore used the wrong term. We could perhaps salvage it by stating that Web 3.0 may mean "technologies that allow users to stay anonymous", but as stated before, the Web has nothing to do with the Net.

Category:Wat Category:Internet Category:Articles that need more categories