Let me flip the question: if you think that "this" web3 has no value, what kind of web do you think could be built by and for those who don't trust FAANG?
I am not even asking you to do anything. I am just asking you to think of an alternative.
No. This web is controlled by these "some companies". They monopolize social media, e-commerce, games, telecommunication platforms. Billions of people go by assuming that Facebook is the internet.
Go ahead and try to live on the internet without being forced to interact with any of FAANG services. It's impossible even for me, who tries to keep as strict of a "digital hygiene" as possible and use open source and open standards as much as possible.
If you think that we can not improve on the web that we have today, either your standards are way too low or you already got so used to be manipulated by Big Tech that you can't even imagine how much better and freer life could be without it.
To add to your comment. It is more fundamental. Modern protocols and standards -- from WebAssembly to TLS 1.3, to QUIC are FAANG controlled, we like it or not.
There was a post recently on hackernews about forcing client support of SNI being problematic according to some people.
So the effect of FAANG is far more fundamental; beyond ads and content that is.
> They monopolize social media, e-commerce, games, telecommunication platforms. Billions of people go by assuming that Facebook is the internet.
how exactly web3 is supposed to fix that?
> or you already got so used to be manipulated by Big Tech
assuming without knowing is the worst form of arrogance.
but even if that was true, I don't believe that the guy in the small village here in Italy that makes olive oil and sell it on Amazon to markets he could never even imagine existed is going to go decentralized and trustless just because Amazon is virtually a monopoly.
FAANG provided opportunities that have much more value for people than idealism (that doesn't even work!)
By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation.
> FAANG provided opportunities
Sure. It also blocked them. It also has created massive costs to people. It has also created Surveillance Capitalism. It employs thousands of people whose sole job is dedicated to keep its users addicted. It is creating a society of people who can "connect" with anyone on the other side of the world, but who get anxiety attacks if they have to talk with their own neighbor next door. It is destroying all chance of civil discourse, making groups increasingly polarized and isolated.
> that have much more value for people than idealism
To some people. Good for them. When it works, it is great. The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage?
> (that doesn't even work!)
It works for some cases, and it works for some people. There is no technology in human history that was "born" perfectly ready for mass-usage. And there shouldn't be.
I'm not advocating here that we should all be dropping the systems and institutions that work, just to adopt something for the sake of "new tech". What I am saying is that there are whole lots of groups who are not being served by the current systems and institutions, and that we can do more than collectively shrug our shoulders and/or attack those who are attempting to create a solution.
> By providing a set of tools that allow (but not require) disintermediation.
How exactly is it gonna make people do the switch from Google search, Google maps, WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Netflix, iPhones/MacBooks etc.?
> The question is: what about those people who don't get to enjoy these benefits? And can we get to provide this value without having all this collateral damage?
Make your own website, communicate via e-mail, host your own mail server, etc.
FAANG is not "the web" and "the web" is not the Internet.
> It works for some cases, and it works for some people
I don't think it actually works, or to put it in other words, it works like casinos in Las Vegas work.
But that they improve society it's highly questionable IMO.
> How exactly is it gonna make people do the switch from Google search...
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The issue is not in getting people to consume the services that are "freely" available. The issue is in enabling people to participate both as consumers as well as producers in the larger economy without depending on intermediaries.
Instead of "get people out of Google Search", think "allow people to buy and sell things online without depending on Paypal" or "how can we have an alternative for the small olive oil producer in Amazon if for some reason Amazon decides to enter the market and abuses its power?"
> The issue is in enabling people to participate both as consumers as well as producers in the larger economy without depending on intermediaries.
larger than what exactly?
How web3 is gonna make it possible?
I can already send my tomato sauce produced by my family to Japan by simply putting up a website.
what could web3 make for my family?
> allow people to buy and sell things online without depending on Paypal
it's been possible for at last 20 years.
I pay using my credit card, not Paypal.
In Europe I can use SEPA transfers (usually free), SEPA Instant Credit Transfer (they cost me about 90 cents, money is transferred in seconds), the new PSD2 directive allow merchants to withdraw money directly from customers' accounts after being authorized and I believe GNU Taler is a much better option than any wallet solution web3 is proposing.
People can pay using any channel already available, they can also send me cash in an envelope if they want to, I'll gladly accept it.
And any of those systems (except cash in an envelope) are protected from fraud, insured, and refundable in full.
What about Web3?
Technically depending on Paypal is a choice.
Of course if you are talking about the possibility that your shady or illegal business will be banned from using one of those payment systems, well, that's a feature, not a bug.
You sound just like David Letterman when interviewing Bill Gates in 1995 ("why would I need a computer?", "oh, you mean I can listen the baseball game. Does radio ring a bell?") https://youtu.be/fs-YpQj88ew?t=155
> Of course if you are talking about the possibility that your shady or illegal business
This, right here, is the problem. The problem is that because you have all the privileges (SEPA, access to international transfers and open markets, etc, etc, etc) you think that only "shady" and "illegal" business will want to do these things.
Try being someone living in Argentina or Venezuela, who simply wants to work as a web designer with someone else from another continent. See how much Paypal (and by PayPal, I mean any money transmitting service) will eat in fees. See what exchange rate will be made available by the government.
> You sound just like David Letterman when interviewing Bill Gates
So you're comparing Web3 with the computer and the internet revolution, but are not even able to tell me what's the advantage over current technologies, that are still evolving?
> The problem is that because you have all the privileges
You mean we have found a solution to a problem?
> Try being someone living in Argentina or Venezuela
My uncle is from Argentina.
He's not looking for web3, he's looking for political stability and blames US for installing a totalitarian regime that destroyed his country that killed 30 thousand people, created 30,000 desaparecidos and imprisoned 400,000 [1]
You've never spoken to someone from poorer countries, did you?
Anyway, if someone from Argentina build a website, I can send them money directly to their bank account from my European bank account.
No intermediary necessary, except good old banks.
My instinct tells me that the only thing people in web3 "space" (it's more like a cult) are interested in is avoiding taxes and keeping their money hidden.
> The fact that your uncle is not "looking for web3" does not mean that other people are not using it.
the fact that a couple of your friends are using it, doesn't make it "Letterman interviewing Gates" material.
(btw, Letterman was being facetious, as per usual Letterman)
> And, fiy, I was born and raised in Brazil.
which is 10th economy by GDP in the World, just below Italy, my country, in front of many of what you called "privileged" European countries, such as Spain or the Netherlands...
More importantly: sending money to Brazil from Europe costs me a fixed Euro 0.5-0.6, plus maximum 1% of the sum (if sending up to Euro 115, less if sending more).
Very cheap, if you ask me.
> Your instinct is wrong. I can not do anything about that.
You could tell us why you are not able to explain what's the advantage for the average internet user, except avoiding taxes and hiding money...
Look at the numbers per capita, and look at the economic inequality indicators.
> sending money to Brazil from Europe
How much of these 100€ are going to get to the hands of the recipient, if sent by the "traditional" route? How fast can this money be made available to the recipient? What exchange rate is going to be used, the one offered to big international traders or the shitty one that banks offer to tourists? How much will be taken in fees by the banks? (not taxes, fees...).
I'll tell you: there is a good chance that middlemen are going to eat 7-12% of those 100€, just because they can and no competitor can challenge them.
And this is only for the first movement. What if the recipient in Brazil wants to have the money to buy something back in any other part of the world?
> You could tell us why you are not able to explain what's the advantage for the average internet user
Much like Bill Gates could not really explain the advantage of the internet to a privileged person in 1990's America?
Honestly?! I am tired. I might be throwing tens of different possible use-cases, and to all of them your reaction will be "I can do that already, all I need is <insert middleman service provider>". There isn't much to say, is there? If you are satisfied with the status quo and you don't see a need for decentralized technology meant for disintermediation, good for you.
> How much of these 100€ are going to get to the hands of the recipient, if sent by the "traditional" route?
Are you trolling or what?
If I send 100 euros to Brazil it will cost me 101.6 euros.
I pay the fee.
The recipient gets the 100.
If the recipient pays the fee, they get the 98.4% of it.
If I send 1,000 euros, it will cost 9.5 euros to send. The recipient get > 99%
how much does it cost to move money over web3 wallets?
because it is not free..
they can be free if you move them from a coinbase wallet to another coinbase wallet (for example)
If I have to chose, I prefer centralized banks over centralized coinbase.
> Much like Bill Gates could not really explain the advantage of the internet to a privileged person in 1990's America?
Bill Gates in the 90s wanted to sell MSN not internet.
You got your facts completely wrong.
And you can't still explain the advantages.
Except "it's hidden from governments, it cuts the middle man, I don't pay taxes over it"
like if maintaining the network was free.
Go hide your money and avoid your taxes if you like, but people don't want that.
They want safe tools, not useless, mob oriented, expensive scams.
If you really believe that people would prefer an insecure web3 wallet that has no safety and offer no guarantees, over a system like SEPA, you're delusional or a criminal.
> What if the recipient in Brazil wants to have the money to buy something back in any other part of the world?
Drug cartels do it all the time and they pay up to 40% in fees.
If that's your business, understand that it's a costly one.
If your only argument is "international, probably illegal, traffic of goods is gonna be easier" well, it's a very poor argument.
Imagine now that we are sanctioning Russia for invading Ukraine what would happen if everybody could freely make business with Russia unpunished.
You send Euros. The recipient gets Brazilian Reais. This exchange fee goes through a bank. The bank takes more fees.
You continue to argue from a vantage point of someone who does not understand how the other side works and who only see the abstractions.
That is perfectly fine, and I am glad that you are fortunate enough to not need to learn that. But don't pretend that you understand all the costs involved, or how the sausage is made, or even that your solutions are applicable to everyone else.
Take a look at this thread here [0], see how people are either stuck in a sense of either "it's not possible to live without using WhatsApp. Resistance is futile" or "Apple does everything I need to live a happy and peaceful life".
The "whole thing" is a mess of Surveillance Capitalism that serves no one but the elites, who is shaped to keep us in a constant state of anxiety and fear to try anything different and with enough energy to be able to do nothing but consume the crap they want us to consume.
Yes, it's very easy to cherry pick one product and say "I can live without it".
The important question is: "can society at large use the web without being forced to use products that exploit their data and/or locks them into rent-seeking vendors?"
