Web3 learn page #5629
Web3 learn page #5629
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
content 🖋️
Gatsby Cloud Build Reportethereum-org-website-dev 🎉 Your build was successful! See the Deploy preview here. Build Details🕐 Build time: 9m PerformanceLighthouse report
|
src/content/web3/index.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| # Introduction to web3 {#introduction} | ||
|
|
||
| Centralization has helped onboard billions of people to the internet and created the stable, robust infrastructure on which it lives. At the same time, these centralized entities have a stronghold on large swathes of the internet, undemocratically deciding what should and should not be allowed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
deciding what should and should not be allowed.
This also feels a bit vague. "Allowed" in what sense? What is allowed to exist on the internet?
Perhaps we could be a bit more specific about how they decide:
- who can participate (who gets network access)
- how people participate (what features are supported)
- how revenue is divided
- how user data is secured
- overall, how internet users consume, create & interact with information
src/content/web3/index.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| #### Governance {#governance} | ||
|
|
||
| As a Web2 platform increases in popularity, the power of the individual user's opinion decreases. Simultaneously, the power of the platform's governing body wields also increases. Over time, this power imbalance can spiral out of control until the platform can ignore grievances with no repercussions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I might incorporate to this section: platforms currently have the power to change the rules at any time. e.g. users typically have no say whenever a company updates their terms of use.
src/content/web3/index.md
Outdated
| #### Governance {#governance} | ||
|
|
||
| As a Web2 platform increases in popularity, the power of the individual user's opinion decreases. Simultaneously, the power of the platform's governing body also increases. Over time, this power imbalance can spiral out of control until the platform can ignore grievances with no repercussions. | ||
|
|
||
| Web3 empowers users to participate in the decision making of a platform through tokens. A recent example of this is Ethereum Name Service (ENS), which distributed 25% of its voting rights to existing users by sending ENS tokens to their wallets. Anyone with ENS tokens can vote on proposals about the future of ENS. ENS is a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) because its ownership gets distributed amongst its token holders. | ||
|
|
||
| _In Web2, you can refuse to use a platform; in Web3, you can vote to change it._ | ||
|
|
||
| <ButtonLink to="/dao/"> | ||
| More on DAOs | ||
| </ButtonLink> | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not a huge fan of this section. Governance as described is perfectly possible within the context of Web2, and something that doesn't function like a DAO may still be a completely viable web3 application. I think governance is orthogonal to the ideals of web3. The same patterns can (and probably will) emerge within the context of web3.
Many things will be built by someone who chooses to ignore their users. Web3 is about giving user's the power to "vote with their feet" without having to leave behind the content they provided (because they own their own data, and data is permissionless), not about constraining the types of mechanisms that builders use to decide what they want to build.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree with this critique!
The final sentence feels a bit problematic to me - I think one of the big problems with web2 is that, because the small group of web2 mega-platforms are so deeply embedded in mainstream web infrastructure, trying to boycott them is ostracizing for most users. Also in web3 the power of individual votes to influence platforms seems overrated.
The value of web3 (imho) is that you can walk away from a specific web3 platform with your data at any time with minimal consequences for your overall web3 experience. Also permissionlessness and open source by default discourages apps becoming too monopolistic because alternative versions can be built quickly from forks (e.g. uni/sushi).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would overall agree with the comments here. How a particular platform governs itself is kinda separate to what makes something web3... I would honestly just consider dropping this section
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
src/content/web3/index.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| OnlyFans is a user-generated adult content site with over 1-million content creators, many of which use the platform as their primary source of income. In August 2021, OnlyFans announced plans to ban sexually explicit content. The announcement sparked outrage amongst creators on the platform, who felt they were getting robbed of an income on a platform they helped create. After the backlash, the decision got quickly reversed. | ||
|
|
||
| Web 2.0 requires content creators to trust platforms not to change the rules, but censorship resistance is a native feature of a web3 platform. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not very clear how this example demonstrates censorship resistance. To me this shows a centralized web2 company reacting to their users threatening to vote with their feet - pretty much what we previously suggested was a strength of web3.
I see censorship resistance as an ideal that relies on applications being composed of a front-end connected to permissionless code living on a blockchain such that pressuring/threatening/sanctioning/bribing individuals does nothing to prevent users from interacting with that code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, I would agree with this comment. This is kind of an example of how OnlyFans could have banned if they wanted to. A social graph build on decentralized rails could allow creators to port their content to another interface for example, or have it served on many front-ends, so if one decides to filter out content, users can just use another one where the same creator is listed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The idea was to show a tangible example of the power held by Web2 companies to censor users. The fact that it was flouted wasn't meant to be important.
Overall I like this example because it's popular, relatable, and apolitical. Taking into account we want this to be approachable to newbies I think we should start with some sort of tangible example of censorship.
Do we think expanding this example to talk how despite this attempt at censorship failing due to users threatening to vote with their feet, they would have lost all of their data/reputation/followers otherwise and then discussing how open permissionless code fixes this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think there are better examples where censorship succeeded (like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Using an example where the censorship failed to censor people makes for a poor example for why we need censorship resistant systems.
For any successful censorship, there will almost always be some people who agree with it, which is why it is able to stick around. This means that successful censorship examples will essentially always be political. It is only "apolitical" in the cases where the censorship fails (because everyone agrees it is bad).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've created a ticket to iterate on this. Merging this PR for now and will rethink this example in the first iteration.
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@minimalsm Looking awesome overall! 💪🏻 Left some comments for ya =)
src/content/web3/index.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Most people think of the internet as a continuous pillar of modern life—it was invented and has just existed since. However, the internet most of us know today is quite different from originally imagined. To understand this better, it's helpful to break the internet's short history into loose periods—web 1.0 and web 2.0. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Web1: Read-Only {#web1} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason we go between WebX syntax and Web X.0 syntax? Just curious I guess, wondering if it's needed
We also should standardize between WebX and webX in the middle of a sentence. Is there any such consensus? I feel like I lean towards lowercase, but not a hill I care to die on in the slightest
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason we go between WebX syntax and Web X.0 syntax? Just curious I guess, wondering if it's needed
It's kinda confusing because Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 are pretty standard. Gavin coined it as 'Web 3.0' and somewhere along the line it became just 'Web3'.
So the currently used terms seem to be:
- Web 1.0
- Web 2.0
- Web3
Kinda messy...
I think the best solution is to exclusively use Web 1.0, and Web 2.0. Then, use Web3.0 for the read-write-own heading and introductory paragraph and prepend an explanation that it evolved to become known as Web3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We also should standardize between WebX and webX in the middle of a sentence. Is there any such consensus? I feel like I lean towards lowercase, but not a hill I care to die on in the slightest
Yup, agree. Also no strong opinions. I'll do a little digging into what the current standard leans towards.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the best solution is to exclusively use Web 1.0, and Web 2.0. Then, use Web3.0 for the read-write-own heading and introductory paragraph and prepend an explanation that it evolved to become known as Web3
If the first two were called Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, it feels like we should call it Web 3.0 everywhere. If people want to shorthand that elsewhere that is up to them, but I feel like for more formal documentation, FAQs, websites, etc. we should use the more consistent/strict terminology.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, I don't think I'd agree here.
I don't think going against the common nomenclature for consistency of style makes sense. The term has evolved (e.g. Gavin, despite being credited as coining 'Web 3.0' has the 'Web3 Foundation') and I think we should refer to it as it known now. Otherwise, we might leave readers confused (i.e. they've read about Web 3.0, is Web3 different?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'> > I think the best solution is to exclusively use Web 1.0, and Web 2.0. Then, use Web3.0 for the read-write-own heading and introductory paragraph and prepend an explanation that it evolved to become known as Web3
If the first two were called
Web 1.0andWeb 2.0, it feels like we should call itWeb 3.0everywhere. If people want to shorthand that elsewhere that is up to them, but I feel like for more formal documentation, FAQs, websites, etc. we should use the more consistent/strict terminology.'
Web3 is not shorthand for Web 3.0. There is a missing gap here.
There is:
Web 1.0 - Read-only.
Web 2.0 - Read-write.
Web 3.0 - Semantic Web.
The final one did exist in some textbooks (some I used to teach myself), but never stuck in the mainstream.
Then there is our version, Web3 or web3. This is how the term is used and understood by the majority of Ethereum users. They do not think it is shorthand for Web 3.0 (and, technically speaking, it's not given that means the Semantic Web) and I believe they would consider us idiosyncratic to be using the more outdated 3.0.
It's a confusing term, but I think over time we'll see Web3/web3 stabilise nicely.
src/content/web3/index.md
Outdated
| #### Governance {#governance} | ||
|
|
||
| As a Web2 platform increases in popularity, the power of the individual user's opinion decreases. Simultaneously, the power of the platform's governing body also increases. Over time, this power imbalance can spiral out of control until the platform can ignore grievances with no repercussions. | ||
|
|
||
| Web3 empowers users to participate in the decision making of a platform through tokens. A recent example of this is Ethereum Name Service (ENS), which distributed 25% of its voting rights to existing users by sending ENS tokens to their wallets. Anyone with ENS tokens can vote on proposals about the future of ENS. ENS is a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) because its ownership gets distributed amongst its token holders. | ||
|
|
||
| _In Web2, you can refuse to use a platform; in Web3, you can vote to change it._ | ||
|
|
||
| <ButtonLink to="/dao/"> | ||
| More on DAOs | ||
| </ButtonLink> | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would overall agree with the comments here. How a particular platform governs itself is kinda separate to what makes something web3... I would honestly just consider dropping this section
src/content/web3/index.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| OnlyFans is a user-generated adult content site with over 1-million content creators, many of which use the platform as their primary source of income. In August 2021, OnlyFans announced plans to ban sexually explicit content. The announcement sparked outrage amongst creators on the platform, who felt they were getting robbed of an income on a platform they helped create. After the backlash, the decision got quickly reversed. | ||
|
|
||
| Web 2.0 requires content creators to trust platforms not to change the rules, but censorship resistance is a native feature of a web3 platform. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, I would agree with this comment. This is kind of an example of how OnlyFans could have banned if they wanted to. A social graph build on decentralized rails could allow creators to port their content to another interface for example, or have it served on many front-ends, so if one decides to filter out content, users can just use another one where the same creator is listed.
Co-authored-by: Paul Wackerow <54227730+wackerow@users.noreply.github.com>
| @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ import Breadcrumbs from "../components/Breadcrumbs" | |||
| import Card from "../components/Card" | |||
| import Callout from "../components/Callout" | |||
| import Contributors from "../components/Contributors" | |||
| import FeedbackCard from "../components/FeedbackCard" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Should we add this to all static pages? (I don't see any downside.)
- Does this require anything else to make this work w/Matomo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should work natively with Matomo, and will send an event w/ the URL associated. Agree we should roll this out
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also agree we should roll this out on every page!
|
@wackerow not sure what you mean? We're now consistently using 'Web3' throughout. |
|
Hah redacted... think GitHub was showing me an outdated version when I made that comment |
Description
Add new "Web3" page
Preview deploy:
https://ethereumorgwebsitedev01-newweb3page.gtsb.io/en/web3
Related Issue
#5105 - Explain Web3