Web 3.0 not only allows individuals to own their data but they will be compensated for their time spent on the web.
Web 3.0 is a vision for the next phase of the internet’s development that imagines a decentralized ecosystem based on blockchain technology. It would mark a departure from the centralized mega-platforms and corporations that dominate the ecosystem currently and, proponents claim, fix what’s wrong with the internet of today along with reversing the erosion of democracy. What do Web 3.0’s proponents believe is wrong with today’s online ecosystem? Web 3.0 is the latest Internet technology that leverages machine learning, artificial intelligence, and blockchain to achieve real-world human communication. The icing on the cake is that web 3.0 not only allows individuals to own their data but they will be compensated for their time spent on the web.
A small handful of winners in the technology industry – Meta and Amazon, to name two – dominate the closed and centralized ecosystem of the present. In many ways, they serve as gatekeepers or intermediaries to people’s digital lives. Because of the network effects of platforms that accumulate a critical mass of users, competing against them is incredibly challenging, even if someone were to develop a superior product. People who want to participate fully in society feel compelled to join these platforms. Their recommendation systems, product features, and community guidelines thus profoundly shape what content people consume in their daily lives, and the actors determined enough to figure out how to use them most effectively possess disproportionate influence.
A centralized ecosystem additionally implies that these gatekeepers can gather and involve tremendous measures of individuals’ data in ways individual users have restricted command over. Such an environment is powerless against abuse (as found in cases like the Cambridge Analytica scandal), data leaks, and plans of action reliant upon utilizing admittance to users’ data for micro-targeted advertising. Under this model, platforms feel pressure to design their services in ways that maximize user engagement and tracking, and those design choices do not always align with what is best for democratic values or the public good.
Why Do Some Think Web 3.0 Would Fix Any of This?
Defenders contend that Web 3.0 offers structural changes which render the innate issues of the present online ecosystem largely obsolete. Gavin Wood, sometimes described as the father of Web 3.0, explains that “platforms and apps built on Web3 won’t be owned by a central gatekeeper, but rather by users.” This is made conceivable by its blockchain infrastructure, the same technology that undergirds cryptocurrencies. In Web 3.0, there will at this point not be a requirement for huge, privately-owned data centers; instead, data is stored securely and distributed across many devices. Anybody with the means and specialized skill can make their gadget a hub in this framework. Such a design also reduces the risks of massive data leaks because data is no longer centrally stored.
But How Could Web 3.0 Reinvigorate Democracy and Overcome Deadlock?
Proponents of Web 3.0 believe it could reinvigorate democratic values at both the internet level and the societal level. It is argued that the Web 3.0 iteration of the internet will be structurally more democratic and free than what came before. The security and privacy of blockchain technology that undergirds Web 3.0 could serve as an incontrovertible check against government overreach or coercion. Its decentralized engineering will advance the privileges of people over generally strong entertainers by giving clients more decisions over how they associate on the web. The “one person, one vote” principle of equal representation would supposedly be built into Web 3.0’s very design with a token model used to power its applications.
Many make it a stride further, stating that Web 3.0 standards can be applied in manners that shape our disconnected lives, redesigning social orders to conquer political gridlock. One such model is known as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). DAOs are depicted as democratized, part-possessed, and web local associations without incorporated initiative. Whenever individuals from a DAO are discussing an authoritative choice, every part can offer a proposition and afterward vote on them utilizing administration tokens (or representative one more part to utilize their tokens to decide for their sake). When a basic greater part of the part held administration tokens requires a choice to be made, it is naturally executed. There is no requirement for a progressive design or confided in mediator at any phase of the interaction.
As per advocates of DAOs, this organizational model can eventually replace deadlocked and corrupt governments. This is because its structure creates what they call “liquid democracy” – an ideal mix of agents a majority rules government and direct majority rules system that can be applied at scale. Never again will residents need to put trust in a possibly crooked politician to represent their best interests or have to worry about popular legislation being blocked from a vote; instead, the DAO’s code automatically enacts the majority view of its members.