←back to thread

622 points ColinWright | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.291s | source
Show context
letsburnthis ◴[] No.30080218[source]
Have the definitions of web 1.0 and 2.0 authoritatively been decided? The general idea I've seen has been that web 1.0 was decentralized and web 2.0 is centralized, but it seems kind of odd to separate the generations of something as impactful as the internet the same way you would separate generations of the iphone. It almost seems like it would make more sense to define generations at the same scale as the internet itself which is communication.

(full disclosure zero research has gone into this, I didn't live through web 1.0, and I know nothing about how the web works).

In my head, web 1.0 was the automation of one-way communication. You could request a site and the equivalent of a newspaper was sent to you; and anyone else who requested the same site was sent the same newspaper. If you wanted to order something you had to call the phone-number listed on that website, same as if you had seen an ad in a newspaper. Two-way communication existed but it was the equivalent of a really fast mail and was for the most part was between people over the internet rather than with the internet.

Web 2.0, suddenly if you requested a site you get a different version with different ads than someone else making the same request; without a person choosing for you to see those different ads. You can place an order and human doesn't get involved until that item needs to be picked off the shelf to be transported in meat space. Now the internet is 2-way communication, you make a request and it responds to you in seemingly unique ways. The internet itself is replacing some of the human effort that goes into communication. Before it was just transporting human information, now it's responding.

So what's left now that the internet has conquered communicating in two-directions through space? Time. If you want information (ideas, values, whatever) to transmit through time you create institutions. Something that is resilient so that it survives mostly intact and that is enforced to ensure compliance. Web 3.0 seems to fit that. Immutable (if desired), enforcement is achieved from the immutable code itself, and it runs on belief (the more people that are part of it the stronger its self-sustaining characteristics). It might also explain why all the big blockchain uses have been activities traditionally controlled by institutions (money, property, contracts).

replies(2): >>30080309 #>>30082252 #
1. erulabs ◴[] No.30082252[source]
I’ve always thought of it as being about the technology:

Web0: universities and TCP

Web1: data centers and HTTP

Web2: cloud and JavaScript

Web3: blockchain and JavaScript

There really isn’t a name for home hosting. That has never really been the status quo. At any rate, home hosting needs some augmented infrastructure (like backups, DDNS, etc). So possibly:

Web4: homes and CDNs