Hi, just woke up (well, I woke up an hour ago). Started the day by jumping straight into a documentary called "Line Goes Up", about the ongoing Web3, NFT, cryptocurrency, blockchain, etc. scam(s)/Ponzi Schemes that are happening all over the place. I watched half the documentary, as I couldn't (or wouldn't) sit through 2.5 hours of it, but, it had MUCH more detail of the technologies behind it (the Web3 hype) than I knew of, and of course it was super confusing (the details, not the doc, itself), and of course it basically just reaffirmed what I knew already - that all of "Web3" (and the related counterparts) are scams.

But, one thing that always comes up in the conversation around "Web3" is the idea of decentralization, and it sounds hella good (even though "Web3" has virtually NOTHING to do with the type of decntralization that anyone (or at least I) am interested in). For me, personally, the only "centralized" issue(s) that the WWW faces today, revolves mostly around social media (ALL of the networks), and I think it would be beneficial to not decentralize them, per se, but simply put a moderate amount of regulation on them. Facebook (and it's apps/services), Twitter, Snapchat, etc. CAN and SHOULD be open source services or/and offer self-hosted options, and therefore ad-free/private/safe/secure options for those willing to run their own versions (or instance (or basically a server with said software)) of a respective service. But, I do think that (maybe) centralization is the only thing making social networks appealing to start with (at least initially - now people are just hooked). If they (socal networks) were something like the IRL/physical world, it'd be like NYC (the people, the congestion, the infrastructure, the busy culture(s), etc.), and suggesting for the sake of sanity, mental health, the economy and even democracy, that we "spread out" the social media co's central(ized) control, is sort of like saying we would "spread out" the jurisdictions/municipalities/etc. of NYC - people would still "flock" to Midtown Manhattan, and desireable areas of Brooklyn, etc. (for a time they would, anyway (not that any of this is remotely scientific, I'm just pissing pond water here)). But, what I am getting around to say is this:

If (or when) the government decides to actually enforce regulation on Facebook (using Facebook as one example (which they (the U.S. government) are making progress in the anti-trust suit against...every co in Silicon Valley, including Facebook), and if it (Facebook) were either A) forced to offer an open source version of it's software, or B) agree to not use algorithmic expressions to alter content on their platform, or C) agree to not run advertisements veiled as "content", or D) ALL of the above - then, things could be a little more attractive (or at least moderately safer) for the already existing (hooked, addicted) social network users. So, it would essentially be like the regulation of the gambling industry. Relegate the places where gambling can occur, and regulate the age which gambling is allowed, and then what ends up happening is less people go out of their way to gamble. Other people ("true gramblers") make it a point to always find a way to gamble, the same way that people who "love" (or want to love) social media platforms will have an option to partake.

Anyway, this has been a quasi-convoluted way of me saying that - yes, decentralization is idealistically good, but simple regulation serves us (everyone) better, sometimes (at least in regards to social media platforms). And the "Web3" stuff - it's smoke and mirrors, has nothing to do with decentralization, or legitimacy, or reality - so, don't bother ;)

back soon