Jack Dorsey Stirs Uproar by Dismissing Web3 as a Venture Capitalists' Plaything (bloomberg.com) 90
Fresh off relinquishing the chief executive reins of Twitter, Bitcoin enthusiast Jack Dorsey has taken to the service he co-founded to voice his displeasure with so-called Web3 technology and the involvement of venture capital firms like Andreessen Horowitz. From a report: Web3, the still hazy term for blockchain-based, decentralized systems and tech that are meant to replace the internet as we know it, has garnered much attention and funding this year, with Andreessen Horowitz being among its loudest cheerleaders. Trading of non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, on the Ethereum and Solana blockchains has been the most visible manifestation, with many companies now investing in the development of decentralized apps as well as games for those platforms.
"You don't own 'web3'," tweeted Dorsey. "The VCs and their LPs do. It will never escape their incentives." The post drew more than 16,000 likes and thousands of retweets. Many pushed back with comments like "highly disagree" and "dead wrong," though many others chimed in with support. Tesla chief Elon Musk got in on the discussion by asking if anyone has seen Web3, to which Dorsey replied "it's somewhere between a and z," hinting that it's held under the control of the VC firm founded by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, commonly contracted to a16z.
"You don't own 'web3'," tweeted Dorsey. "The VCs and their LPs do. It will never escape their incentives." The post drew more than 16,000 likes and thousands of retweets. Many pushed back with comments like "highly disagree" and "dead wrong," though many others chimed in with support. Tesla chief Elon Musk got in on the discussion by asking if anyone has seen Web3, to which Dorsey replied "it's somewhere between a and z," hinting that it's held under the control of the VC firm founded by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, commonly contracted to a16z.
Ok I still don't get it... (Score:1)
Even with it explained, I dunno WTF "a16z" is...?
Re:Ok I still don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)
They own a VC firm called AnderessenHorowitz. Its a common way to abbreviate long words- XnnY where X is the first letter, Y is the last letter, and nn is the number of letters between. For example internationalization is i18n.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Ok I still don't get it... (Score:2)
Surely that should be a16h, if we follow the same logic as i18n?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. 'n' is the last letter of internationalization. Likewise 'z' is the last letter of AndreessenHorowitz. Or are you making some joke I'm too stupid right now to understand?
Nah you're right. I hadn't had my coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ok I still don't get it... (Score:2)
Oh so that's why it's named i18n ! Thanks for explaining.
The things you learn on slashdot.
Has Jack Dorsey learned from his mistakes? (Score:1)
Okay, a legitimate question as FP, but quite shallow and with a vacuous Subject. Come on folks, can't we do better?
My main reaction to the story is to wonder if Dorsey has learned anything from his grand mistakes. He's clearly been deeply involved in some of the biggest booboos of the new Internet era. So far, I remain unconvinced he's learned much, but...
I'm basically a tool phreak. I can't seem to stop myself from playing with tools and trying to find interesting new things to do with them. That includes
Re: (Score:2)
I have a problem with the headline for a different reason, it should say "Jack Dorsey States the Bleeding Obvious by Dismissing Web3 as a Venture Capitalists' Plaything".
Also, who's Jack Dorsey? No-one goes to Dorsey any more. Gotta go, I need to return some videotapes.
Re: (Score:2)
Going for Funny? (You often succeed, but not so much this time.)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to factcheck and tag Jack (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the invention of the printing press, people who own the means to amplify their voices have been using that power to stifle those who do not own such means. Can you suggest a solution that does not abnegate the bedrock principle of property rights? Seems to me that forced speech, or forcing people to use their property to say things they don't agree with, is a very slippery slope. Maybe if you agree with the current government, you might like that they force your opponents to agree with them. But unles
Re:Time to factcheck and tag Jack (Score:5)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you calling Twitter a public utility?
When politicians use it to communicate with constituents, when journalists use it to formulate opinions and communicate news, when government agencies use it for disaster notifications, when citizens use it to coordinate political action, etc., at the very least you should entertain the question that Twitter might be fulfilling some functions we traditionally associate with a public service.
Re: (Score:1)
When politicians use it to communicate with constituents, when journalists use it to formulate opinions and communicate news, when government agencies use it for disaster notifications, when citizens use it to coordinate political action, etc., at the very least you should entertain the question that Twitter might be fulfilling some functions we traditionally associate with a public service.
Being a public utility is a well-defined thing. Twitter is not it, as you are well aware. Your personal opinions on this make zero difference.
Re: (Score:2)
>when government agencies use it for disaster notifications
Or Utility companies try to use it for broadcasting critical information about the power grid...
Twitter is most definatly NOT an acceptable emergency broadcast system! ( Looking at Texas )
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a Slashdot story about a woman who gave birth in a Tesla this morning. Does that mean you're going to call Elon Musk next time you have a medical emergency?
Don't be stupid. Fulfilling functions and being something are two different things. A public utility has a definition, and that definition has nothing to do with who uses it for what. It has to do exclusively with who provides it and for whom.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you calling Twitter a public utility?
No. Twitter is the equivalent of a megaphone.
A megaphone owned by a corporation, which it may allow others to use at its discretion.
Re: (Score:2)
I will only accept your analogy once each tweet (or any other post) has to be sent to each person individually (one at a time). Until that time I don't think you can really compare social media to the telephone system.
Re: (Score:2)
We have precedent: newspapers. Guess what? If a newspaper publishes your letter to the editor, and that letter is found to be libel, the newspaper is not held liable. You are. Section 230 just codifies existing case law and makes it explicit. Sorry that ruins your argument.
If you need more examples, educate yourself about self publishers and their liability, and stores that put up public message boards. This is settled law, even without the CDA.
Owners of corporations are people. And they have rights to cont
Re: (Score:2)
This is incorrect, the paper may be able to hide behind some anti-slapp and fair reporting laws, if the letter was clearly identified as the opinion of the author and is not a statement of fact which is false.
Even if the paper has some kind of disclaimer like content is the opinion of the author not the papers.. if actually says something like "Spun is a convicted child molester" and that isn't true but they ran it anyway yes the absolutely CAN be sued. The reason is simple they are providing the megaphone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Time to factcheck and tag Jack (Score:2)
Bang on.
Re: Time to factcheck and tag Jack (Score:2)
wrt comment by user spun
Re: Time to factcheck and tag Jack (Score:2)
Wait.. his other comments are sorta opposite of what I thought
Re: (Score:2)
I am fine with twitter and other social media platforms being 'private property' I would not suggest we do anything crazy like the FCC's old fairness doctrine or anything of the sort.
What I find objectionable is they are both allowed their private property AND excused from the ordinary historical rules we apply other similar properties like printing press. Twitter can and should be allowed to decline to publish any tweet they wish, they should be allowed to add content like 'fact checks' and even alter the
Re: (Score:3)
But you are simply wrong on this. They are like a mall, or perhaps a self publishing company. If a mall has a message board, and someone puts libel up on that board, the mall is not liable. Even if they editorialize and take down some posts but not others, they are not liable. If a company lets you pay for and publish a book, essentially renting their press, they are not liable for what you publish. Even if they turn down some projects but not others.
Sorry, but this line of argumentation is a red herring. S
Re: (Score:2)
Can you suggest a solution that does not abnegate the bedrock principle of property rights?
Freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. Property rights are absolutely not protected (see for example, eminent domain).
Interestingly, this means there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent some forms of communism (as long as it's not totalitarianism).
Billionaires shtiposting (Score:2)
Implying Web2 changed the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet did not change due to Web2, and it will not change due to Web3. Keep your cringe to browsers and phone applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that Web 2.0 absolutely changed the Internet
Any obvious changes come to mind? Perhaps some RFC's you could link?
Re: (Score:2)
Move IPv6? Less IPv6?
More companies needing to run an exterior gateway protocol? Less?
Autonomous System Numbers being represented by Emoji's? Now that would be one I would expect from Web2.0.
Just some examples I could think of. Real network of networks (the internet) trends and changes
Tech workers know how Web 2.0 changed everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is, the same way Web 3 is the same as Web 3.0, at least according to WIkipedia.
I would argue that Web 2.0 absolutely changed the Internet
Any obvious changes come to mind? Perhaps some RFC's you could link?
You clearly don't work in the industry. Most consider Web 2.0 dynamic HTML + user generated content.
Prior to this, web pages were made by professionals, like me, who were paid huge amounts by massive corporations to type content in HTML and ensure it formats consistently across the browsers: Netscape & IE at the time. They had DHTML and JavaScript, but it wasn't heavily used. Dynamic functionality and applications were written in Java Applets or Flash or later on Flex. Any content you read was made by a skilled webmaster.
Web 2.0 includes both social media, ranging from Flickr to Facebook/Twitter as well as JavaScript and HTML5 becoming powerful enough to replace Applets and Flash. Most consider Web 2.0 to be when AJAX came about and JavaScript went from browser validation and stupid gimmicks to a full time profession.
Now single page applications are the norm, for better or worse. I am not a fan, but concede that when they're done well, they're great...it's just most people do them poorly. But pretty much all pages rely on AJAX or similar technologies to dynamically populate a page, often with no benefit, but still...excessive JavaScript is the norm and a sophisticated platform and full time profession at pretty much every shop today.
Also, between Wordpress and social media, most of the actual content you read is made by people with zero technical skill, hence the society destroying viral content of conspiracies ranging from 5G chips in vaccines to flat earth theory to whatever incel internet cancer has made your life shittier. In the 90s, it was there, but both having to open up an HTML book and learn something was a barrier to getting it made...and even if you could make your white supremacist manifesto page, it was very hard to get a global audience, whereas the ubiquity of social media today ensures that anything sensational enough to grab people's attention becomes world news within a few hours...just think of that dress photo where no one could tell if it was blue or beige.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep! I remember the days of taking "boot camp" courses to learn Dynamic HTML (and back then, it really was still mostly getting coded targeting Internet Explorer 6). The entire process of making a web page or site behave properly and uniformly across multiple browsers was terrible. You'd usually wind up designing multiple versions of each page, along with code to figure out which one was appropriate to display to a given user.
In this since, "Web 2.0" was a HUGE improvement -- giving people tools like HTM
But CMS is Web 2.0 (Score:2)
The fact you know how to hand-code HTML pages doesn't mean you have a monopoly on accurate information to publish on non-tech topics.
WordPress, phpBB, Drupal, Joomla and many others enabled discussion forums online for everything from practicing dentists to discuss new treatments amongst themselves to HVAC professionals to talk about their trade, to car audio installers and enthusiasts, home improvement forums, car repair for specific makes and models, and so much more.
CMSs are web 2.0 technologies. My drunk unemployable asshole uncle can publish manifestos on his opinions about what a communist whore Nanci Pelosi is and get a pretty large audience. In 1998, he would have had to crack open a book to get it on a webpage. Now he can make his own blog or just post to facebook very easily. All these platforms are considered Web 2.0, like WordPress phpBB, Drupal, etc. It democratized the web, for better or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read multiple replies, but have yet to see where Web 2.0 significantly changed the not-web-browsing part of the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Web 2.0 caused a lot of things to be done using HTTP that weren't in the past. Lots of dedicated protocols with fat clients are effectively dead, replaced with interactive web sites, or those horrid packaged web sites running client side. WebSockets means more stuff is running in the web server even if it isn't a web site per se.
Re: (Score:3)
Bit of revisionism there (Score:1)
Prior to this, web pages were made by professionals, like me, who were paid huge amounts by massive corporations to type content in HTML
That seems pretty backwards to be.
Back then, any kid could just throw together HTML and have a web site up.
NOW is the time, where with super-advanced dynamic HTML, the average person has to have technical consultants to put together pretty much even the simplest of web pages. Otherwise they are just filling in forms on a social media site to post text and images. Before t
Correction: pages anyone say were made by pros (Score:2)
Prior to this, web pages were made by professionals, like me, who were paid huge amounts by massive corporations to type content in HTML
That seems pretty backwards to be.
Back then, any kid could just throw together HTML and have a web site up.
NOW is the time, where with super-advanced dynamic HTML, the average person has to have technical consultants to put together pretty much even the simplest of web pages. Otherwise they are just filling in forms on a social media site to post text and images. Before they could have realistically put a whole site together themselves.
Fair enough. I made my first HTML page in 1994. The thing is no one saw it, but a few buddies at school and my parents. :)
If you wanted an audience of more than your friends and perhaps 1-10,000 more people, you needed to work for a major website, typically as a pro.
Now just write something interesting enough on facebook or twitter and you make global news.
Re: (Score:1)
Web 2.0 was the age of "unfettered running of arbitrary third-party code". In other words, "Web 2.0" is a synonym for the common RCE vulnerability.
This has nothing to do with the Internet. It is crapola application that runs on a network, but is not the network.
Re: Implying Web2 changed the internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Web 2.0" is just like "Web3" in that it's a catch-all buzzword for purposefully doing the type of things with JavaScript that we used to be smart enough to avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet did not change due to Web2
Based on your comment I think we can pick the exact day that you gave up on reading RFCs. If you think Web 2.0 hasn't changed the internet fundamentally then you have a very surface level and user facing view of what the internet itself actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet did not change due to Web2, and it will not change due to Web3
It did in the sense that a lot of people thing "Facebook" is the internet.
What does blockchain solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What does blockchain solve? (Score:2)
How does blockchain solve lack of trust?
If used properly it can used to show something was covertly modified, as long as enough other people hold a copy of that chain. Still not sure how trust is managed for a website and what that trust represents ?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I guess blockchain potentially solves the problem of everyone you buy something from creating their own dossiers on you. And that's worth solving, I guess. But at the cost of creating a whole new ransomware for hire industry? No thanks. The same trust could be accomplished with government-issued blockchain currency, without having to consume huge amounts of electricity in the process. Even if you're not a criminal, you may not 'trust' the government to know what you're doing, but if what you're d
Re: (Score:2)
We already have trust. When you come to my home server, I have a TLS certificate proving that I am 'my.site.com'. DNSSEC provides the same for DNS records.
As far as 'currencies can't be taken away'', transaction fees sap away with every move. It's laughable to say that it's immune to inflation, cryptocurrencies experience wild inflationd or deflation day to day. There are many exchanges where people have had their 'coin' yanked away, and plenty of companies are known for managing your wallet only to den
So if Jack doesn't like it, then it's good... (Score:1)
So if the Uber-Fascist @JACK doesn't like it; because it is non-centralized and out of the realm of control and manipulation by Media and Tech Elitists; then it is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it’s the exact opposite. He doesn’t like it because it’s centralized and under control of media and tech elites.
KISS Methodology (Score:2)
KISS = Keep It Simply, Silly
So... let's start an open standard called "Web4" with:
HTML5-NoDRM, CSS3, Javascript, AES 256, NoCryptoCurrency, No3rdPartiesCookies, etc. mandatory.
That seems the only way to keep Internet safe.
Re: (Score:1)
You need to get rid of Javascript ...
decentralization not new (Score:2)
Decentralization is not new. We used to call it peer-to-peer. The original Skype protocol is an example of a successful peer-to-peer (decentralized) protocol. Once Skype became popular, and people began to rely on it, its decentralized nature had some drawbacks (like timely presence indicators). Where is Skype now? Gobbled up by Microsoft and centralized.
Looking back, we had terminals connected to a mainframe (centralization), then we had PCs (decentralization) and internet 1.0, then we had the cloud (ce
Still happy with "Web 1.0" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and that was ultimately designed to enrich the knowledge of society, rather than the pockets of the few.
"Web 2.0" - I mean, WTF was that?
There's this quote:
So, exactly when did this happen? In an instant? All at once?
Before Web 2.0, if the content wasn't "user-generated", who was making it?
This is just all marketing hype - total BS.
"Web 3.0" - right, so in a nutshell, this is supposed to be the idea of a decentralised internet?
Hold up... I thought the very idea of "Web 1.0" was to be decentralised - and you know, it was moving along pretty nicely until certain companies became mega-companies and started controlling it.
Right, so, instead of something like Amazon's AWS as a provider, effectively, as a host for applications and content, "Web 3.0" promises a decentralised setup - a "world computer", as it's sometimes known. ... you guessed it, cryptocurrency, because someone has to still foot the bill.
And that is powered by
Now call me crazy, but it seems that those with the deepest pockets would be the big winners in a "decentralised" "Web 3.0" internet, by virtue of the fact they would have the biggest stake in blockchain computing power.
Quite how the evangelists of a "Web 3.0" "decentralised" internet, envision preventing it actually becoming centralised and ultimately being a complete waste of time, is beyond me.
"We'll build checks and balances into our blockchains, governance, nobody will ever be able to have too much control."
Great, but who calls the shots? Who makes the tough decisions? - is that where so called "governance" comes in, that there's a democratic vote for any changes?
So, there's money at stake here, let's say blockchain XYZ becomes the dominant force, gets millions of investors providing liquidity, nodes, processing power - what is their motive to continue to provide the service?
What happens if blockchain ABC offers better rewards? - everyone jumps ship from XYZ to ABC, leaving anyone using XYZ's smart contracts without enough processing power?
The bottom line is there's no such thing as a free lunch - internet services cost money to run - call me old fashioned and crazy, but I'd rather trust a company with a proven track record that can make quick decisions, than a blockchain driven by wild speculation in the cryptocurrency markets.
Web 3.0 - a lot of hokum, destined to be DOA as soon as the cryptocurrency market collapses, which it will.
Re: Still happy with "Web 1.0" ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it kind of goes against the narrative but I would argue that web 1.0 had the user generated content. Web 2.0 was all about commercializing the web and taking the content from user generated to corporate generated.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it kind of goes against the narrative but I would argue that web 1.0 had the user generated content. Web 2.0 was all about commercializing the web and taking the content from user generated to corporate generated.
No. It had webmaster generated content. The "user" is universally considered as the person visiting a page. We barely had functioning javascript in those days much less the ability for users to in any way do anything more than send you an email, much less generate any content on your page.
Re: (Score:2)
:You didn't need to be a "webmaster" to generate content. You just needed to know how to use HTML. Sure not everyone was willing to learn HTML but they could if they wanted and there were WYSIWYG editors that did an ok job of creating basic user generated pages. Javascript really isn't any different. How many users actually know or write their own javascript?
That having been said I wasn't saying that my definitions are what is usually considered web 1.0 and web 2.0 just that I think (or would argue) that we
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't need to be a "webmaster" to generate content. You just needed to know how to use HTML.
If you know how to drive a car and are sitting behind the wheel we call you the "driver". If you know how to code HTML and upload it to a server you were the "webmaster" of the site. It's the title given literally to the person responsible for putting it up / maintaining it. Much like "driver" is the title given to the person in control of a car.
Javascript really isn't any different. How many users actually know or write their own javascript?
I think you're massively missing my point about javascript. The point was that "user" generated content relied on two things absolutely existing: server side script
Re: (Score:3)
the second stage of development of the internet, characterized especially by the change from static web pages to dynamic or user-generated content and the growth of social media.
So, exactly when did this happen? In an instant? All at once?
Before Web 2.0, if the content wasn't "user-generated", who was making it?
This is just all marketing hype - total BS.
I was going to make some mocking comment about kids these days but then I saw your really high UID and figured you may actually be a kid and not know what the internet was like before Web 2.0 so here's a quick recap:
No it didn't happen in an instant. It was a bit of a gradual transition aided by the introduction of server side scripting which gave rise ultimately to CMSes. What was the internet like before then? Well you had to open a HTML editor. You had to write HTML code manual. You had to publish it on
Web3 is speculatively stupid. (Score:3)
Let's face it, the entire reason Web3 is being propped up by techno-bros and VCs is that if the web goes decentralized, and they don't hold every component of that decentralization, they'll lose the control and the tracking, advertising, and shit-stirring that generates their mad, phat, stacks of cash. So this constant onslaught of Web3 stories is just tech-bros and heavy investors scrambling wildly trying to grab hold of the cable before it spools all the way out and slips away from them forever.
Not that I think Web3 is a real, tangible thing. But they way they keep talking about it, they may very well make it happen and have it blow up in their faces in the process. Which will make me tee-hee like a schoolgirl.
Re: (Score:2)
Aehm, the Web _is_ decentralized? The only potentially centralized thing is DNS and maybe IP assignment, but that is it.
Re: (Score:2)
DNS decentralized? Right up they yank your domain off the net. IP assignment? Lol!
Re: (Score:2)
DNS decentralized? Right up they yank your domain off the net. IP assignment? Lol!
You seem to be unaware as to how DNS works. You also seem to be unaware as to how IP assignment and global routing works.
Web3 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think the blockchain is cool, but there's a lot of things it's not useful for.
THere is not a single thing blockchain is useful for. It is what is called a solution in search of a problem.
web3 just sounds like drama (Score:1)
Web 2.0 was a real big deal: exciting technologies like AJAX bringing things like Google Maps, Gmail, all kinds of things that we could see and feel and benefit from on a day to day basis.
Web 3 just sounds like... ...drama.
Correction... (Score:1)
Bitcoin enthusiast Jack Dorsey
Dorsey and Musk are properly referred to as Bitcoin Pushers. [urbandictionary.com]
Why not use Freenet then (Score:2)
This whole Web3 thing just sounds like a scheme to control the web even more than it is now ("controlled by the 1%"?)
If their aim is really decentralization, why not go with Freenet [freenetproject.org] instead, since it already exists.
He's right. (Score:2)
WTF is "Web3"? (Score:2)
Seriously. From the story I get that this seems to be just another fad powered by the fantasies of morons. Other than that, I have never heard about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that strategy does not work on me. But I see what you mean.
Tech hipsters creating the future (Score:2)
If Blockchain is the future, the future is bleak. I'm about ready to become Amish.
In other news (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Man who got rich from web 2.0 dismisses web 3.0
Twitter isn't even web 2.0. All he did was take 1980s pager technology and put it on the web. A pager used to accept text messages and you'd wear a pager on your belt. I still have one somewhere I think. Doctors used to wear them all the time. They didn't accept too many characters. Somehow dumb people thought this was great and it took off.
Fashionista Slap Fight? (Score:1)
The narcissistic hell-scape I created to dupe the masses into making me rich is hip and cool and
The narcissistic hell-scape you are hyping is just stupid and tragic. Like, OMG. Gag me with a spoon!