Comment by Silhouette | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Silhouette | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've long suspected that Web 3.0 will mark a return to valuing more curated content, genuine expertise, and slower-paced and probably more fully moderated discussion.

The community-driven content of Web 2.0 has had a long run, and it surely isn't going anywhere. It's achieved some truly amazing things: who would have thought, even one generation ago, that today we'd have information sources like Wikipedia, or that they'd be as good as the best of them really are?

However, Web 2.0 has also shown us the weaknesses of a system where all voices are equal regardless of knowledge or experience. It has proved surprisingly difficult to create and sustain self-moderating communities that function as meritocracies, both in terms of the accuracy of information or validity of advice, and in terms of the challenging legal and ethical questions when one possibly anonymous person's free speech butts up against the real and possibly serious consequences of what is said for someone else. That same Wikipedia has had entire long and well-established pages on subjects where the content was utter drivel for months or years at a time, because it was utter drivel that enough inexperienced people believed, and there was no effective mechanism or incentive for a real expert to set the record straight.

It seems likely that many of these issues could be overcome if we combined the undoubted enthusiasm of the masses for having their say with a greater amount of input and influence for real experts and diligent moderators. However, that probably requires giving up a degree of the anonymity/pseudonymity we enjoy today, which does usefully allow for more honest and open discussions at times, so that credibility can be established with sufficient transparency to generate trust. It probably also requires people to actually pay real money to support the content or offset the running costs of discussion forums, so that a greater degree of expert contribution and/or moderation is actually viable without relying on ads, affiliate marketing schemes, or other secondary revenue sources that cloud the issue. That in turn may well require some form of either micropayments or syndication, and whoever cracks that one is probably the next Stripe.

The Web has reached the end of its cycle, and is fundamentally limited by its own structural foundations. The post-web information environment is a client-driven hyperspherical sparsely connected directed acyclic graph whose gradual population will be the cryptographic proof of work yielding a meaningful currency whose exchange creates rather than apes value.

I have bingo! What do I win?

Haha! You made my evening. The vast expanses of the Internet are your prize, sir.

Nothing. It's not bingo until it includes node.js (rewritten in Rust).

Hehe, I'm terrible aren't I :-) At least I left out 'virtual reality.' Seriously, I have a fairly clear concept of the operating environment and UI but I'm struggling to think through how it works as a distributed system. I don't understand blockchain technology as well as I'd like and the speed and synchronization problems are major sticking points for this model, hence my describing it in such sketchy shallow terms.

This is a great, high-quality comment, and I agree with much of what you're saying.

Does anyone else _like_ the current state of information access? It's beyond naive to think that you can get high-quality, honest, bias-free information from any source without having to have an ounce of skepticism. This pre-dates the Internet and the decentralization of content by [# of years since the beginning of civilization] years. I feel far more capable to form an opinion on something now than I did in the days before the Internet: I'm able to rapidly check a dozen different sources of information, weight them by how much I trust them and how credible I find their arguments, and assess my level of confidence about how I feel about it. This can include the issue being controversial enough that I end up with "hmm...I lean this way but don't have a strong opinion on which side is more correct". It's even easy to validate this approach: as I'm sure many others here can, I can think of half a dozen issues where traditional gatekeepers arrived at the conclusion I reached _years_ after I did.

By contrast, in the past, you had access to far fewer analyses of any degree of quality and if they were wrong or lazy or dishonest, you were just shit out of luck. Importantly, it's not like the highest-quality info sources back then were _better_ than the best sources you have access to now, so even if you think you're completely incapable of critical thought, you're no worse off.

I think the fundamental problem is how incredibly uncomfortable people have with uncertainty. It seems like purely a psychological problem to me, present only if one isn't mature enough to face down the fact that the knowledge you have access to in a large, complex society is inherently socially-constructed[1].

The "downside" of too much information only appears if one has already deluded oneself into thinking that skepticism is never warranted with gatekeeper-delivered information.

The solution is publishers with trusted brands.

Perhaps, but then how do you build such a brand if your revenue streams depend on things like number of page impressions? There's a reason the modern Web is plagued by clickbait titles, articles divided over many pages, ad networks and all the intrusive monitoring that goes with them, pop-up/pop-under messages and all their modern variations, affiliate links with varying levels of transparency about using them, and so on. If we want trusted sources of information and advice, don't we have to start by eliminating external influences that inherently affect how trustworthy a source can possibly be?

In any case, I had in mind something a little more ambitious than just a branding exercise. For example, perhaps it would be helpful if we could establish some sort of persona and web-of-trust infrastructure, so that experts with sufficient credentials and peer recognition in some field can assert those credentials in some verifiable way when commenting on relevant matters. Then perhaps we could also establish some standards for sites presenting contributions from those experts to present any relevant credentials concurrently, so that whether you're reading an article on a high profile news site or just a casual comment on a discussion forum like HN, you have same way to know how much credibility the person you're reading has in this area.

>Perhaps, but then how do you build such a brand if your revenue streams depend on things like number of page impressions?

Any brand that depends on page impressions will inevitably evolve into toxic garbage.

The solution is content you pay for. Subscriptions, Patreon, donations, or mix thereof.

Indeed. It was a rhetorical question. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com