Every versioning of that idea is marketing speech.
Web2.0 might have had a silly name, but the idea of the web as something that the average user and company could contribute back to and use to communicate with in real time provided explicit value and convenience over existing alternatives (letter writing, door-to-door sales, in-person self-promotion, calling a pizza parlor, renting a physical video, long distance phone calls, physical plane tickets mailed to your house…)
I don’t see that with web3.0.
> I don’t see that with web3.0.
I do.
The strategic quoting was supposed to show that the only thing I disagreed with was that I find the name "Web 3.0" about as silly as its predecessor.