Hacker News Reader

Comment by ique | Hacker News Reader

You are using a very different meaning of centralisation and decentralisation than blockchain people do.

That's neither here nor there though.

The way you kill Facebook, Google and any Web2 company is to kill their business model. These are all 100% ad-funded businesses. Kill the advertising funded internet and these monopolies categorically die with it.

The only _attempt_ I've ever seen at addressing the issue that all the major websites are ad-funded has been within the blockchain space. Show me any other realistic alternative to ad-funding and I will happily adopt it.

View on HN

The question is how does additional fund sources prevent people from also using advertising or collecting data? For example subscription services for newspapers often still show ads. Usually additional revenue streams are used to capture more revenue.

If the answer to killing the ad funding business model was individuals pay directly it’s going to face a steep uphill battle because right now for most people the cost to read is free. What improved experience does it provide for the additional cost?

> If the answer to killing the ad funding business model was individuals pay directly it’s going to face a steep uphill

Indeed, we tried that and it failed, so we need something else.

Blockchain will probably fail because the narrative has been taken over by greed and NFTs.

But Web3 will fail because the tech world seemingly (as evidenced by the comments here) have no interest in solving the problems of Web2, rampant privacy violations, predatory business models and advertising. The answer to all these problems by HN is ”no one cares about privacy so it’s not worth solving”.

I personally think that all those things won’t be solved by technology but by social measures like regulation.

Then we're all doomed. Regulation has proven they have neither the interest nor capability to do anything about it, GDPR being the perfect example which have achieved nothing more than make Web2 more annoying to use.

Probably an overly bleak view (and unfair to GDPR which extends way beyond that) but yes I agree at least in the short term.

> The answer to all these problems by HN is ”no one cares about privacy so it’s not worth solving”.

I think that's bullshit. It's just that most normal, sane, people think something like ”burning down the planet is no solution to the problem of privacy, and even if it were it would in itself be just as much of a problem, so it’s not worth attempting to solve it that way”.

It is frankly astounding that this isn't immediately obvious to anyone; verges on psychopathy in my book.

> For example subscription services for newspapers often still show ads.

And cable TV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com