The original premise of the Internet was to allow individuals to connect directly and communicate without the need for gatekeepers. It was an idea that was based on the premise that "information yearns to be free".
Of course, we know this did not happen. Instead, we got a system whereby Big Tech took over. Platforms became the norm with a handful of companies moving into the position of control. In the social media realm we have Meta (Facebook), Google, and X. Then there is Amazon, Spotify, and the Netflix.
On top of this, CEOs are granted enormous power. A single change in policy can affect millions in an instant. There is usually no recourse. Businesses are destroyed and livelihoods impacted by this decisions.
Then we have the issue with content creators. What should be the mecca for people pursuing this path, we find their output is generating pennies on the dollar (if that much). Look at the number of plays someone like Taylor Swift needs to generate to make any more. She gets a lot so her payout is decent but nothing compared to the past.
Naturally, for the struggling artist, it is curtains.
What can be done to reverse this? That is what we take a look at.
Supply and demand.
It is a basic concept that is in play online. The challenge is the content creators are the suppliers and Big Tech the demand generators. Here is where the power structure is skewed.
We are not dealing with a market system. In fact, it becomes controlled due to the basic premise of network effects. That is the overriding driver in the online world.
As a platform becomes more popular, it is to the benefit of everyone on there to remain. With the addition of new features, bells, or whatever is added, that ripples through the entire ecosystem. All are able to access the expanded capabilities, causing a greater effect even without adding more users.
This is what the Internet looks like in 2025. There is a reason why Mark Zuckerberg was one of the most powerful people in Silicon Valley (and the world) for the past two decades.
It has gotten so bad that even platform providers are entering into legal action with other gatekeepers. Apple is constantly being targeted for what is viewed as the unfair practices (manipulation?) of their app store. The latest to join the situation is Xai.
Ultimately, these entities extract enormous sums from those who are operating on their platforms. It is the way things are and it will not change.
This essentially summaries Web 2.0.
It was long promised that change was going to occur. So far, the impact of Web 3.0 is minimal. Actually, you cannot even find it.
This is the fault of the industry. Crypto (tokenization) became nothing more than a casino for people to speculate upon. Instead of building and striving for network effects, people simply focused upon instant extraction of riches for their wallet. The term "greater fool theory" comes to mind.
Blockchain does offer a solution. The fact that we are dealing with decentralized, transparent, and open-source databases means a new foundation can be built which alters the existing client-server architecture. The challenge at the moment is the fact that both the UI and server cluster are owned by the same company.
Web 3.0 starts with basic ownership rights. Under Web 2.0, nothing is owned by the individual. Access is permissioned, meaning it can be closed off. A properly formed blockchain cannot do this. Provided the ability to write to the database is present, i.e. has the resources, anyone can do it. At the same time, the data is open to anyone to download.
From here we start the premise of identity. This is crucial in a world where it seems deepfakes could be a major issue. Generative AI is evolving to the point where, in the near future, we will not be able to distinguish. How do we counter this? It can be presumed that tech platforms will do an awful job policing it. After all, why should they care?
Blockchain solves this instantly. Using cryptography, we can immediately see where something originated. Was it from the identity of the person or someone else? The transparency provided will allow anyone to conduct this exercise.
Blockchain provides the openness promised so long ago.
Right now, companies can close down their APIs, restricting access to the information. As we can see, each layer brings about a controlled system.
With blockchain, since it is open source, anyone can download the software. Setting up a server to run the code, thus opening up access to the data, is novel. Everything that is placed on public blockchains is there for the masses.
We cannot say the same about the Internet providers of today. Over the last few years, we saw decades of data disappear as corporations shut down sites that were running. The data was housed on their servers, hence completely in their control.
Web 3.0 promises to change this. The problem is that even people involved in crypto are living on Web 2.0.
