Web 2.0: The internet of the poor

Does that sound like a controversial tile for a post? Does it position Web 3.0 as a place for the rich? How would you feel if that was the case?

Right - let's go.

A lot of people throw their arms up at the idea of having to "pay to play" in some way - pay for an account or a subscription, buy some Hive for RCs or the like. After all, think of the poor who can't afford the entry fee.

You are monsters!!

But here is the thing...

The monsters aren't the Web 3.0 business models, the monsters are the platforms that leverage the content, data and networks of their users by granularly categorizing and targeting them in order to extract as much wealth out through pay-for-click advertising models. All for the cost of a "free" signup.

No Upfront Payments

There are no costs upfront, but that doesn't mean there are no costs. How do you think these platforms make money after all? They leverage the userbase, the users are the product and they have convinced the masses that their value is worth nothing more than some hearts and stars, and a thumb where the sun don't shine - While the platforms themselves rake in billions for the owners.

You see, it is in the ownership where the difference lays, as owners are responsible for and entitled to the success of their holdings. When you own nothing on the Web 2.0 platforms, you do not have access to the profits that are generated, even if you are at least partly responsible for the generation process.

It is an interesting thing though, as while many people are highly resistant to pay for their ownership, they are more than happy to have multiples of that cost extracted by all of those platforms who gave them free signup and then pushed them to consume, buy, waste their time, effort, energy and creativity to create a population of milked cows.

The Poor Internet

The internet poor of the future are the ones who chose not to buy-in to Web 3.0 in some way, whether it be with fiat directly or through some kind of work that earned some level of ownership stake. It will be the people who are users and consumers who are unable and unwilling to pay even the slightest amount or, have nothing to trade for stake.

We see it already, where for example in some countries, the internet is Facebook as that is the only way that they can get access to the internet for free or at some discounted rate. This isn't done out of the goodness of Facebook's Meta's heart, it is done to *buy a captured audience, to enslave people to their gateways, their content, their paying advertisers.

The most important part of Web 3.0 isn't the tokenization that allows people to earn, it is the tokenization that allows people to own. This means that rather than the masses having their resources pooled and collected by a few centralized owners, the masses are owners and the value they generate is distributed across the vast array of other owners. The consumer and user are still there and they are still targeted by advertisers, but the demographic of owners of all of the products and services, as well as the advertisers themselves are vastly different. They aren't people sitting in suits, talking to their lawyers and trading their wealth in the derivative markets - it is people like you and I - normal people, living a life the best they can, taking and making opportunities when and how they can.

There is No Free Lunch

It is good to remember this and also, no one owes you anything. If you want to own something in this world, you are going to have to take responsibility for yourself and earn it. Web 3.0 is that opportunity and it is never going to be a level playing field because people are all different. You, like me, are going to have to compete in the market in order to bring value, otherwise we will end up becoming charity cases, waiting on the "good graces" of others to provide the handouts. Those handouts aren't free, they come with the cost of supported slavery.

My first house was on the border between two suburbs, one quite affluent in comparison to the other. There was a large chain supermarket close by to both sides, but pretty much only the poorer people shopped there. Why? because the prices were more expensive. Why would poor people shop where it is more expensive? Because they mostly didn't have cars. This made them a "captive market" and they were reliable. The place was full come social security handout time.

Why do I tell this story? Because that supermarket is Facebook and Instagram and all the others who are effectively charging their users enormous prices to participate on their platform. It is free to walk in the store, but just like a casino, the house always wins.

Decentralized web 3.0 is different, you can build a home, your home is yours, you own it and, what you build and create is yours too. The house still wins, but you are the house - At least, you are a part-owner of the house.

The Inclusive Exclusive

Inclusion and exclusion are two sides of the same coin - you can't have one without the other. While some will argue that having an "entry fee" to ownership is exclusionary, what they fail to realize that not having an entry fee on Web 2.0 is exclusionary also, as it means that it is a "user ticket" and that excludes people from the profit model, a model that still leverages and extracts value from its users. The people who choose to take the free ride path, will eventually find themselves paying a hefty price as the current economic practices shift into the decentralized models that will replace them.

While imperfect in the early stages, the decentralized model increases in its ability to be inclusive the more people who start to use and leverage it for their various needs. As transactional mass and wealth starts to build on across the ecosystems, it is able to support more wealth to be generated and distributed across an increasing number of people. The centralized form is designed in the opposite path, where while more wealth is being generated, it is increasingly going to fewer pockets, moving at an increasing pace toward monopolization and inevitable collapse.

What this means is that while initially it seems exclusionary, the decentralized web 3.0 will become increasingly inclusionary as more people and business build their wealth models and homes on decentralized platforms and in Web 3.0 in general. They will hire more and, they will also be paying people in web 3.0 tokens, not in fiat and definitely not in mere stars and hearts.

Web 2.0 Slavemasters

You may think it is some time off, but once the wave into Web 3.0 begins, it is going to move rapidly and people are going to very quickly start making the switch. You might back Facebook and Google to come out the winners because of their size, but who they are winning is going to be the people who can't afford to go elsewhere, because they have been conditioned to believe, there is nowhere else to go.

The Exodus of Talent

"But, this is where my friends are."

For now.

But your friends are going to start moving if they can to places where they are able to access more value for their lives. In many ways, what is coming to the internet is going to look very much like the loss of talent a country may experience when they stop adequately rewarding them for their work. The "best and brightest" go where there is opportunity for them to shine and often, that is going to be where there is demand, and therefore reward, for what they can offer. We have seen this happen in finance over the last 40 years already, where the best mathematicians and statisticians, are creating algorithms and tools for trading mechanisms.

Web 3.0 is going to do this for almost every field and since the tokenization will increasingly shift into traditional industries, it is going to soak up talent like a sponge.

Are you going to be part of it? Are you willing to pay the cost of entry?

There is always a cost to change and that means, there is always a trade of some kind in order to make it happen. This cost comes in many forms, but I think we all need to consider what the value of what we offer is, and whether we are getting adequately rewarded for it.

For me - Web 2.0 is a non-starter in the discussion of the future, as it has already lost, but it is so slow to understand and move, that it just hasn't realized it yet.

Back it at your own cost and be prepared to wear a loss.

Ever noticed how the people who tent to lose the most, can't afford to lose?

It is because they don't own a better option.

Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]