this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
567 points (98.8% liked)
196
17034 readers
765 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is Lemmy not also 3.0? It's decentralized. Tho maybe because it's still servers/hosting at the end of the day maybe not?
I'm pretty sure the term Web 3.0 was created by cryptobros to promote their stuff
I don't think Lemmy counts because you are still using the head server instead of being self-hosted
Eh ok, Web3 seems to be pretty hazy and loosely defined so I'm inclined to believe you're right about it being just a buzzword basically.
Lemmy is self hosted.
Show me where is my self hosting setup with the dedicated IP and a server rack running then lol
You're just using someone else's server, just like you did in Web 1.0, it's not self-hosted at all
I'm hosting and using my own instance personally, but the important part is that it's decentralized and federated. Think of it like email - businesses often have their own email servers they use to communicate with yours, unlike on Facebook or Reddit where all of it happens on their servers.
Exactly, there's a difference between self-hosted networks like meshes and mostly privately hosted. It's like calling all email self-hosted, even though less than 1% of users self-host.
As far as I know, they never claimed Lemmy was entirely self-hosted. Their intention was likely to say it can be, in which case decentralized would've been more clear..
The original commenter said that "Lemmy is self-hosted". This is what this comment thread was about. It sure is decentralized, not really self-hosted, even though you can host it youself.
Edit: read another comment wrong
I'm aware of the original comment. I also agree that Lemmy can't be referred to as self hosted in the same way that Plex can, for example. I simply think they meant to say "can be" self hosted instead of "is".
Just look at their comments. They full on say it's a self-hosted platform no matter what, even though most people don't host it and all of them don't have to host it.
You can host your own instance, it’s not that hard. Just because you can share someone else’s self hosted instance or a larger one doesn’t make it magically different. Learn how the fediverse works.
Yeah, just like email. Doesn't make email a self-hosted service.
Web 3.0 is literally only a thing I've seen crypto people talk about. Decentralized infrastructure has been around for ages without that language, and the only projects I see using Web 3 language is crypto currency nonsense.
If anything, Web 3.0 seems allergic to actually decentralized infrastructure beyond telling people who lose money on crypto exchanges to run their own hardware wallet; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3#Not_decentralised
Imo "web 3.0" is a cool idea in theory, but never quite reached its potential. I posted this elsewhere, but imo the term should be generalized to include non-blockchain decentralization.
I strongly disagree. If it's a term pushed by scam artists, trying to coopt the term for non-scam projects just makes it easier for scammers to seem legitimate. Also decentralized infrastructure has been around for ages and at it's heart is running on the same software web 2.0 is based on, why is it "3.0" all of a sudden?
Proposal: Since Web 3.0 was once standing for decentralization and has been coopted by crypto, we should name our decentralized-only thing Web NT 3.0. You know, like New Technology. Like that spinoff Windows with a new kernel which eventually replaced the aging DOS kernel.