More than 30 years ago, the first web page was created at CERN, imagined by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and other scientists.
Their imagination at the time: the web should be an open standard system for everyone to use. Web 2.0 transitioned the Internet from sharing information to the age of social media, allowing users to create, share and collaborate without the need for web design or technical skills.
Review the network iterations so far. In Web 3.0, everything is about expensive business services and e-commerce, and only the strong survive. As in the analog age, information still flows from one to many.
In the Web 2.0 era, creating services on the Web became very easy and inexpensive, and social networking took off. Blogs were the first iteration of Web 2.0, and Twitter was the first social network to come out.
Web 3.0 isn’t going anywhere, it’s the future
But now the online world is no longer about viewing a series of files on a server through a PC. It is a series of devices and objects. For us, the “online” economy consists of brown Amazon packages, iPods that fall on doormats every now and then, but rather a lifetime of CD collections, Kindles, etc. stored there.
And there’s a lot of research into the future as to what Web 3.0 will be. There is an argument that Web 3.0 is a device-driven version rather than a PC/browser-driven version of Web 2.0 – in which the ability to put commercial fences around information ends up being socially acceptable to users because They can no longer get what they want for free, they need to pay a fee to get it.
A more radical vision for Web 3.0 is Tim Berners Lee’s idea of a “semantic web,” where computers can derive so much meaning from existing information that they can begin to represent human interaction interact. It will be a seamless web of information, both socially constructed and mechanically categorized.
Of course, this is also described as Metaverse 1.0 – a world where information and human life begin to interact seamlessly through devices. James Cameron’s film “Avatar” captures this vision.
When considering ICTs in a changing society, we must of course also ask – from what perspective?
Web 3.0, a web that is no longer limited to browsers or even to screens – is a web in a world of multi-device, multi-channel and multi-directional information throughput involving sensors and many other devices we’ve never seen before. The change this represents is huge.
The Google of Web 3.0, you will have to pay
Web 3.0 is a web in which ICT is clearly around us, our information, our needs and information in real time: some people are starting to call it a web of “streaming”. We want certification to think about this latest trend, Web 3.0, and make a suggestion about what it might mean, and a point of view that might be needed to understand it.
The Internet domain – often described as Big Data – defines Web 3.0 as “semantic Web technologies that integrate into or enhance large-scale Web applications”.
This is very different from the definition of IoT that we think is a more accurate description of Web 3.0. Many others echo this broad technical focus in their understanding of phenomenology. As with Web 2.0, most papers addressing this phenomenon rarely approach it using any real theoretical perspective other than using social network theory.
In contrast, in the (smaller) second category, Fuchs et al. focus on the socio-political consequences, referring to Web 3.0 as a cooperative network—arguably not too different from the description of Web 2.0 as a read-write network. For many of these and other authors, Web 2.0 is widely seen as a “cultural construct deeply influenced by business rhetoric,” much the same as Web 3.0 will be.
In the third (and even smaller) category, some seem to agree on the definition of “a new online environment” that will integrate user-generated data to create new meanings. Compared to Web 2.0, which is understood to be based on user participation, Web 3.0 will be based on user collaboration.
The FAANG bigwigs have to adopt some Web3 technologies
But they still criticize “concepts such as Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 can be viable and successful theoretical models for social analysis” when in fact they are “cultural constructs” themselves.
Of course, there is also a class of people who see the concept of Web 3.0 as a useful class of distinction, as is the distinction between primarily agricultural and industrial economies, although nowadays it is always a mix of the two, and as far as the web is concerned, this is This difference is more social than technical.
Such cultural structures, despite their historical and theoretical contingencies—and regional specificities—are ultimately our only window, and to ignore them is to deny all theories.
The “understanding of web development”, which tends to evolve linearly to coexisting social and technological trends, is problematic. The discourse of political economy and neoliberal new web applications cannot be hoped to disappear, the logic of internet age capitalism is indeed fast-paced and accompanied by large populations.
Culture, Context and Business – Re-examining the Triad of Brand Growth in the Age of Web 3.0
Yes, the concepts of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 often come with user-practice assumptions: Web 2.0 is seen as engaging users, while Web 3.0 is seen as triggering user cooperation.
Technological innovations and systems are about usage, and how what we own engages and integrates into our daily activities.
In the eyes of many, Web 3.0 is far more complex than has been envisioned in many articles so far. Take the #uksnow incident a few years ago.
Influencer Paul Clark mused on his blog all cold mornings as he envisioned the ‘#uksnow’ app with the natural phenomenon of snow in the UK, so, what would happen to crowdsourced data. A few hours later, astute programmer and opinion watcher Ben Marsh created the code needed for the Twitter-GoogleMaps mashup, #uksnow available to the blogosphere.
Aggregation sites for commenting on blogs and highlighting “trending” topics on Twitter have found this mash-up to exist, and, like the blogosphere, popularity fuels popularity.
Following the instructions on Ben Marsh’s website, thousands of people use the microblogging site Twitter, where they tweet two simple pieces of information: the first three to four digits of their current location’s UK postcode, and where they are A rough measure of how heavy the snow is at the location, as a quintile mark, e.g. “BL7 2/5”.
People provided this information to #uksnow, “hashtags” on Twitter (for example, they tweeted “#uksnow BL7 2/5”). These tweets, which are posted across the country, create what’s known as a Twitter stream. This way the stream can be captured using simple search tools and can be displayed by a web application or used for other purposes.
The stream #uksnow hashtag from a remote collection provided data to place one of five images of snowflakes of different sizes onto a Google Map in the UK, creating the UK at http://www.benmarsh.co.uk/snow/ real-time snow map.
Apparently, people are following the trend and standing outside taking pictures of the snow and using their mobile internet devices to deliver the desired tweets. This is easily deduced from the popularity of Twitpic photos whose short URLs accompany location and snow data in tweets.
By the end of the first day, Microsoft had created a clone program. The app survived for a few more days as the snow continued, but within the first 36 hours, the app got a ton of tweets and user visits.
At the time, the Baseball World Series was held simultaneously in the US, but was briefly overshadowed in terms of Twitter traffic by the number of people tweeting about (and #uksnow).
This #uksnow event is a great example of what we describe here as Web 3.0.
Borrowing and extending Orlikowski’s concept of scaffolding, the physical infrastructure is easily identifiable as the mobile internet, including the internet-enabled mobile devices themselves, the masts that broadcast and receive signals within each cell, and the millions involved in hosting and routing server farm of digital files.
The technical bracket is the same as the snow cloud meteorological bracket across the British Isles, where precipitation varies according to atmospheric conditions and terrain elevation. This combination is the cultural phenomenon of social networking, and the standard microblogging technology using a minimally truncated (140 character) version (160 characters) of the short message service, a political situation where salt is scarce, a media obsessed with disaster, and the British An ancient obsession with weather.
The resulting “mashup”, narrowly as a web-based application, and broadly as a specific event of a different situation, represents a situation that benefits from the understanding of Orlikowski’s scaffolded social substance.
Still from Netflix’s “Social Dilemma”
Attempting to understand and explain this phenomenon from a technocentric or purely human-centric perspective misses this interconnected aspect of modern life.
Furthermore, the scaffolding that made #uksnow possible shows how emerging cultural and social practices can come together, not only for the weather, but also for the new inherent possibilities and potential of microblogging in the scaffolding of mobile internet technologies.
Once the snow melts, the show is over, forgotten and discarded. It also represents an extremely flexible range of potential impacts for the technologies involved and the cultural obsessions they directly cater to.
In the past, before the advent of the World Wide Web, computing systems were small, discrete, short and controllable.
Since the advent of ICT, with the advent of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and now Web 3.0, it is important to ask: Is our concept of “system” broad enough?
The core philosophical implication of this reimagining of systems, implied by the complexity insight, is that the security, clear integrity, and boundaries of systems begin to disappear, as we have envisioned in the past.
Web 3.0 promises a decentralized and more interconnected cyberspace
Extending our understanding of systems beyond the simple computational information systems commonly discussed in some literature, one of the central insights of 20th century structuralist thought is that in the 19th century and before, we were centered on those things.
In fact, the broad concept of “system” is not central, but is determined by the system itself
Poststructuralist thought in the 1960s and beyond further revealed that the structure itself is often not even ‘systemic’: in the socio-historical context, open systems are self-organizing and self-determining, and are constantly changing, so much so that any system Definitions become redundant once they are presented.
Of course, the most basic, traditional definition of a system with which most information technology professionals are familiar is that it consists of an integrated whole with boundaries, interiors, and exteriors. An information system can also be defined as an integrated system of hardware and software that individuals and organizations use to create, collect, and process data.
However, as interpretivist researchers would immediately suggest, information systems are not only used by people and organizations, but the system may be thought of as including those people and organizations, in complex interrelationships of change and constraints, so that systems as having internal, The notion of an integrated whole of exterior and boundary itself is being challenged by these new complex understandings.
Cryptopanties art/fashion pieces are created to bridge the gap between the physical and digital worlds
We believe that Web 3.0 is both a model for these practically complex systems and a paradigm for the philosophical shift required to understand them.
For example, in order to understand – as the first category of critics (as articulated by Hendler) the nature of most of what happens in Web 3.0, as a traditional “information system”, say, as using soil science – albeit useful and accurate for studying the soil itself – trying to understand agriculture as a whole.
This approach ignores all the abundance of additional materials, such as the different species and grades of seeds, the attention of animals and birds, changes in the weather, and the various different machines that are put into use to manage the soil.
Furthermore, this approach does not even begin to consider the entire historical, cultural, regional and transnational complexities of human farming communities and farming economies using, sourcing and planting these machines.
Therefore, just as soil scientists must work with seed scientists, irrigation technicians with agricultural equipment manufacturers, and finally with farmers, so farmers must work with seed wholesalers and the vagaries of the market for his/her product, so information technology experts It must be understood that what is conceived as a “system” is actually much more complex and haphazard among IT specialists.
Flying Fish Club: “The World’s First Member-Only Private Dining Club, Membership Purchased as an NFT on the Blockchain”
Theoretical tools must be developed to view information and communication technologies (ICT) not only as open, but in short, as complex systems, and not only in the sense of incorporating a range of human and other factors, rather than information technology itself, but is open in the sense of duration.
In short, in what is classified as Web 3.0, most of what happens is emergent, as used by complexity theorists such as Kaufman, for whom a complex whole can drive out the collective attributes, which are themselves legitimate “emergent” characteristics.
So, the road to Web 3.0 is not smooth and bright. Originated from the concept of distributed ledgers, blockchain technology is taking the left foot for mankind to set foot on the Web3.0 planet, and how far is it from the real realization of a beautiful digital future, optimists say 5 years, forerunners have gone further.