What Would Be Web 4.0?

In terms of time periods, when would ye consider these webs to start and end? Or predict 4.0 to begin?

(When you’re writing your response and accidently reload the page half way through..)


Thanks! I’ll read & study into it, so that I’m not talking about things I don’t know (weeding out misconceptions)


I was writing to the Web than Internet in mind, and yeah what’s explored and focused on of the two shall direct the conversation. Meanwhile, I also think due to them being interlinked, with their distinctions being clear and explicit, what’s found in Internet 4.0 can inform Web 4.0 and vice versa. (But notably, that’s perhaps stacking speculations on top of speculations(?)) Considering the articles brought up talking about the sketchy behaviors and tactics corporations are willing to use and various growing societal/global pressures, I believe we’re asking more of the Web and how it may respond in various ways, than the Internet.


Thinking about the idea of how, in its potential formation, Web 3.0 may respond to current societal stressors reminded me of the idea of structural violence, from IC’s Undertale video, but applied to the architectural/infrastructural systems comprising the Web and/or the Internet instead of games. Where structural violence being the limitations or borders placed on people using the Web or Internet. Which I bring up because I find it’s a handy term in exploring juxtapositions (like Web 2.0 to Web 3.0) and highlighting nuances.


I also mentioned IC’s Undertale video because in the comment response there’s the exploration of “the necessary role that available technology plays” into structural violence in with determining much of what that framework is, meanwhile; Undertale as an example “... shows how much can be accomplished with so little. That we may think of the technology as being not suitable or not strong enough to do those things either convincingly or meaningfully or on the same scale. … But that you can still harness a lot of what’s at the heart of what we might want from a believable and good social simulator with good writing. And thinking about how people might orient themselves towards the characters in a game. And that it doesn’t necessarily need to rely on the technology. The culture of it actually does play a huge role. But, yeah, I mean it’s a casserole.” And so I think part of the transition to Web 3.0 from 2.0 will be a combination of technology and design - maybe there’s a better word than “design” but I mean, like, the wielding and guiding of context, incentive, focus, attention, and such which forms the relationship between people and media, media objects, technology, and/or other people.


And related to the subject of technology, listening to the latest "Talking Sci Fi With James (The Canals of Mars - Eye of the beholder)” in the Words Craft section (starts at 00:56:23) on Wells’ War of The Worlds, particularly (1:39:10) discussing the line: “And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment.” That being


WWI and the break away from this, as James says, “semi-medieval view that we were still clinging to. And at best enlightenment view that we were still clinging to. And brought us into the ‘Modern era.’” In this line of thought meccasloth in the twitch chat asks “do you think there will be a second great disillusionment in the 21st century?” and grabbing quotes from James response was “.... Right now we currently think about ourselves as technologically masters of the world. We currently think of ourselves as technology wise [that we’ll] outpace any threat to mankind, that we due to technology right now life is perpetually going to get better, and there is no challenge that we can’t face. And, do I think that there is no challenge we can’t face? yes. Do I think life will continuously get better? I think there’s going to be challenges we are hard pressed to face.I think we’re going to find our technology does not allow us to dig ourselves out of out of all holes we put ourselves in. {Lists various stresses like climate issues, economic impacts on smaller nations, migration} .... because we’re in the moment we quite don’t see it, but if I were to write about this period as a sci fi novel, if I were to write about right now, we are on the verge of that disillusionment. All of our existing systems are these beautiful gigantic, complicated, things, and the external pressures are mounting and mounting. So, do I think that there will be a great disillusionment? I don’t know. I hope not. But there is certainly a lot of things pointing that way that show us disillusionment, that we’re vulnerable, that our technology has made us vulnerable. To ourselves. That there is no amount of pushing that we can do that we can any longer harm ourselves, that there is nothing we can’t take simply because we want it, or that we can always find a solution technologically. I think that illusion may come to an end. …. And we may be setting ourselves up for that sort of realization. That we’re going to have to go through some hard times. Because of the illusion we have right now is not real. So do I think there will be an apocalypse? No. I think that idea is ludicrous. Do I think that we’re going to have to start making hard decisions?Yes. Do I think things are going to get perpetually better and easier for the majority of humanity? No. Do I think in the first-world nations -we’re going to be entirely isolated from the impact of things like people struggling outside of here[(west)]? No{*}. And so the question is do we solve that ourselfs? Or do we hit our WW1? Our point which we realize our current mental paradigm doesn’t fit the world anymore? And we have to think the world in some new way? And that always come with stresses, that always comes in hurt, that always comes after cost, and that is the disillusionment. So I wouldn't say -I -Don’t -I think that prediction of apocalypse is hyperbolic. But do I think depictions of -but does that mean we shouldn't worry? No. Does that mean we are not in for a great crises that we have to weather? I don’t -I think a great crises is quite possible. ….”


*{?, T: I must be mishearing[/misunderstanding these] questions due to being sleep-tired [taking these notes]} And so my apologies if I’ve misquoted.


I think the evolution of the Web may incorporate this realization technology, and notably design also, won’t be able to solve every problem. Or that we’ll not be able to solve enough of them to avoid various desperation cycles (intermingling with each other) to come, and I guess learning to “live with it” while as humanity doing our best to mitigate the damage, ideally avoiding these collisions. Also recognizing that the technology, design, and more which is created (even for the benefit of humanity) can be misused for unethical aims.


I do find myself being hyperbolic/overly-fatalist in saying that (something I need to work on, “be critical, but not fatalist”).

-unethical aims: Anticipating it and maximising positivity over world suck.

I agree, and thanks again for clearing that up; and I think I had also appropriated the ideas around Web 3.0 focusing on just current cultural economic pressures: When obviously the Web is more than responses to problems it or the world in general are facing.

That “reaction to the reaction” idea-approach I think is why I’m reminded of thought experiments; being science fiction questions exploring our gut intuitions. Anyways, I wanted to say the phrasing of “reaction to the reaction” is rad! & reminded me how else they’re both interesting ideas/subject/questions.

I’m unsure. We’ve already had Web 0.0, 1.0, and currently 2.0: But I think one element will be embedding the idea of design collaborating with technology instead of just technology as the pillar to innovation alone into the public conshous. Which I think there’s a criticism with that assuming it’s not already public conscious, because I feel it’s more complex, but like it’s when the saying “you’re reading into it” or “what’s the point,” or “sure, but this doesn’t change the world as like Science does,” etc is used- I think Web 3.0 will encourage the public counshous (/ large majority of people) being able to see design, it’s value, and also how to utilize it, and incorporate that with technology.

And also learning how to address and challenge people who are using technology and design to exploit people, create desperation cycles, and consolidate power.

Fyi, in the google doc someone has already taken a stab at laying out what 3.0 could be, along with exploring earlier iterations.

Also,


I had said that because of In A Nutshell’s video “Who Invented the Internet? And Why?” where they went out of their way to say it was formed through the desire of increased processing power and that communication was an unanticipated additional outcome. I’m looking into sources for that- tomorrow, because I bet it’ll be late when I’m done typing this late response for the night; that is to say ‘sure, yeah! I’m willing to agree on this’ because you’re more familiar/informed than myself. (Given my blunder of conflating the Web and Internet, despite taking a couple of basic html classes; I imagine my teachers are shaking their heads)

My hope goes to the idea it's like Thor: Ragnarok's ending: where the 'prophecy' happens but we're able to find and utilize 'loopholes' minimising harm or redirecting violence.

Btw, Talking Sci Fi with James is Tuesday at 7pm Pacific Time (3:00 AM UTC)        (going for about 2-3 hours usually)
Talking on games @ the same time on Wednesday
and again same for Talking on movies for Thursday                                             www.twitch.tv/extracredits

I forget when (it was a while ago), there was a discussion on the discord about hijacking inputs.  I think this was in regards to Ep. 3 where we talked about the psychology of clickbait and related it to how animals would evolve traits to "hijack" the sensory inputs of other animals.  I think the example mentioned were brightly colored birds to attract mates and orchids.

I wanted to bring this up because I think this kind of "hijacking" is the way that Web 3.0 will be forced to emerge from Web 2.0, and this may also give you some thoughts about how this could apply beyond or to other ideas.

The structure of the current Web (2.0) is complex, so I've put together an MSPaint "infographic" to help explain:



The "producers," as I call them, in combination with the "socializing services," are what can lead to the destruction of the structure of the current web.  You see, companies have started to build services that allow these producers to thrive.  YouTube allows producers to make and share videos with a large amount of people.  Facebook does the same.  The whole point of these social networking sites is to allow people to produce content for other people.  This user generated content is what sets Web 2.0 apart from it's predecessor.  But each site treats producers a little bit differently.  With Facebook, producers have to pa money to have their content hosted for more people.  With YouTube, producers are treated like separate "affiliate" companies which have ads injected in between.

But even through these different structures, the user remains at the top.  They get the chance to consume (and contribute, more importantly) without any individual needing to give.  So producers obviously want to be treated as a user, or at the very least, to use the tools available to a user to get what they want: spreading a message.  We've grown use to the social apparatus of the Internet.  We encounter comments and posts written by users on Reddit/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter everyday.  We have come to inherently "trust" these sources as coming from other, regular users with no ulterior motives.  But producers can hijack that signal.  By posing as a regular user, they have a chance to connect with other users as "ordinary" and spread their agenda without suspicion.  Some of this happens already, and I think it's effect is becoming more widespread.

But how could this destabilize the structure of the Internet?  Simple.  When people learn how to effectively hijack the social communications on the Internet on a widespread scale, the advertisers will take full advantage of it.  Advertisers don't want to spend money either.  If they could be treated as a user (with all their privileges) without giving up the benefit of their current position, they would jump ship immediately.  Without the advertisers to fund the companies, things look pretty grim.

I'm not going to speculate how the Web would be restructured to make 3.0 right here, but I will note that the problems outlined above are due to the social nature of the modern web.

So, could hijacking signals also lead to an upheaval in the Web (or other things)?