Web3 Myth Collection (2): It is very important for users to own Web3
Original Author: Knight Zhang
Original Source: Uncertain Thinking
Related Reading:
Original Source: Uncertain Thinking
secondary titleRelated Reading:Web3 myth collection (1): What problems did I encounter in Web2?
Web3 Myths (3): The 3+1 Model of Web3
continue
Last Myth
chat.
I am a part-time content creator, and I have output some articles intermittently in the past few years. As for the ownership of the content, there is no doubt that it belongs to the creator. All plagiarism for the purpose of profit without permission is an infringement.
My articles are basically posted on the official account, mainly because the various experiences here are relatively good for creators, and it supports complete markdown and style customization, which is relatively individual.
The article is posted on the official account, and the copyright of the article belongs to me, but on this platform, if I want to move the article, it is still very difficult. It sets up a lot of side walls. One is not easy to search externally, and the other is not easy to migrate.
Although the copyright of the text belongs to me personally, the carrier after the article is published is not under the control of the individual.
This is also difficult to avoid in web3. But the biggest problem is that if you write something that some people think is incorrect, it will be deleted. Some people will also report maliciously, and the account may be blocked.
For a lot of time this year, I have a lot of concerns about posting, worrying that I will be blocked at some point. But slowly, I was relieved. Now that I decided to devote myself to the embrace of web3, the official account was blown up, which may be another kind of rebirth.
What exactly is censorship resistance
The term anti-censorship, most of the time people think of legal compliance, or some political correctness. For example, there are special departments to manage public opinion, and you can't say things that are politically incorrect, otherwise you will be caught.
But in fact, the action of censorship is often more done by Internet applications. The most intuitive is the content that users see in the advertisements and information streams that users see when using the app. These contents are the result of the review of our behavior by the app.
Censorship is an action closely related to privacy protection.
Recently, I have been very dissatisfied with the commercial application of scanning the code to order food. The superficial self-service behavior of ordering food actually hides a lot of potential violations of user privacy.In the past, when I went to eat, I ordered the meal with the menu and paid in RMB after the meal. Afterwards, the boss only received the meal payment and did not know the information of the diners.
Now ordering food by scanning the code, when you open the ordering applet, your personal information, phone number, geographical location and other information are all collected.
Some people will say that it is necessary to transfer some personal data, which is also a key behavior for the domestic digital economy to quickly catch up with Europe and the United States.
On this matter, I personally hold a neutral attitude.
It's not that I disapprove of the transfer, but I don't believe that the companies that get the data will abide by the law and not do anything out of the ordinary.
Last year, Facebook's control of the general election was also a hot topic. There was a documentary called "Surveillance Capitalism" (you can watch it in NetEase's open class), which conducted an in-depth investigation on how technology companies control user behavior. It can be said that the facts are shocking.
An idea that Xiao Zha wakes up in the morning may change the fate of a person somewhere far away on the earth. This kind of control is unprecedented, and it is achieved through the review of various behaviors of users.
But when it comes to censorship, it is true that different people have different opinions. Some countries and regions are naturally immune to censorship. It may be that the cultural foundation has adapted.But liberalism is very sensitive to censorship. With the improvement of people's ideological realm, or insight into the essence, criticism of the real world, and skeptical attitude towards some issues, etc., people will become more thinking about censorship.Who does the user information in the app belong to?
There is no doubt that the content and other information created by the user himself belongs to the user himself. But for some information that is not well defined, such as some behavioral data during the use of the application, does this data belong to the user or the application?Regarding this issue, Mr. Xue Zhaofeng's article"The Horse Manure Contest"There are better answers here.
"Encourage the creation of wealth, or encourage the marking of wealth"
, he uses such a question to define how to attribute these data is more reasonable.
"Encourage people to create wealth, and society will get better and better"
, this is Mr. Xue's answer.
Take Taobao shopping as an example. We usually hang out in the app when we have nothing to do. Some products have been opened many times, some keywords have been searched many times, some products have been added to the shopping cart, and various access behaviors are stored in the in the background system.
The system uses these data to calculate our personal preferences and push us products that better meet our needs at the right time, which creates more transaction volume for the platform and can be said to create more wealth. According to the above case logic , which should be encouraged.
As an individual, if I want to get these data to analyze my personal habits, so that I can shop more targetedly in other places, and also hope to create more wealth through this analysis, this demand is in the platform. can not achieve. On the one hand, the platform will not provide it, because it is of no benefit to the platform; on the other hand, even if it is provided, it may be a paid service.
That's the problem. I also want to create more wealth and improve efficiency. What's wrong with getting my personal behavior data? If I don't need those complex value-added services, but just the most original data, is that okay? It's hard to see right now.
As far as the current web2 application is concerned, the ownership of the content and information created by users belongs to the user in name, but the actual right to use still belongs to the platform.
For web3, I personally prefer that these usage rights can be separated. The ability to resist censorship of information can also be achieved through highly composable and autonomously controllable cross-application authorization.
When we use metamask to access the application, we only expose part of the information. Through identity layering, we can also have many anonymous identities, and we can freely choose how much information to expose to the application.
Who do the assets in the application belong to?
This question is easy to answer, assets belong to users. Which in-app things are considered assets? Is it only money?
Our most commonly used WeChat, Alipay, Meituan, etc., if you add money to it, the money will be in the app. If the company goes bankrupt and the app is gone, the assets will basically not be refunded, just like ofo.
This point can be better solved by web3. An agreement can manage hundreds of millions of assets, but the agreement project party cannot move these assets. This can be achieved through the control of smart contracts. But it is difficult to realize in the application of web2.
In web2, money is also the most strictly managed, so it is rare for users to fail to pay in large quantities.
But apart from money, other assets are really difficult to control, such as virtual items in various applications, which users cannot take away. We used to buy so many QQ skins, but they disappeared after the version upgrade, and the money was wasted. In addition, the most widely recognized is the props and items in the game. In the centralized game, this cannot really be fully owned by the user.
Various real examples show that the ownership of web2's in-app user assets belongs to the user, but the actual use right cannot be fully controlled by the user.
Who owns web3?
Through some of the above examples, some problems of web2 can be summarized:
User-created content and information is personal to the user, but with limited control
The user's behavior information can be called by both parties, but the user cannot call it personally
The assets of the application belong to the user, but the management right belongs to the application, and it is difficult for the user to manage it by himself
Can web3 solve these problems well? Not necessarily, but at least through various experiments, it can be seen that efforts are being made in the direction of solving these problems.
Recently, several bigwigs on Twitter have been tit-for-tat on the topic of "who owns web3". Most of their views are focused on VC controlling most web3 applications.
