I think there's a lot of contention in a lot of mainstream conversation (esp Twitter) between web2 and web3 critics. I've also found that a lot of times we're always talking around each other and operating with different frames of reference. What I would like to see is some attempt at finding mutual ground to set the stage for actually productive conversations.
I'm curious to hear how someone might try to defend the proposition opposite the one they believe in. In other words, web3 critics comment on why web3 is great; web2 critics comment on why web3 isn't that great. Maybe part of this convo is around how to properly define the two.
Hopefully this isn't too pointless of a question/exercise; but if you do find this interesting, I would definitely like to learn more below.
Also, since there's no way of really checking, I guess it's more of an honor code that you try to make a case for the proposition you oppose rather than the one you support.
I'm curious to hear how someone might try to defend the proposition opposite the one they believe in. In other words, web3 critics comment on why web3 is great; web2 critics comment on why web3 isn't that great. Maybe part of this convo is around how to properly define the two.
Hopefully this isn't too pointless of a question/exercise; but if you do find this interesting, I would definitely like to learn more below.
Also, since there's no way of really checking, I guess it's more of an honor code that you try to make a case for the proposition you oppose rather than the one you support.
Thoughts?