there's always people who go against the incentives - all they need to win is for the status quo to become so rigid and fragile to a point where all it takes to create a promising independent alternative is like one guy determined to be "based"
Well if it worked so well, why is so much of it gone, and why did it become so full of crazy banner ads? What was with all the "bot" traffic, SPAM emails and Viagra comments?
Why was it so expensive to get a "website up and running?"
Why were there so many "technical co-founder wanted" ads to get to "first prototype" and seed stage?
Why? All of that stuff came out of a growing internet. It didn’t come pre-packaged. I’m not saying there aren’t better internets in the future, I am saying this one is low friction and by throwing everything on a blockchain you remove the frictionless environment. And honestly I don’t see how any of that negative stuff goes away in your proposal.
I am not sure why you think it’s expensive to get a website up and running.
Developers who charge by business value rather than time could charge $15k for customizing a PHP CMS in a few hours and preparing it for the client. The client thinks they built everything by hand and they're grateful because their customers "ring in" about it.
Most blockchains are public, static in their blocks and ever-present. People say it's a solution looking for a problem: well there's a massive problem it solves. Using it as a decentralized library of intelligence and innovation, and like a forest, there's that ever-present reach for sunlight - ie human attention and whoever gets it, gets rewarded. Like with a forest and life. As someone else said it's just a permissionless P2P network but it can be applied differently.
these are excellent questions, but imo the answer isn't "the old web lacked unnecessary friction designed to inflate the cost of basic storage operations" - the blockchain is a lie: it is obviously the most centralized form of computing (literally nothing can happen without global consensus?), being sold as "decentralization". It is a scheme to trap the web into a centralized ledger and sell it to the highest bidder.
Could you propose a system where patents could be granted favoring first claims rather than bending to legal muscle? Patents could be sold later for additional monetization if needed. So if you purchased some good, it would be great to see royalties flow back to the assigned inventors. The IP backstory is the key.
Care to elaborate? What is this new web if no one is incentivized to publish, only consume?