Could Tyranny Arise In Web 3.0?

avatar

There is little doubt that the battle for freedom is on. We have a world where people are taking to the streets in an effort to push back on policies and actions that are taking away people's freedoms.

At the same time, we see a digital world that is, unfortunately, mirroring much of the "real" world. Actually, if we step back, we can see the digital world operated in a more tyrannical fashion than what took place outside. What was designed originally as an open forum of information was hijacked and siloed. Our entire online world is run by a handful of major companies.

The entities that are in control differ but the result is the same. Web 3.0 promises to be something completely different. The challenge here is this was what the Internet was suppose to offer. Yet, in spite of the values of the early developers, the exact opposite happened.

Thus, we are confronted with the question can Web 3.0 end up in tyranny also?

It is a topic worthy of discussion.

image.png
Source

Centralized States

It is obvious that power comes from centralized states. When something is decentralized, tyranny has a much tougher time. For this reason, power is usually amassed in an hierarchical fashion, which each layer exerting control over the layer below. Whether it is a government or corporation, the result is the same. The largest layer, the bottom, has very little say in what takes place. It also tends to lack the ability to defend itself.

The same is not true in a decentralized state. Here we see the design horizontal in nature. This pushed the control in a sideways direction, making it hard to exert control over another. The examples of horizontal structures are not prevalent simply because it was not the preferred method.

We do see some benefits to centralized entities. One of the biggest is efficiency, especially when it comes to decision making. When a few are tasked with the responsibility for making the decisions, then the actions filter out from there, things can get done in a timely manner. Of course, this is ripe for abuse, which we often see occur.

Companies such as Google, Apple, and Facebook, some of the primary players of Web 2.0, are known to be tyrannical in nature. While it varies how they behave, each exerts full control over their ecosystem. With Facebook, we see censoring, account deletion, and algorithm changes that wipe out businesses. As for Apple, their control shows up mostly in their app store, where competitors are not allowed and huge fees are taken by the company.

Even when operating in a responsible manner, the structure guarantees there will be exploitation, a move that will ultimately end up in tyranny in some form.

With Web 3.0, we are guaranteed that the existing entities of tyranny are not present. However, could new ones form?

image.png
Source

Open Source Projects

Unlike Apple, the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum are open source projects. The software can be forked, providing the users a degree of protection. At the same time, users control their wallets meaning account closure is not possible.

Does that ensure that tyranny cannot happen?

This is becoming a major question as we watch what is taking place with Bitcoin. We already saw China ban mining, which sent those entities scurrying to different parts of the world.

We are seeing this followed up by some individual countries following the same course of action. Then we get the latest, where an EU regulator called for a ban of cryptocurrency mining within the EU.

So, while Bitcoin is decentralized to the point it cannot be closed down, could see a shift where the mining ends up primarily in one geographic area? If that is the case, how does that impact the control that can be exerted over the network? Where do government entities step in via their ability to regulate those doing the mining? Could this be hijacked?

Of course, if that happens, a forking could take place. But would that offer the same capabilities? Could that be a step backwards?

We also have something similar with Ethereum. This is switching to a Proof-of-Stake model. Are there points of vulnerability there?

Unlike a government entity, the advantage to an Ethereum is that people are free to go anywhere on the network they want. There is no way to stop them other than the validators getting together and opting to do that. However, if that occurs, confidence in the system is instantly destroyed.

The pragmatic side of things prevents large validators from doing that. There is simply too much to lose.

Nevertheless, we need to be mindful of the potential that could take place.

image.png
Source

The Defense Is In The Collective

Our final point might be in simply stepping back further. Perhaps there are vulnerabilities at the individual level. By this, separate networks, not matter what we do, can be attacked and, ultimately, taken over. For this reason, it is possible for tyranny to enter Web 3.0.

However, the defense against this is the collective. Whereas one system might be vulnerable, all are not. We are seeing development taking place on many different chains, most of which were forks of something else. Within each of those systems there is a degree of decentralizing taking place. This provides a bit more resiliency.

Also, values are growing, the recent collapse aside. Each day more of existing tokens are issued out. This is coupled with newer projects bringing out there own. When we combine this, we see wealth generate spreading to more people.

With wallet holders globally, each increase in stake is influence over some networks. The Proof of Work systems do not enjoy this yet anything with some form of coin governance does.

Is this really just a game of whack-a-mole? They might be able to get some of what is developed here but not all. With each passing day, more is being created. Ultimately, the growth rate of users is going to be such where massive shifts will occur, seemingly overnight.

Does that provide a defense? With even a few pieces of infrastructure that ensures open transaction ability, the system cannot be stopped. This helps to keep tyranny at bay.

Could we still see entities stepping up and taking over Web 3.0? It certainly is possible since none of us can see the future. We should keep in mind the original framers of the Internet probably did not see the likes of Apple, Google or PayPal. Nevertheless, they were able to jump in and operate in a way that is more benefitting to them over the user base.

It seems like the key is going to be continued focus upon this subject. The idea of continued distributing and decentralizing is vital. It is something we need to be consistent with. At not point can we allow the efforts to stop. If that happens, then forces can move in to take over.

This is the only way to prevent tyranny from taking over Web 3.0. We have the tools, we just need to exercise them.

What are your thoughts?


If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.

gif by @doze

screen_vision2025_1.png

logo by @st8z

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta



0
0
0.000
22 comments
avatar

pixresteemer_incognito_angel_mini.png
Bang, I did it again... I just rehived your post!
Week 89 of my contest just started...you can now check the winners of the previous week!
4

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

with the huge amount of vc involvement in the space and poor distribution (founder stake etc...) it is inevitable.
of course this has nothing to do with web3 because hive is the only true web3 platform.
the thing is that most people don't care. if web2.5 can make them money they will shill it. to them web3 is a buzz word. they are still locked in a scarcity mindset and thus have no time for principles and are loyal to their bags only.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I agree 100%. The VC is certainly an area of vulnerability, not only from their direct take over but also the control governments can exert upon them.

We do know there are some projects arising without VC involvement. At the same time, VC are not open source, why would they it kills their ROI potential. How rapidly do these spread?

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

really this nothing more that what we have seen from big tech. the 3 Es.
embrace open source innovation.
extend the protocol through 3rd party tools.
extinguish the open parts in favor of a closed system.
consume all value.
repeat.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You're perfectly right. There's lots of youtubers that are praising decentralized blockchain technology while still be heavily involved in web2.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah and they wont even consider Web 3.0.

If they posted on YouTube and backed it up, a week or two later on 3Speak, I would be impressed. But instead, they operate solely on Web 2.0.

That is why I am anxious for #ProjectBlank. Get that out there and remove the excuses as to why they cant use it.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

It is obvious that power comes from centralized states. When something is decentralized, tyranny has a much tougher time. For this reason, power is usually amassed in an hierarchical fashion, which each layer exerting control over the layer below.

With the information gathering in this post and what I learn so far, it possible tyranny to enter web 3. Although web 3 network promise some advantage over web3 technology, but since it created upon layer by layers, it can later come to stage where others previous sematic web technology at today. While another sematic web will come up to promise us another degree of success over others.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You bring up a great point, one outside the scope of this article.

There are a lot of layers in the digital world that are in need of this. It is not only Web 3 but also the infrastructure that we use. So far, it is all centralized.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

Nice and very important post. We must discuss these issues. I'll do a follow up on this topic in another context.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

What a pile of sh*t these bureaucrats are! They are looking for something to blame for their incapacity to find solutions to provide enough electricity (or gas, without Russia) throughout Europe. As long as people blame bitcoin or ethereum for troubles in energy, they won't blame them. It doesn't matter that there aren't any serious bitcoin miners in the EU.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That is true.

The fact that the regulation and moves destroyed the energy industry there. A lot of countries are having issues and are at the mercy of Putin. He is in the driver's seat now.

A major tactical error that was made to appease a small group at the expense of everyone else.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

We are in the middle of the fight of the nation states against a decentralized version of everything. I think the biggest trump card that we hold is that ultimately blockchains like Hive cannot be controlled. However, all chains will have to adopt to an ever increasing hostile environment. I don't think this will be an easy fight...

0
0
0.000
avatar

It will not be an easy fight and the foe is very powerful. The establishment is well entrenched.

That is why we have to change the rules of engagement. We cannot take them on head to head. Instead we need a great deal more ingenuity to defeat them.

Our advantage is the ability to develop and to keep increasing our numbers.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

The politicians will never want to release their control and it will be long and hard fight to move in the right direction. However I do think it will happen but money is probably just one of the reasons why we will never be fully decentralized. It will probably be a mix of the two.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

There is a fight going on, no doubt about it.

Yet keep in mind, money is now data, something that is harder to control.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

I've already done game-theory about how easy it is to get to a tyrannical state even if we do it in a decentralized way. One community can easily control other communities. This could lead to tyranny... and that's not even factoring in the legacy imperialists.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

Let me tell my thoughts, although I am not so familiar with technical and krypto or any financial issues. ;-) probably I just understood half of what you wrote.
This free and decentralised web 3.0 seems to work well in its structure. But as long as people in their real lifes cannot step out living and thinking in any tyrannic or hierarchic order, cannot be without any I am better and I have more thoughts, (not excepting myself, me too) they will also bring these thoughts and structures with them, whereever they go and whatever they do. This of course can also affect on hive, and as from the sight of a newbie, I can say hive has a hierarchic and sometimes tyrannic structure.
The only thing good for us is, that we have good leaders here. But they are still leaders.
I believe coming out from the world we were born and grew up, it isnt possible to imagine how a decentralised society could work because we have too much hundrets of years and generations lived in hierarchical structures and it is nearly impossible to even think how such a new world and social 4.0 could be.
But I love that we try to find it out here :-)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Wow that sounds awesome!
And yes we need much more time to exercise. 💪🏻📜

0
0
0.000
avatar

Could Tyranny Arise In Web 3.0?

Interesting question.

If we are in fact deeming Hive as a web3 platform, then it has already had its rise of tyrannical heads throwing their weight around, from what I have witnessed (on both layer 1 and layer 2). DPoS on Hive is highly flawed with the curation/distribution models present (my two cents). There are clearcut examples of tyrannical behaviour and it's hard to believe that no one else can see it, yourself included @taskmaster4450.

The important thing to note is that it can be addressed and change can be more easily achieved when the system and technology provide the avenues for such (I think this may be your overall point about decentralisation on a bigger scale). This has seen action on both of Hive's layers, thankfully.

It's all evolution from my point of view. The benefit of the blockchain is that all the actions are clear to see down the line. This could potentially be where the disconnect between "business account" and "human account" becomes an issue.

What are your thoughts about the current distribution efforts on Layer 1?

0
0
0.000