> Plenty of its advocates very clearly WANT to force people to partake though
Advocates evangelize heavily, sure, but will you provide some examples of this? I keep track of the headlines in this space, but I'm not familiar with / haven't experienced what you're describing.
I mean, it's in the name itself - web3 makes it sound like it's the next evolution of the web that we'll all be using in a few years.
I think that's part of why there's so much backlash from the tech community -- it feels like a small group of people (who largely haven't built much on the web besides React apps) have decided that they get to call what they're working on the new web, even though it's currently mostly vaporware and bad art.
There’s a pretty big difference between “this project is named poorly and isn’t ready for prime time” and “advocates want to force people to use it”.
Don’t get me wrong - I share plenty of the same concerns others have shared throughout this thread, and tend to think “web3” is not a good thing to call this, but don’t see the “by force” claim as valid at this point.
Plenty of apps/projects brand themselves as the next coming/generation/evolution/whatever. Only adoption will tell us if they’re right.
Fair, but I think the name is reflective of a greater attitude. I've never been told I'm NGMI (“not going to make it”) for not adopting Serverless, or that I should “have fun staying poor” if I ignore Kubernetes.
Advocates evangelize heavily, sure, but will you provide some examples of this? I keep track of the headlines in this space, but I'm not familiar with / haven't experienced what you're describing.