That’s not web2.0 but rather a couple of companies. Nothing prevents anyone else from doing different things with their web applications, and more importantly there’s no indication that magical thinking about blockchains will somehow prevent that business model from continuing.
The blockchain design makes it even easier to mine peoples’ activity and prevents retroactive privacy improvements but, more importantly, the underlying problem is that people like not spending money. Various people have tried micropayments on the web but ads have less friction and don’t bother a sufficiently large group of people enough to pay more than advertisers, not to mention the precedent suggesting that sites will display ads to even paying customers.
Similarly, content hosting has the same failed promise. Blockchains are too inefficient to store the content, which is why all of the “web3” services are so commonly dependent on normal web companies. NFT pirates trying to steal artists’ work are routinely halted by takedown requests to Google, AWS, etc. There are services like IPFS which try to provide less centralized hosting but they’re expensive and have the same issues with most of the actual hosting being on ISPs who are legally required to honor things like DMCA or other illegal content requests.
> Do you have any say whatsoever how your data and content are used by, say, Facebook?
You're describing DRM. It doesn't exist for blockchain either - famously I can copy/paste NFTs all day long. And it's not clear whether most NFTs even provide any copyrights for the content they link to so you still don't even "own" the content in the legal sense.
