How ‘Web 3.0’ Caused Privacy Chaos | G1 – Technology and Games

Nowadays with almost no use, the term “web 2.0” was in vogue and the subject of many reports (nowadays it is easier to talk about “social networks” and no one is surprised). But if there was a “web 2.0”, it would take “web 3.0” to succeed. And this web 3.0 has arrived, yes – and many of the technologies we use were developed from the perspective of what this “new” web would look like.

But what is web 3.0? If Web “1.0” allowed humans to access data stored on machines, and Web 2.0 allowed people to communicate and share data, Web 3.0 is what allows computers to access data from other computers, which is what machines talk to. to make sense of large amounts of data.

It was this vision of the future that brought the information of millions of people to Cambridge Analytica and led to a scandal that led Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to testify in the United States Senate. This vision of the future has turned almost all networks – Facebook, Google, Outlook, Twitter – into “platforms” for accessing “applications” to user data.

Machines are talking about machines, and the idea of ​​“everything is a platform” (as the jargon of the market says). That is, everything has to be connected with other things, creating dependency and, better yet, increasing its usefulness.

This model has its advantages. When applications run on computers, you can access services (such as an email provider) without sharing your password with third parties. All processing logic (and all data processing) is done on your computer.

As applications migrated to the web, Internet users began to take a risky practice of sharing passwords with these services. Twitter users, in particular, have been the target of various scams taking advantage of this practice. Turning these networks into platforms, with specific and controlled data access channels, became necessary as people saw the benefits of these web applications.

After the need, of course, they continued to abuse and provide data from the empty routine.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft – everything is a platform and connected to third parties. After the scandals, Facebook’s options are the most accurate. (Photo: Reproduction)

Balance between transparency and dependency
Without having to enter a password, many people have lost track of the weight of “installing” (or “connecting”) these apps to their social media profile. Password sharing, a very risky process from a data sharing point of view, has been reduced to a single click, all under the umbrella of large service providers.

It was at this time that the second wave of scams erupted when unscrupulous services began posting unauthorized messages on social media profiles. Facebook had to act to reduce the practice, and there are still “this is not supported [aplicativo] make publications ”.

But it wasn’t all about thinking about “contribution” and protecting Internet users. A platform cannot use any control or power if it is too open. As a result, standardized public data sharing resources (which were part of the original design of Web 3.0) have disappeared. Facebook allowed any program to connect to its chat service, but that is no longer supported. Twitter banned so-called “open feeds” and forced all integrations to be done on social media in the manner specified.

That is, the purpose of these platforms is to achieve a balance between transparency and dependency. Finally, they need to control how certain data is presented, because people need to see the content along with their ads. At the same time, they want to enable the construction of applications that increase network usage and therefore lead to really important visualizations.

The restrictions imposed by the networks had other consequences. The revenue of Zynga, the creator of social media games like Farmville, was $ 1.2 billion in 2012, but fell by $ 860 million in 2017. Disney’s Playdom competitor closed its doors in 2016. The market has almost completely shifted to (broken) mobile phone games. the Chinese and Koreans like it), but social media has come to terms with the obvious: if someone is playing, they don’t see any ads on the social network. From the partners who helped a lot on social media, these games have become enemies.

From the user’s point of view, little has been gained, as the mobile phone bills that connect these games also contain interesting data.

ideological clash
In fact, online privacy is waging an ideological war against this 100% connected view of the web – machine for machines, to “make sense” of sharing all the information. In marketing, it’s common today to talk about “Big Data” – but the term uses advances in data processing that weren’t part of what was seen for “web 3.0,” some of which are very good and useful for digital security, among others. , because digital security brings a wealth of information about the attacks on the Internet.

But some technological advances did not occur because the machines shared information about themselves, but about users. The result was obvious, but “whose data is that?” it never seemed like an important question. With the restrictions imposed on applications where social networks interact with them, the answer is clear: the data belongs to the platform, and users must use the privacy controls decided by the network (pictured, the privacy settings of others). apps – that screen no longer exists, because now Facebook says it blocks everything; he allowed most of it first, even without specific permission).

However, criticizing this so-called “future” approach is more or less like taking a stand on the past.

But if the web is looking for a solution to the chaos of information on the web, the waste of that process is the chaos of privacy.

The real scandal is not just Facebook

Questions about security, hackers, and viruses? Send

Leave a Comment