So your comment doesn't ring true in this case imo

if you are not aware of how something like what I described could work maybe have a read around on some simple smart contracts where there is hidden state (like guess the answer or contracts that implement role access/control for certain features)

And you are right twitter can still have that clause, and they can cause they have somethign to offer (i.e. a userbase) but if the content of everyone would be somewhere else other competiors would be able to offer it and then competiion for users would tend to make those terms more accessible to those that care enough to read them.

* you can by doing it as in an event sourcing system. After all blockchains+smart contracts are similar to a giant state machine

Now the relationship is the reverse, I give content to some org and they can do as they wish with it; I'm surrending it for them to use in exchange of them allowing me to use their platform for free.

e.g. from Twitter's terms of use:

> By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating).

If the content was hosted somewhere else and then displayed on twitter instead, this would not be the case or I could revoke it in the future but still be able to distribute such content via other means

Now, if I want to use another site then I need to duplicate the content myself.

Since all that they really offer is the userbase/community, its very hard for competitors to come into play and offer better terms or capabilities. In fact, they can change these terms at anypoint and I can do very little about it aside of deleting my account (if they even allow you to do that!)

I see it more as retaining ownership some of the content we produce and happily give to twitter, youtube, facebook etc to monetise and have some more control over it

Things as being able to:

* remove access to site to display my content but still be published somewhere else if I wish to do so

* be able to serve my content to people that prefer to use another tools without relying on twitter to have a public API as long as I granted them access

* get the person getting hits and making money of ads to share some of that with me, or maybe pay my gas fees

* not be shut down because a given site or state decides my content is not worthy of it, they are still allowed to do this, but I could still continue via another "frontend" and people can choose

There are more use cases around this, and there are many gaps yet around the economics of it to make it accessible/free, make it desirable, legality, liability etc which I believe remain to be solved

I'm not saying the same will neccessarily repeat with so called web3, but we might be at a similar stage - in this case the sensation(?) of ownership of one's content is a desired attribute at the expense of efficiency in computing/processing terms for some use cases

it's pretty much the wild west now and not fully understood, but if it attracts investment with time something might come out of it.

People like pointing out echo chambers all around while they are also in one.

Remember all the feathers ruffled with cloud computing? It just servers in a data center! Serverless? There are still servers! web2.0 s just ajax requests!

If people dump money into it, then something is likely to come out whether is better or not than what it was before. Maybe is worse, or maybe something will be built on top of it that will be better or some othere political event might make it relevant. Who knows

As other commenter mentioned below, "web3" is mostly storing transactional info into a blockchain and then linking stuff to ipfs + some layer on top to display this. For example that orbis site, indexes/caches the data in the bc to be able to display it as per their use case. So the only real difference is that the "tweets" are not owned by them but by each user. For anything else it's still a normal web app.

I don't know how this works legally, but there was a link from Vitalik's blog a few days ago explaining this. Say if a user uploads CP or some other illegal/offensive content the site can hide it but can't delete it. I'm not sure where liability would fall on here.

Similar, the case with Twitter blocking Trump a few years ago, maybe another site could still allow him to continue if they wish to do so by displaying the same content

I guess there are more use cases that distill from here, not sure how beneficial they are or might be, and just as many things in technology it is not 100% neccessary that the solution is better than something that already exists, it just needs to get traction and attract people/investment. Whether that happens with web3 is just to be seen I suppose.

Also descentralised exchanges are things coming up, but this gets even muddier with all the compliance requirements so not sure where those will end up