A key aspect of this ecosystem is that each part is interchangeable. With the exception of the backbone of the Internet itself, nothing about the infrastructure of the Web is so fundamental as to be irreplaceable. Ever since the ‘browser wars’ of the late 90s, Web users and developers have rejected the formation of technological monopolies and gatekeepers in favour of a neutral network on which systems are interoperable through voluntary adoption of standards. This philosophy has given us a Web which is diverse and resilient.

But there is a new movement for technological monopolisation in our midst, and it’s one that is, alarmingly, receiving a lot of uncritical acceptance. Although it’s driven by the pursuit of profit, its advocates are insidiously non-corporate. Like prior attempts at technological monopolisation, those shilling it claim that it will bring innovation and a better experience for Web users, and derisively portray their critics as ignorant technophobes. But unlike those prior attempts, they co-opt the language of anti-corporatism and digital freedoms, cynically carving out a space in the current zeitgeist around concerns over the way social media and big tech operates.

and most importantly:

Web3 advocates may respond at this point that there are several different blockchain platforms to choose from. This is true, but unlike on a web server where the developer can choose their own software stack and migrate the data if they want to use a different stack, if someone were to disagree with how a blockchain project is being run the best they could do is to try and fork it, and convince enough nodes to use their fork to keep the network running. Once you are tied into a particular blockchain, it’s not meant to be easy to leave — that’s the whole value proposition for the holders of the cryptocurrency tokens that users of the chain need to buy. The promise of decentralisation is just a veneer — blockchain is in fact the worst kind of vendor lock-in.