The Power Comparison Between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0: The Ultimate Choice in Internet Evolution

In the wave of internet development, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 represent two fundamentally different organizational philosophies. The former centers on action, social interaction, and cloud computing, giving rise to tech giants like Google and Facebook; the latter is based on openness, decentralization, and permissionless systems, bringing innovative technologies such as blockchain, DeFi, and DAO. But behind this seemingly simple technological evolution lies a deeper game over power, data, and freedom. Which system better aligns with the future needs of human society? The answer is more complex than you might imagine.

Data is Power: The Monopoly Dilemma of Web 2.0

In July 2020, the U.S. Congress summoned four giants of the tech industry—Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai—for a rare antitrust hearing. The House Antitrust Subcommittee brought millions of documents and hundreds of hours of interview records to scrutinize these tech leaders.

On the surface, the purpose of the hearing was to protect consumers and maintain free markets. But in reality, it reflected a deeper concern of the government: who truly controls the most valuable resource of the nation—the data of its people?

A comparison reveals the answer. Who understands people’s behavior more deeply—Google or the CIA? Who has a more thorough grasp of identities—Facebook or the U.S. Department of Labor? The answer is clear: tech giants, through collecting and analyzing user data, have already amassed power comparable to that of the government. That’s why governments want to break up these Web 2.0 companies—because the data they control is equivalent to controlling the very “people” themselves.

The business model of Web 2.0 is inherently contradictory. These companies are built for expansion—they must continually grow, attract more users, and increase influence. The more Apple users there are, the stronger Apple becomes; the more people log into Facebook, the more Facebook can sell ads at higher prices; the more search data Google controls, the deeper its market insights.

This leads to an inevitable outcome: Web 2.0 companies either keep expanding or face decline. There is no middle ground.

The Dilemma of Governments: The Antitrust Paradox

From a social contract perspective, Western countries are built on an implicit agreement between citizens and the government. As Enlightenment philosophers John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau explained, citizens must relinquish certain rights to the state (the “Leviathan”) to survive within the nation.

Therefore, when we see these tech CEOs summoned to Congress, it’s not necessarily to protect consumers’ interests, but to uphold the established power order—ensuring that no private entity can stand on equal footing with the government in national governance.

Antitrust laws seem to aim at protecting market competition, but in reality, they are a form of power self-defense. When the government claims, “You cannot have monopolies because they threaten the market,” the underlying logic is: “Only we, the government, can have monopolies because they maintain social order.” When any entity grows enough to threaten state control, the government intervenes.

Web 2.0 and government are caught in a subtle tug-of-war: Web 2.0 companies need monopolies to survive, but monopolies invite government suppression. It’s an unsolvable dilemma.

Decentralization Over Centralization: The Proactive Approach of Web 3.0

In stark contrast is the operational logic of Web 3.0 organizations.

In early 2020, the Ethereum Name Service (ENS) managers issued and distributed 25% of governance tokens to over 137,000 different wallets. Another 25% was allocated to about 500 contributors, with the remaining 50% kept in the community treasury. Subsequently, Uniswap airdropped 60% of its tokens to 140,000 addresses interacting with the application.

For many, this appears as a simple capital reward for users. But in reality, it signifies a fundamentally different philosophy of power distribution. In Web 3.0, capital equals power, and they actively choose to distribute that power among network participants rather than concentrate it in founders or corporations.

The guiding principle of Web 3.0 is exactly the opposite: “Decentralize or die.” This model radically changes how these organizations are built. Uniswap distributed 60% of governance rights within just three years; ENS also decentralized 75% of its control. Why do this? Because Web 3.0 organizations understand a key truth: rather than waiting for government regulation to come crashing down, it’s better to decentralize these protocols early.

This is not only a risk-avoidance strategy but also an active embrace of the future. When centralized power is a prerequisite for Web 2.0 companies’ success, decentralization is an essential element for Web 3.0 applications to succeed.

The Ultimate Confrontation of Organizational Logics

Both Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 aim to improve products by expanding networks. The larger the network, the more valuable the product. But their fundamental difference is: Web 2.0 is about companies owning the network, Web 3.0 is about the network owning tokens.

This seemingly subtle difference actually determines the entire power structure. In Web 2.0, the integration of companies and networks is company-centric and exploitative—user-generated content benefits the platform; user data creates value for the platform. This asymmetry has caused widespread mental health issues—the addictive mechanisms designed to maximize profit are harming billions of users.

In contrast, Web 3.0’s token-network combination is user-centric and generative—users, developers, and contributors share ownership of the network and the benefits of value creation.

From an institutional perspective, once Web 2.0 companies attract government scrutiny, they face a single power center: CEOs can be summoned, companies can be split, services can be shut down. But what about Web 3.0 DAOs? There’s no CEO to summon, no headquarters to raid, because every participant is part of the organization. Decentralization is resilient, while centralization is fragile.

Governments may be able to stop Google, Apple, Facebook, but they cannot halt an open-source protocol running on the blockchain. ENS, Uniswap, Synthetix—these are not assets owned by a single company but shared infrastructure of the entire network community. Attacking a central point is easy, but destroying a decentralized system is nearly impossible.

The True Attitude of Governments: Protecting the Existing Order

Interestingly, the attitude of government leaders toward Web 3.0 contradicts its logic. On the surface, Web 3.0 is doing what governments have long called for: dismantling centralization, pushing power to the edges, and allowing market competition to emerge naturally.

In theory, governments should be pleased. Finally, a new technology that can effectively compete with Web 2.0 giants! Finally, a way to address concentration of power through market mechanisms!

But in reality, the response is quite the opposite. Leaders generally view cryptocurrencies and decentralized tech with hostility, trying to demonize the entire industry and label it as “illegal,” “fraudulent,” or “uncontrolled.” Why?

The answer is simple: Antitrust is never about protecting consumers but about safeguarding existing power structures. The essence of antitrust law is: “No private entity should grow enough to threaten our power. If you fly too close to the sun, we will bring you down.”

Web 3.0 poses a threat to national power just like Web 2.0, but the key difference is: Web 3.0’s decentralization makes it impossible for governments to suppress it as they do Web 2.0 companies. Governments can summon CEOs, but they cannot summon a protocol; they can freeze bank accounts, but they cannot freeze a blockchain; they can sue a company, but they cannot sue an open-source community.

The Final Winner: Demand Shapes the Future

In the long-term evolution of cryptocurrency, we will ultimately look back at government interventions as buzzing, annoying mosquitoes—harmless but irritating. Just as rivers eventually erode stones in their beds, the flowing force of Web 3.0 will bypass every obstacle and gradually wear down any barriers in its path.

Why is Web 3.0 destined to win? Because it fulfills humanity’s deepest needs.

These needs have been evident since 2020:

• Record-high distrust in existing institutions
• Wealth disparity at historic highs
• Society increasingly aware of Web 2.0 companies’ profound impact on life
• Rise of populist ideas, with people eager to break power hierarchies
• Emergence of community- and friendship-based, “anti-authority” organizational models

And Web 3.0 organizations are the perfect response to these needs:

• Over 50% of control distributed to users and communities
• Decentralization implemented early, not forced later
• Founders’ power minimized to prevent re-concentration
• Minimized influence of venture capital
• Community-first approach, giving users real decision-making power

Ultimately, the comparison between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is not about technology but about humanity’s choice for future social structures. Whether or not people fully understand, most in the world are unconsciously yearning for what Web 3.0 promises: decentralization of power, shared value, and democratization of systems.

The popularity of Web 3.0 will not be because it is cooler, newer, or more advanced, but because it offers what people deeply desire: autonomy, dignity, and true ownership.

Disclaimer: This article is a rewritten and integrated analysis, presenting a comprehensive view. It does not represent any single stance. Content is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice.