The internet is a term referring to the physical infrastructure used for data transmission.
This project should be referred to as the World Wide Web 2.0 or at least a user friendly dark web, instead of the Internet 2.0.
The internet is a term referring to the physical infrastructure used for data transmission.
Ok, but if it bothers you, you could just open up a PR and propose a change.
This project should be referred to as the World Wide Web 2.0 or at least a user friendly dark web, instead of the Internet 2.0.
Web 2.0 already exists, you are using it right now (you can google it). For someone who complains about getting terminology wrong you sure did seem to slip up a bit there.
Anyway, dubbing this project the user friendly dark web is also a bit silly, because the dark web uses tor that's why you need Tor Browser to access it.
For someone who complains about something this petty, it's ironic that you make two serious computer science mistakes in the following sentence. I recommend that you close this issue and open a PR instead because that would be useful.
(P.S. if you do want to argue over something that petty, I have some comments I could make about your repos)
Ohh pedantry! My favorite type of discussion. jk
Indeed web 1.0 was a weird, dark, sometimes scary place. I've seen some shit no 12 year old should see, on web 1.0
I am not sure if this is ontologically part of web 3.0 or if it would constitute a web 4.0, I suspect it would be web3 though.
Web 2.0 already exists, you are using it right now (you can google it). For someone who complains about getting terminology wrong you sure did seem to slip up a bit there.
Okay. Fine. You got me. I slipped up here.
Anyway, dubbing this project the user friendly dark web is also a bit silly, because the dark web uses tor that's why you need Tor Browser to access it.
It not using the tor browser is one reason why it would be a user friendly version.
For someone who complains about something this petty, it's ironic that you make two serious computer science mistakes in the following sentence. I recommend that you close this issue and open a PR instead because that would be useful.
I wasn't complaining. I was just trying to calmly mention this, as no one else had yet. If you interpreted it as a complaint, that's on you.
(P.S. if you do want to argue over something that petty, I have some comments I could make about your repos)
I am 16, so maintaining my repositories isn't my highest priority at the moment.
Activity
0x32767 commentedon Aug 10, 2025
Ok, but if it bothers you, you could just open up a PR and propose a change.
Web 2.0
already exists, you are using it right now (you can google it). For someone who complains about getting terminology wrong you sure did seem to slip up a bit there.Anyway, dubbing this project the
user friendly dark web
is also a bit silly, because the dark web usestor
that's why you needTor Browser
to access it.For someone who complains about something this petty, it's ironic that you make two serious computer science mistakes in the following sentence. I recommend that you close this issue and open a PR instead because that would be useful.
(P.S. if you do want to argue over something that petty, I have some comments I could make about your repos)
cppcooper commentedon Aug 12, 2025
Ohh pedantry! My favorite type of discussion. jk
Indeed web 1.0 was a weird, dark, sometimes scary place. I've seen some shit no 12 year old should see, on web 1.0
I am not sure if this is ontologically part of web 3.0 or if it would constitute a web 4.0, I suspect it would be web3 though.
MineFartS commentedon Aug 12, 2025
@0x32767
Okay. Fine. You got me. I slipped up here.
It not using the tor browser is one reason why it would be a user friendly version.
I wasn't complaining. I was just trying to calmly mention this, as no one else had yet. If you interpreted it as a complaint, that's on you.
I am 16, so maintaining my repositories isn't my highest priority at the moment.