Web 3.0 and the Significance of “3”

Georg Simmel (1858–1918) was a German sociologist and philosopher, whose writings heavily influenced social theory about groups, communities, and social networks. One of his most important contributions, which is perhaps has only increased in relevance over time, has to do with the significance of the number three.

Simmel wrote a number of essays trying to understand the sociology and meaning of groups of people. He had a particular interest in understanding the significance of numbers and group size, but he begins by examining two types of groups: dyads (groups of two) and triads (groups of three).

On the dyad: “The simplest sociological formation … operates between two elements.”

On the triad: “The appearance of the third party indicates transition, conciliation, and abandonment of absolute contrast.”

One of Simmel’s insights here was that while the dyad was the fundamental unit of social interaction, it is the expansion of 2 to 3 (and beyond) and reveals the complexity, beauty, and dangers of social life.

Students of sociology are likely to be familiar with the Latin term tertius gaudens, which Simmel wrote at length about. Roughly translated, the tertius gaudens is the “third who enjoys.” In simple terms, this refers to the social dynamic in which a third party to an interaction between two parties can derive benefit or profit by playing the two sides against one another, or brokering exchange between them. Often these characters play the role of opportunists or evildoers who use their relationships with each side of a dyad to sow discord, jealousy, and misinformation.

Of course, this sort of dynamic is not necessarily harmful — the “third” can also be a valuable broker of information or resources, or even serve the role of the tertius iungens and create harmony and peace. But regardless of the dynamic that is created between the dyad, the insight was that the “third” was actually a very advantageous position.

—

Clubhouse and Twitter spaces? Three-way and conference calls. DMs? Instant messages. Discord? IRC and AOL chatrooms.

Back to Web 3.0.

Yes, I know that the 3 in Web 3.0 simply refers to the improvement from previous “generations” (1.0 and 2.0) of the internet that have had a massive impact on society over the last two or three decades. But, from my position as a relative newcomer to the Web 3.0 space, observing, listening, reading, experiencing, and learning as much as I possibly could, it struck me that we are undertaking a radical transformation in which advances in technology are facilitating a return to a more basic form of interaction — at least in these early days.

In our conversations about Web 3.0 and the promise of a more decentralized internet, we yearn for the advent of (or perhaps a return to) peer-to-peer as the basis of our interactions. It’s no surprise that so many of the structures and tools that we use today to organize, socialize, and mobilize activities and resources a starkly familiar to those of us who were alive in the ’80s and ’90s. Clubhouse and Twitter spaces? Three-way and conference calls. DMs? Instant messages. Discord? IRC and AOL chatrooms.

Oftentimes, when people say they want to “decentralize” things, they are not seeking anarchy or the degradation of institutions and structures. Instead, what most people are after is a world in which so many of our social interactions, information gathering, exploration, and transactions, are not dependent on the existence of a central “hub” that not only facilitates those activities, but also, by virtue of its central position within the network, can observe all behaviors and unilaterally determine how we use that network.

“Our” social networks as we see them on Twitter or Instagram or Facebook, are not actually ours at all — they are what each of these platforms enables us to see. So really, in our dreams for a “better internet,” we are trying to reduce our reliance on these central hubs and disintermediate the relationships and interactions that we value so highly.

Web 2.0 was built on the power of the “third.”

The trick was that they made us believe that they were not there.

Further reading: The Sociology of Georg Simmel