Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Sure it's not completely accurate but it does embody the "spirit" I think.

I know, you could do writes with Web 1, so it's imperfect, but since that imperfection carries on to Web 3, I kinda like it. In its "wrongness" it kinda suggests it's not that simple.

Web 3 might be "own" - but the -value- of what you own is questionable. There might be things of value in there, but if there is it's well hidden by the crap. "Web with blockchain" doesn't seem like a useful improvement over "Web without block chain" [1].

So I like your summary. It begs the question "own what?" Which in turn kinda answers the Web 3 question in a nutshell.

[1] apart from criminal activity, clearly the killer-app for crypto, the block-chain is useful for time-stamping things. It can be used to prove that say a piece of music existed at a specific point in time. Which could be useful in copyright questions. Granted, this is an astonishingly niche case though.

The "own" part is a fantasy. Fractional tokens of the world's grain resources, on-chain video hosting, a global decentralized currency exchange, etc... none of that really scaled. Having a secret key to a wallet is not more "ownership" in practical terms than having a bank account with an ID and a password.

The way I understand web3, is that its key promise was to create a trustless global digital environment. Technologically speaking, it works to a large degree. Pragmatically—I don't think it's top of mind for the vast majority of people, including most (ex)web3 advocates.

Seems a little more like:

- It takes some knowledge to post

- It takes too little knowledge to post

- It takes money to do anything