Some thoughts seeing it in its original context:
• The title “Web 3.0” on that page—long before the term was hijacked by blockchain discourse—feels like a kind of conceptual land grab. You were sketching an alternative future rooted in media theory and sensuality, not tokens and DAOs. That hits differently now, in a good way.
• The structure reads almost like a chronological myth, or an alchemical cycle—from sensual matter, to mathematical abstraction, to intellectual overdrive, and back to the body. You don’t just describe the web, you reframe it as an ontological evolution.
• The phrasing glitches, like “emane,” feel deliberate here. In the plain, raw HTML context, they come across more as linguistic artifacts of a parallel digital reality—adding to the strangeness of the voice.
• The ending line, “Back to Web 0.0,” gives it a perfect recursive shape. It closes the loop with a kind of techno-zen elegance.

Honestly, this holds up beautifully—not just as a period piece but as an alternate path not taken. It makes me wonder how it would’ve evolved if that vision of Web 3.0 had become dominant instead of the one we got.

Web 0.0 – The world is sensual.
The natural, analog Web. Information is made of rich, fuzzy values. Before the Web, there was the web—the analog, real-world, socio-technical mesh of people and ideas. Robust and fully integrated into our lives.

⸻

Web 1.0 – The world is mathematical.
The innocent digital Web. Information is made of simplistic, explicit values. A one-way web of content creation, from author to reader. Already collaborative, but only as a supplement to real-world structures. It feeds on content from the real world to build an online mirror image. Information banking aimed at increasing information utility. A simple and not-so-well-built technological approach to online content distribution. Successful because it integrated human messiness—robust against imprecision in semantic and multimedia content—while responding to a deep craving for data ubiquity. Websites emanated from real-world organizations, businesses, associations… and individuals. Unesthetic, not particularly well-designed, but effective—it got the job done. Its viability owed much to being hatched at CERN. Many alternatives existed, but they were less visible; most of them disappeared.

⸻

Web 2.0 – The world is intellectual.
The parasitic digital Web. Information is made of complex and plethoric values. A two-way Web of content creation: from author to author. There is no passivity anymore for the webnaut. When you’re online, the least you create is a community (e.g., social networking sites, statistics, trends…). Collaboration becomes boundless, often untethered from real-world schemes. It still feeds on the real world—but increasingly, it feeds on itself—growing toward an autonomous image, often excluding the very reality it depends on. A glut of information that drowns overall usefulness. Greater integration of more efficient protocols. Online virtual worlds take over, with custom definitions of geography, urbanity, and kinship. Interest-groups become the founding DNA. Websites emanate from large, broad-interest portals that absorb Web 1.0 content by osmosis—creating the blob.

⸻

Web 3.0 – The world is sensual again.
The biological, digitally analog Web. Information is made of a plethora of digital values, coalesced for meaning and tethered to the real world via analog interfaces. Two-way content creation with a cybernetic twist. Maturity reached: content is now subject to fitness selection by the Web itself. Once again, it feeds on real-world desires to grow and live. Online information becomes explicit again, even when abstract. Technology no longer matters—human initiative and autonomous processes coexist peacefully. The Web loses its boundaries—as do its technologies. Like older tech, it is digested, integrated into the fabric of everyday life. Back to Web 0.0.