Had a call with an industry titan in product management yesterday.

He asked me in which ways web3 social can be:
Cheaper, Faster or Better than web2 social?

I had an answer that I thought was compelling, but his follow up questions were challenging.
I'd be (genuinely) curious of what you think is the strongest answer

Building Larry, FOSS via @frames, @framesfun /open-frames to help decentralized social win. a16z CSX23. farcasterchannels.com farcaster.id

cheaper as in you don't have to pay with your most previous asset, time and be forced fed junk ads and trashy content to keep you hooked to the app.

Faster is hard. but we agree app like fc is almost as fast.

better, I think op's answer is great for this.

this is my general sentiment

building degencast.wtf /degencast, ex-synfutures, binance, bitmain

Chiang Mai, Mueang Chiang Mai District, Chiang Mai, Thailand

or from the angle of web3 social being a credible neutral protocol layer with plenty of competing apps, and because the network effect larged accrued on the shared protocol, apps are more cautious to be evil, since there are plenty of alternative clients

indeed it might be a long way to get there. and maybe it would be small or niche for a long time. However market force doesnt always create the best products right? and web2 player would cannibalize, so make it even harder

I agree with your sentiment, but I think there are a couple of steps to go from web2 shows you lots of ads to web3 won't. 

Playing devil's advocate: If the market opportunity for experiences with fewer or no ads in web2 was big enough, wouldn't big web2 players have done this?