nearly every article in the popular press I've read about "web3" uncritically discusses "web 2.0" as though it's a historical/technical term (and not, as is actually the case, a marketing gimmick), and then contrasts it with "web 1.0" as though THAT refers to something and isn't just a back-formation demanded by the concept of "web 2.0." and "web3" is presented as the natural (if controversial) successor to these. simply by virtue of its number following in sequence?