I'd argue there's another way: implicit marketplaces that start when users have more control of their data as a byproduct of Web3 architectures. In this case, aggregating data into a 'marketplace' can be much more baked into the UX of just using web services, rather than a new app/product completely.
Society does not need rights, individuals do. Society cannot have rights because society does not exist; it is a meaningless abstraction that purports to stand for something greater than the sum of the individuals that comprise it. The same can and should be said for the greater good, the common good, and lesser variants fo the same sophistry. Rights--be they human or property--do not, will not, and cannot be created or protected by government regulation, only destroyed. Human rights and property rights are, in fact, co-dependent; one cannot be had without the other. Human rights without property rights is called slavery. These rights do not arise from acts of government or regulation; they are inherent in our nature as human beings of volitional consciousness whose only tool of survival is reason, To exercise our rational faculties we must be protected from government coercion, not subjected to it. The only way to secure our inherent rights is to protect them from government coercion, not grant government the power to regulate, which is the very instrument of coercion. Just look at anti-trust regulation. Monopolies cannot exist in a free economy. There is no lawful way (nor incentive, I might add) for one company to legally exclude another from competing with it. That requires, you guessed it, government regulation, which has a monopoly on force.There is a reason our most regulated industries--banking, education, healthcare, commercial aviation, broadcast media, cable media, mobile telephony--are monopolized by entrenched interests who offer little in the form of customer satisfaction The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a right to healthcare, because such a right enslaves those who can afford healthcare to those who cannot. Need is not a criteria for rights. The same goes for rights in data, social graphs, or other artifacts of our digital footprint. Rights provide only freedom of action, not implementation. That is why the Founders wrote of the "right to pursue happiness," not the right to happiness.
I'd argue there's another way: implicit marketplaces that start when users have more control of their data as a byproduct of Web3 architectures. In this case, aggregating data into a 'marketplace' can be much more baked into the UX of just using web services, rather than a new app/product completely.
Society does not need rights, individuals do. Society cannot have rights because society does not exist; it is a meaningless abstraction that purports to stand for something greater than the sum of the individuals that comprise it. The same can and should be said for the greater good, the common good, and lesser variants fo the same sophistry. Rights--be they human or property--do not, will not, and cannot be created or protected by government regulation, only destroyed. Human rights and property rights are, in fact, co-dependent; one cannot be had without the other. Human rights without property rights is called slavery. These rights do not arise from acts of government or regulation; they are inherent in our nature as human beings of volitional consciousness whose only tool of survival is reason, To exercise our rational faculties we must be protected from government coercion, not subjected to it. The only way to secure our inherent rights is to protect them from government coercion, not grant government the power to regulate, which is the very instrument of coercion. Just look at anti-trust regulation. Monopolies cannot exist in a free economy. There is no lawful way (nor incentive, I might add) for one company to legally exclude another from competing with it. That requires, you guessed it, government regulation, which has a monopoly on force.There is a reason our most regulated industries--banking, education, healthcare, commercial aviation, broadcast media, cable media, mobile telephony--are monopolized by entrenched interests who offer little in the form of customer satisfaction The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a right to healthcare, because such a right enslaves those who can afford healthcare to those who cannot. Need is not a criteria for rights. The same goes for rights in data, social graphs, or other artifacts of our digital footprint. Rights provide only freedom of action, not implementation. That is why the Founders wrote of the "right to pursue happiness," not the right to happiness.