that has been a common problem with tech utopians, and not one I'm personally interested in. Tech doesn't change society for the better automatically, but it can create incentives in the right direction. Are we really saying a world prior to the printing press was better? What about before freely available information online a la wikipedia? No way.
Decentralised records of ownership enforce data portability and user IDs (wallets) that are not controlled by any single actor.
The incentives for centralised databases is to remove interop to create artificial silos and gate users from leaving your service. We’ve gotten to the point where text messaging which is trivial, has no interop.
Crypto flips this on its head. If you build a service using IPFS, ENS and crypto wallets as users, your website is merely a front end for an open source decentralised service. This is not a hypothetical, recently the HicEtNunc NFT market was nuked by its lead developer. The website was open source, the artwork was hosted in IPFS and all the ownership data (NFTs) were on Tezos blockchain, so literally NOTHING was lost. The community quite simply rebuilt the front end in 24 hours or so and everything kept going.
When was the last time you saw anything like that in web2?
Never. It was impossible. HicEtNunc now has 10x front ends competing for the space with no clear leader. Web3 is about ownership and portability, things that centralised servers and databases incentivised their owners to lie and cheat about to make into fake moats.
> Technical issues always get solved.
There are deeper issues with crypto than just technical. Even if it wasn't.
Crypto is like every anarchistic idea implemented in reality. In essence, they are burning the wheel, only to reinvent it again. Badly.