(The Daily Sceptic) A technological revolution is underway as the current version of the internet known as Web 2.0, based on centralised control by large technology companies, gives way for Web 3.0. This latest iteration is decentralised and features evolving technologies, such as Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) using blockchain, cryptography, peer-to-peer networks and user ownership. This shift was foreseen by Timothy C. May's in his 1988 paper 'The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto' where he predicted a technological revolution featuring a truly decentralised internet free from authoritarian oversight. These features can be harnessed to protect human rights and democracy and increase trust, transparency and immutability.

DLT has immense utility because it addresses the problem of trust, providing a tamper proof and immutable ledger for data entry. Such systems protect data from third-party interference by ensuring the safe transfer and storage of data. Moreover, Web 3.0 and associated technologies can solve problems of trust and verifiability in logistics networks and supply chains, smart contracts and archive storage. Organisations implicated in human rights violations often seek deniability, in the first instance, and will usually commence a campaign of disinformation and misinformation. It can be difficult to gather and store evidence of atrocities or protect vulnerable witnesses and journalists, especially when governments are implicated and have the entire apparatus of the state at their disposal to censor information. According to Hellstern et al. (2022) databases stored on centralised systems and supported by Web 2.0 are vulnerable to attack and data leakages which can put victims at further risk of harm. However, DLTs using blockchains and other cryptographic technologies can create secure and immutable systems out of reach of third parties that would seek to tamper with the data. Metadata can be generated each time data are added and a unique hash created to provide further proof of time and location. Even if a central authority were to order a takedown of such testimony, the multi nodal nature of the architecture would make that impossible.