The Web 3.0 - The pro-privacy anti-monopoly web

With today's focus on big data and data analytics, it is perhaps surprising to know that it is possible to fight against the monopolization of data.. As this article (Why the Web 3.0 matters and you should know about it) relates, 
​

​"The next web, they envisaged, would take nostalgic turn to the vision of the web 1.0: more ‘human’ and more privacy. Rather than concentrating the power (and data) in the hands of huge behemoths with questionable motives, it would be returned the rightful owners."

The article then highlights the new apps that are poised to take over the existing ones :

• Instead of Google Drive or Dropbox, we have services like Storj, Siacoin, Filecoin or IPFS technology to distribute and store files.
• Instead of Skype we have platforms like Experty.io.
• Instead of WhatsApp and Wechat we have Status
• Instead of operating systems such as iOS and Android, frameworks such as Essentia.one and EOS provide a gateway to the new web.
• Akasha or Steemit will play the role of Facebook, the Brave browser will serve as Chrome and Ethlance can take over from Upwork.​

With the brouhaha surrounding Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, China's social credit score system, such developments are heartening news indeed. As much as all things internet are now very much a part of the fabric in society, to know that we can avoid being slaves to the system is a very big deal.

How is this done? The answers seems to be this :

​"For access to the decentralized web, people will only need a seed. This will be a single asset which enables the interaction with dApps and other services. Individuals will still use a web browser to access the internet, and visually it will be Web 2.0 user-friendly."

But at present the decentralized apps, wallets, platforms, and other digital assets that make up Web 3.0 are scattered. ​And accessing these interfaces calls for separate seeds, logins, and identities — much like the existing Web 2.0. So the author, the founder of Essentia.one, offers to be the provider of the single seed.

The irony is, while having a single key to access all things internet is great for the user, we are back to the original issue of monopoly. If there is only one provider providing these seeds, then all power will be concentrated on the one providing the seeds.
Wouldn't we be just replacing the current behemoths with just another version?