
Tim Berners-Lee on the future of the internet, 'fake news,' and net neutrality - sumitrshah
http://www.businessinsider.com/mathias-dopfner-tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-interview-2017-5
======
thomastjeffery
> [The internet] can be lent to a propagation of wonderful sort or the
> propagation of hatred.

Key word that ruins this sentence: "or".

The internet can be, and _is_ , lent to propagation of _both_ wonder _and_
hatred.

If you want to avoid hatred, you don't get rid of it, you _categorize_ it.
Give hatred its own space _separate_ from wonder, and wonder can flourish.

Hatred and wonder are, in fact, tightly related. More often than not,
wonderful things are created out of _hatred_ for the status-quo. Without
hatred, how can we progress?

This is why the internet must be neutral and open, why free speech must be
protected no matter how hateful or obscene people are. To do otherwise is to
limit wonder.

~~~
jansho
> More often than not, wonderful things are created out of hatred for the
> status-quo.

Example? Cos I'm not a fan of the rationalisation of the World Wars as "okay
but it did advance technology a lot."

Hatred is what imbalances the status quo. In fact when hatred _becomes_ the
status quo, then we've lost the plot as humanity.

The Internet is a beautiful idea, but as an ever-evolving real world system,
we can no longer afford to idealise it. We _do_ have responsibility to steer
it somehow, in order to battle entropy.

In the idealised Internet, free speech is truly free. But when we talk about
the Internet _now_ , is it really the one that we dream it to be? Most people
on the Internet are actually spending their time in a small number of
ecosystems, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube. Each of these has its own
set of rules, which ultimately defines how we communicate and therefore the
limitations. I daresay that currently they are fertile ground for hatred - and
it's not entirely their fault, it's just how the nature of the systems work.

I guess I'm still fresh from watching _Silicon Valley 's_ latest episode, but
the way I see it, there is no quick remedy to tackle hatred - we need an
Internet 2.0 to give ourselves another chance to build a much more neutral and
open net.

~~~
thomastjeffery
Wars are not "hatred". They are _action_. Specifically, action _driven_ by
hatred.

The internet is not a collection of _action_ , rather, it is a collection of
_information_.

If we do anything to restrict _information_ , that very action restricts
_innovation_ and _understanding_.

> Most people on the Internet are actually spending their time in a small
> number of ecosystems, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube.

The very fact that most internet users spend their time on centralized
networks lends itself as a perfect example of how controlled, but
_uncategorized_ information networks are detrimental to _discussion_. Imagine
all of Reddit were on one subreddit. The lack of categorization would lead to
an unruly, and useless platform for communication. The reason Reddit is so
successful is that it promotes specific conversation about _any_ topic,
without restriction. The only way that is feasible is through categorization,
via subreddits.

> we need an Internet 2.0

We need an "internet 2.0" to promote the ecosystem that existed with "internet
0.1". We need _decentralization_ (like ZeroNet, IPFS, etc.) to promote free,
categorized, distribution of information.

~~~
futun
You'll never get that to fly in today's political climate. We have a serious
problem of righteous minds.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind)

~~~
theseatoms
While properly calibrated to the recent past, that sentiment comes across as
unnecessarily defeatist.

------
shmerl
_> monopolies are for winners, and competition is for losers._

This happens only in sick markets which don't prevent it, unless we are
talking about natural monopolies, then term "winner" has no meaning there.

------
nkurz
I thought the interview started a bit slow, but I liked the parts regarding
"fake news":

 _Döpfner: Right. But was does that mean for fake news?_

 _Berners-Lee: What’s the fake news? How do they define fake news in this
case?_

 _Döpfner: Well, that’s already where the problem starts. That means that, in
the end, Facebook or another social media platform can define what fake news
is, and I think it should always be the prosecutor and not a private company.
Facebook should be a neutral platform. People exchange all kinds of things,
good and bad, truth and lies. However, only if something is illegal, the
prosecutor should intervene. If Facebook with its almost two billion users –
ushered by well-intentioned politicians – morphs into a universal media
monopoly making editorial decisions and even judging on who gets to read what,
then we have a problem. And it is exacerbated if that happens in a closed
system._

...

 _Döpfner: Again: How about the whole fake news phenomenon? How should society
deal with that? Should publishers help Facebook to correct their fake news
stories, or is it basically more about media education, that people should
learn that not everything that is distributed on a social media platform is
necessarily true?_

 _Berners-Lee: I think we have to be very scientific and look at how these
systems interact. The Macedonian websites we talked about earlier generated ad
revenue by making up things about the US election, and affected that election
even though their motivation was not at all political, only commercial. The ad
network trained them that lies can generate more revenue than truth. As a
system engineer, I look at that and say, "Well, now, something’s broken here."
So one of the possibilities is for Google at that point to tweak the way they
reimburse people not just on the clicks, but on some other function._

 _Döpfner: So you could say the fact that Facebook is incentivizing people to
distribute bad content, fake news, has to be changed in the very interest of
the social media platform._

 _Berners-Lee: The guys in Veles, Macedonia, they were independent , they were
not on Facebook. They were only on websites. They pointed at them with
Twitter. So it wasn’t a Facebook phenomenon._

 _There’s a separate Facebook phenomenon which I’m told was an important
factor in the election. That is targeted advertising. Targeted advertising on
social networks is very effective. There’s a blog. He claimed that what they
did was divided the entire American voting population into 32 different
subtypes, like Myers-Briggs, different sorts of people, different
demographics, and so they could then send targeted information._

 _So to one group with children, you’d say, "Our candidate is going to fight
for education." Then there’s a group without children, and they can say, "Our
candidate is going to save money by cutting down education"“ Because it’s
targeted advertising, it’s not public so nobody can check._

 _So one simple rule could be that you could say, actually, targeted
advertising by political bodies is not democratic. Therefore, from now on, if
you want to advertise as a political person, you have to say same thing to
everybody because, that’s what democracy is._

There are several types of "fake news" which are often --- and sometimes
intentionally --- conflated. As the interview does, I think it's necessary to
distinguish "click bait" (which has a primarily monetary incentive) from
"political propaganda" (which has a primarily social agenda).

But not all "click bait" and "political propaganda" is false, and not all that
are false are false in the same way. It seems also worth distinguishing "lies
by omission" (biased reporting) from "lies of whole cloth" (truly "fake"
news). I'm doubtful that there is any algorithmic way of distinguishing these,
or any legal definition that is not ripe for abuse.

I'm also dubious about the claim that "something is broken here, at least from
a business perspective. Google and Facebook are making tons of money with the
current system. It seems likely that any change would reduce their profits.
Other than "don't be evil" (for Google at least), what's their incentive to
change? As a society, what can we change so that such an incentive exists, and
is stronger than the currently dominant ones?

~~~
astrodust
There's an increasingly blurry line between "click bait" and "fake news" with
political intent, as they've often been two shades of the same thing.

Tabloids have been making shit up about celebrities for decades. Brad Pitt has
cancer! No, wait, he murdered a puppy! No, he kicked an orphan in the face!
These things sell papers.

Then people realized the same thing works in politics: Hillary Clinton has
cancer! She murdered a puppy! She kicked an orphan in the face! It's a proven
formula, people click it, and you _will_ make money given how things are
monetized these days.

Attention, _any_ attention, is something you can monetize.

That's the problem. Advertisers don't give a fuck. When they start to pay
attention to where they're spending their money they might wise up and deprive
these "fake news" sources of any incentive.

~~~
fivestar
Not only have tabloids been doing it, but all journalism--just look at the
1890s and how "fake" news was. The sinking of the USS Maine?

Also, look at state propaganda in the media in the 1930s and 1940s and even
during Vietnam--the contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident as a means of generating
public support for expanding the war to include mainline ground troops.

I have to conclude that all journalism is mostly lies and state propaganda is
behind much of it.

I should add that I was a sports writer for a local newspaper many years ago
and that gig was definitely an exercise in embellishment and outright
fabrication at times.

What I find most egregious about the recent "fake news" bs is that now private
Internet companies deign to tell you what is and isn't truthful information
and we just watched how these same companies sided with one and only one
presidential candidate. The problem was, even they couldn't carry that side of
beef over the finish line!

~~~
astrodust
"My uncle once lied about that fish he says he caught. Clearly the man has no
morals and should never be trusted."

Everything _anyone_ says should be treated with a critical eye and a healthy
dose of skepticism. Nobody who's ever achieved anything significant has done
it without making mistakes.

The problem is when you throw up your hands and declare the New York Times to
be on the same level as the National Enquirer.

Statistics are important here. A source that's reliable 99 times out of 100 is
more trustworthy than one that's reliable 1 in 100 times.

~~~
r00fus
Our kids are not being taught that skepticism is a good thing. I say this as a
skeptic who tries to undo the damage our society has done in the constant wash
of advertising and school "everyone wins" nonsense.

I praise my kids a lot, but I do it for meaningful things (or steps towards)
that they do and for exhibiting the principles that will strengthen them as
adults.

I urge my kids to practice skepticism to question the nature of things and
people.

~~~
astrodust
That's why as a responsible parent you should slip in a few harmless false
truths into their diet to see if they can pick them out.

It's also educational to play games where two or three people tell a different
version of the "truth" and you have to guess which one is actually right.

Schools are sadly suffering a deficit of critical thinking. The American ones
in particular do not reward it at all, if anything it's punished. You _must_
answer according to the textbook or you lose marks. Such is a test-driven
education system.

------
adsfqwop
"Fake news" is only a problem for those who are afraid their status quo is in
danger from it.

That is the only reason this topic was brought up into our consciousness in
the first place.

Therefore it's easy to conclude that the term "fake news" was actually born
because of the real culprit behind the problem was "inconvenient news".

"Fake news" was and is just a cover story, made up by people and institutions
threatened by truth being exposed at their expense.

~~~
Zapperino
The term fake news exists because breitbart, fox news, and infowars exist.
Just the three most prominent examples in the US.

~~~
ManlyBread
Why exclude the mainstream ones? Is there any news network that didn't report
about WMDs in Iraq?

~~~
tremon
IIRC, the more sensible ones (at least a few in Europe) reported that "Powell
said he had proof" of WMDs in Iraq. So yes, they reported on it, and no, not
everyone publication about WMDs in Iraq is automatically fake news.

