
How to Save the Web - indigodaddy
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/tim-berners-lee-saving-the-internet.html
======
azangru
I get a feeling of mild confusion after reading this article, because he keeps
juggling between the Internet as a technology, the web as the sum total of
linkable resources (or maybe the synonym for the Internet; I am not entirely
sure), and specific internet companies.

> We need a free and open web for everyone.

Right. But at the same time:

> internet companies must play their part in making sure the web is safe,
> accessible and protects user data

So, when Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. banned Alex Jones (probably in the
spirit of making the web "safe"), how did they advance the cause of "free and
open web for everyone"? Why don't deranged conspiracy theorists (who certainly
belong into the all-encompassing category of "everyone") deserve free and open
web too?

"Free and open for everyone" should also mean no more attacks on Russia for
using Facebook or Twitter to influence the opinions of the American public.
Because "free and open for everyone" has no concept of national borders. And
yet, Tim managed to combine the rhetoric of universal freedom and openness
with the rhetoric of state sovereignty, borders, and us-theming ("foreign"
interference, etc.)

Also, as pointed out in other comments, the goal of "free and open" internet
does not align very well with the purpose of many media companies or content
producers in general, who want to be compensated for their work.

I am very much a child of the promise of free and open internet. So when I see
articles like this, it confuses the hell out of me.

~~~
0x445442
Adding to the confusion is how someone as bright as Lee thinks more government
control and regulations is going to lead to "free and open".

~~~
nine_k
After WWII, the newly created state of Israel offered Albert Einstein to run
for president.

Mr. Einstein, being exceptionally bright, declined the offer, saying something
like: "I'm but a physicist, and am not qualified in the areas of
statesmanship".

------
kmlx
" In recent years, it has become clear that the web is not living up to the
high hopes we had for it. ... These worries are justified. In recent years,
we’ve seen governments engage in state-sponsored trolling to quash dissent and
attack opposition. We’ve seen hacking and foreign interference distort
politics and undermine elections. And we’ve seen how the spread of fake news
on social media can trigger chaos, confusion and lethal violence."

1\. The web is one of mankind's greatest inventions: a mirror of society in a
cyber world. It has greatly surpassed all expectations, and is The Highlight
of the 20th and 21st centuries.

2\. Fake news, hacking, foreign interference: nothing new under the sun.
Democracy has major flaws which all governments take advantage of.

I understand where mr. Tim Berners-Lee comes from, but it feels so simplistic,
even naive to propose something which various governments will not even read
or comment on.

The true battle lies in changing society. Without overhauling democracy, we'll
still be faced with voting issues. Without overhauling the press, we'll still
get mass disinformation. And so on...

~~~
twtw
"The Internet was done so well that most people think of it as a natural
resource like the Pacific Ocean, rather than something that was man-made. When
was the last time a technology with a scale like that was so error-free? The
Web, in comparison, is a joke. The Web was done by amateurs." \- Alan Kay

What's so great about the web, that makes you say it is one of mankind's
greatest inventions? I get that you think it is a "mirror of society," but is
that very great? AFAIK, the web is mostly used to 1) browse memes and 2) get
informed on new things to be outraged about. I'm genuinely curious what
expectations you see the web as having "greatly surpassed."

~~~
IC4RUS
" AFAIK, the web is mostly used to 1) browse memes and 2) get informed on new
things to be outraged about."

Well that's an argument from ignorance if I ever heard one. Much of anything
I've ever learned is from the internet ( e.g. Wikipedia, books, oddly specific
youtube vidoes on car repair), and I'd have a much harder time in my career
without the amount of material on Math/CS online. One can literally find top
level educational material for free, whether from sources like MIT
opencourseware or the many textbooks freely available. I'm sure other people
have found great uses for the web too.

I suspect you're caught in a bit of a bubble.

~~~
twtw
I do this too. I learned pretty much every valuable skill I have using
resources freely available online.

In my experience, this is pretty uncommon though. I know only a few people
that use the web this way, and _a lot_ who browse the front page of reddit,
watch whatever videos show up in their FB feed or on the front page of
YouTube, etc.

The resources are there, but are they used enough to make my statement
regarding what the web is _mostly_ used for invalid? I don't know.

For the month of September 2018, OCW reported 1.09M unique visitors [1]. In
their 2017 annual report, Facebook reported 2.13B monthly active users [2]. I
suspect the comparisons between coursers, edx, udemy, etc and reddit, Twitter,
memes, etc would be similar, and three orders of magnitude seems sufficient to
say "most."

If you think your web use is typical, perhaps it is you in the bubble.

[1]: [https://ocw.mit.edu/about/site-statistics/monthly-
reports/MI...](https://ocw.mit.edu/about/site-statistics/monthly-
reports/MITOCW_DB_2018_09_v1.pdf) [2]:
[http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/c826def3...](http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/c826def3-c1dc-47b9-99d9-76c89d6f8e6d.pdf)

~~~
IC4RUS
Yeah, I concede that it's greatly surpassed in terms of volume. And that
bubble probably wasn't the correct term.

However, my comment was more arguing against what you said with the context in
a previous comment:

"What's so great about the web, that makes you say it is one of mankind's
greatest inventions?"

-I don't believe that an invention being used largely for unhelpful uses makes the (still large) amount of benefit any smaller. So, even if educational use is dwarfed by facebook, it's is still a wonderful tool for many.

~~~
twtw
That's a reasonable perspective.

I disagree, however, because my opinion is that the trillions of hours spent
are not simply unhelpful (i.e. neutral) but actually damaging. My calculation
is therefore that the net impact of the web is maybe negative, because the
positives are swamped by the greater volume of negatives.

------
davemp
As much as I agree with Tim's premise, this article is mostly useless
politicking. The internet suffers from a combination of the tragedy of the
commons and what I call tragedy of the new world. [1] The tragedy also
afflicts governments, corporations, and foundations. Excuse me if I am
skeptical that governments and organizations will fix their inherent issues
reflected by the internet. Tim asking politely will not be enough I'm afraid.
Meanwhile I'm relatively happy in my current, non-abusive world of HN!

[1]:
[https://freetradersoftware.com/pages/The_Tragedy_of_The_New_...](https://freetradersoftware.com/pages/The_Tragedy_of_The_New_World.html)

The tragedy of the new world is a cycle where a group of smart, resource
people start a platform that solves some glaring problems. The platform works
beautifully and a thriving community of smart, resourceful people come in
gathers. More problems arise and are squashed like a game of Whac-A-Mole.
Eventually the founders lose their inspiration, quit, retire or die. The
remaining members, now of much increased size and diluted merit, cling to
processes left behind. As time passes these processes devolve into tradition,
ritual, or meme. Due to some unforeseeable change in the structure of the
original problem, the rituals stop working. For as long as possible, the
members (of much increased size and diluted merit) continue to attempt shoving
a square problem through a round process. Eventually a new body of leaders,
also of much increased size and diluted merit, come up with a high dimensional
hyper plane process to solve the problem. High dimensional hyper planes are
impossible for humans to visualize so most don’t understand why the square
problem doesn’t fit. After much scratching of heads, the platform dies as
people leave to dilute the merit of the new world.

~~~
sfilargi
> Meanwhile I'm relatively happy in my current, non-abusive world of HN!

Sorry for going a bit off-topic, but is it non-abusive or is it our little
bubble?

~~~
int0x80
Both?

------
eksemplar
I don’t think the web has changed and I think HN is the perfect testament to
that opinion.

Almost all of the interesting content I consume online comes from personal
self-build blogs, HN or real news papers like the NYT.

I don’t think the content is worse, especially not when you pay for news. Now
the NYT is a poor example of this, but the Danish equivalents, Information and
Weekendavisen are not, in that one turns off it’s advertising when you
subscribe and the other is simply not available for free.

I think in terms of the internet, you get what you pay for. For news the price
is money, on HN the price is your ability to be relevant and fair and on
personal blogs the price is the time it takes to find them, support them and
make interesting responses to them.

The key thing that has changed for me, is how to find interesting things. HN
is really the only option I know of, unless you get extremely lucky on a
search engine. Because modern search results are so influenced by Alexa
rankings and advertising that they very rarely lead you to the gems on the
net. I do think the amount of shitty content on the internet, and
unregulated/moderated social media makes the problem a lot worse, because it’s
harder to find interesting things in an ocean of shit. But ultimately, I think
there are as many interesting things on the net as there has always been.

I do find it interesting, that none of the websites I love the most, are
powered by any of the popular JavaScript frameworks, well aside from the NYT,
but to be fair, the thing I dislike the most about the NYT is it’s intrusive
JS.

~~~
Veen
> I think in terms of the internet, you get what you pay for.

I'm coming round to this perspective. After years of reading "free" news
sources I decided to experiment with paid sources. I subscribed to the Times
(UK newspaper) and the Economist. The difference in content-quality and design
is immense. I particularly like the Times's website compared to the Guardian
and other free online newspapers.

As an example, the Times publishes stories in daily editions, much like a
traditional newspaper. They may be updated throughout the day, but, as a
paywalled publication, there is no pressure on it to publish a constant stream
of hot takes and low-grade commentary (as you find in The Guardian) throughout
the day to get eyeballs on adverts.

~~~
Mindwipe
You're kidding right?

The Times is nothing but poorly researched clickbait or got take opinion
columns preying to the bosses of its readership.

I think you can find high quality paywall content (the FT for example), but
yeesh, those are very, very bad examples.

~~~
Veen
> poorly researched clickbait or got take opinion columns

Sounds more like the Guardian than the Times. Why would the Times need to
publish clickbait? Its articles are behind a paywall and it doesn't have
advertising?

~~~
Mindwipe
It certainly does have advertising - it's comment is written for the print
version, and readers can still read two articles a month (with advertising)
without subscribing.

It has the ill researched bigotry from the likes of Janice Turner whipping up
populist hatred of sexual minorities, and a series of impossibly bad
technology reporting echoing the lobby lines of the current government based
on nothing more than a vendetta against online companies for business reasons.

------
pasbesoin
Berners-Lee lost me when he supported EME. Basically, I view that as a
coordinated infrastructure (the political component) that allows for a
"universal" technological lockdown (the engineering component -- weaponized by
the political coordination and corresponding universal dissemination).

In other words, you will never save the Internet from authoritarian bozos,
when they hold the keys -- that _you_ manufactured for them.

You want to talk about saving the Internet? You have to own the physical layer
-- keep it open. The rest is filtering.

Now, to RTFA, I suppose.

Oh, another example of what I'm saying: The Great Firewall of China was
prototyped and initially built using Western technology and expertise. That
bootstrapped them; it "gave them the keys".

The Chinese authorities have understood very well and increasingly effectively
use this: Control of the physical layer.

And, they're exporting turnkey systems for this.

Maybe that's what "saving the Internet" looks like, for some people. The
censored Internet. The one that tells you what's ok to build and to say --
that sooner or later butts up against innovation, dynamism, needed change and
progress.

------
ebcode
> Let’s make 2019 the year we push back against the forces subverting the open
> spirit of the web.

I used to like TBL, but I can no longer take him seriously when he says stuff
like this, after his decision[0] to allow DRM/EME[1] into the web standards.
It just rings hollow.

[0][https://www.w3.org/blog/2017/02/on-eme-in-
html5/](https://www.w3.org/blog/2017/02/on-eme-in-html5/)

[1][https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/](https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-
media/)

~~~
lioeters
I agree, his tarnished reputation casts a shadow on anything he says these
days about the "open web".

------
EGreg
OR, you know, we could make the web gradually end to end encrypted and
decentralize the back end from being federated as it is now. Why do we need
DNS, seriously? It’s just a glorified search engine that can only get you to
the front page of a site. The vast majority of links to resources on the web
may as well be non human readable.

I look forward to a time when software is client-side, things are only ever
decrypted client-side, social networking is basically automated key sharing,
contact lists are private, keys never leave the device and group activities
are all written in Javascript and done by consensus of the participants.

[https://qbix.com/blog/](https://qbix.com/blog/)

~~~
walterbell
Are the security and privacy properties of Qbix dependent on Javascript
cryptography? How do you handle JS package dependency and integrity
management?

------
Rjevski
It’s quite ironic that this is posted on a shitty website with a non-GDPR-
compliant stalking “consent” prompt.

How about you do your own part before talking to others about “saving the
web”?

~~~
DennisP
I'd say the _author_ of this piece did do his part, by inventing the web.

~~~
_jahh
Wooosh ;

The web has spun so deep that

Net upon unseen

------
gtirloni
TL;DR Tim Bernes-Lee wants governments and companies to sign a "Contract for
the Web" document outlining a set of principles about the Internet.

"Berners-Lee said the full terms of the contract would be agreed in the coming
months, with the objective to finalize it in May 2019 - the 50/50 moment when
more than half of the world's population will be online for the first time."

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-websummit-
berner...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-websummit-berners-
lee/web-creator-berners-lee-launches-contract-for-better-internet-
idUSKCN1NA2CX)

~~~
simonh
Thanks for the succinct sumary, even having read the article it provides a
good starting point for discussion in it's content.

This is the bit I'm worried about, alongside Tim's reference to fake news
earlier in the article:

>They make it clear that individual citizens have a responsibility to act with
compassion and challenge negative behavior they wouldn’t tolerate offline

'They' being governments and institutions, who Tim want to make responsible
for policing free speech. If this isn't going to be a horrible,
apocalyptically bad mistake "acting with compassion" and "negative behavior"
had better be very carefully defined.

The Economist published an article earlier this year by an Ahmadi Muslim
arguing that Geert Wilders' cartoon contest for depictions of Mohamed should
be banned. I can undertand abhorrence to such an abusive stunt, but as I
pointed out in a comment on the article, Ahmadiyas themselves have been
persecuted in Pakistan of 'insulting Mohamed' because their beliefs about him
contradict Sunni teachings. When one person's religious belief is another
person's heresy, you have to be very careful about how you go about
'challenging negative behaviour'. Bear in mind the governments Tim wants to
enlist in doing this include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, etc, etc.

Fake news is a devilishly difficult thing to define, as is negative behaviour.
Tread softly Tim!

------
tannhaeuser
What is it exactly that we want to save? Bloated browsers so complex that not
even MS can keep up with development? Shitty web apps needing obscene amounts
of resources and power just to lock you in into web services? Clickbait
journalism, a monopolistic attention economy, privacy invasion, surveillance,
censorship, influencers, and propaganda?

I guess the conclusion is that the web is only as valuable as the content
delivered over it, but has no inherent value of its own, or even a net-
negative value. We should salvage valuable content off the web, and take stuff
we want to keep elsewhere. We should create new content in a way that isn't
locked to the web.

~~~
tempodox
The Internet has changed the world and just ignoring it won't change it back.
We won't be able to completely evade the tiresome phenomena you mention,
either on the web or irl. I still have a faint hope we might be able to carve
out a niche where we can use the web without falling prey to these things more
than absolutely unavoidable. However, the masses have spoken and it seems
glaringly obvious that they don't give a rodent's backside.

~~~
gsich
The Internet is not the web. The later is part of the first one.

------
8bitsrule
Lots of 'got to', not much 'how to'. Too bad Aaron isn't around, he actually
had executables.

------
agumonkey
"To live and let die" comes to mind

------
dreamdu5t
Tim should put his money where his mouth is!

He posts on Twitter instead of his own blog. Saving the web is pretty simple:
post to your own blog and stop using closed silos like Facebook and Twitter.
Support IndieWeb tech instead of calling for government regulation.

Also, why is Facebook considered the web? Unless you’re a member the content
isn’t accessible. Facebook exposes practically no HTML on the web at all.

------
Eyes
"That’s why I’m asking governments, companies and citizens across the globe to
commit to a set of core principles for the web."

Who does this guy think he is?

"By Tim Berners-Lee"

Oh shit...

