
Tim Berners-Lee: we must regulate tech firms to prevent 'weaponised' web - ilamont
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/tim-berners-lee-tech-companies-regulations?CMP=share_btn_fb
======
shaki-dora
Regulation will be the natural consequence of the sector mostly being asleep
on the wheel while the power of their platforms was turned against the values
of a democratic society.

Facebook is the main culprit in this. It could be forgiven that their
algorithms amplified humans’ natural instincts towards divisiveness. But not
being on top of the political advertisement on their platform is gross
negligence bordering on intent: simply requiring transparency of sponsorship
of political ads, as well as the groups being targeted, would have gone a long
way in softening the calls for regulation we now see.

~~~
fcarraldo
Considering that Facebook specifically markets political marketing as a use-
case for Facebook, including a neat little marketing site with a how-to
guide[1], I think it's going to be difficult for Facebook to claim ignorance
on this when regulators start knocking at their doors. Yes, they could say
that their platform was being used outside of their intended use-case, but
that they didn't even attempt the bare minimum to prevent abuse while actively
seeking customers for its political influence machine is fairly damning.

[1] [https://politics.fb.com/](https://politics.fb.com/)

~~~
orev
How is that different from any other media platform? TV, radio, print, would
all do the same thing. They clearly need more scrutiny on such ads, but
otherwise it’s the same sales pitch as any other media company.

------
im3w1l
When you ask for BigCo to remove conspiracy theories, what you are asking for
is that a small unaccountable elite decides what the truth is and deletes
everything else.

This model has been shown to work fine with newspapers and other massmedia,
but that's because there are competitors to jump to.

~~~
bsder
And the barrier to building Fauxbook(tm) is?

There is probably _FAR_ more opportunity to building a Facebook competitor
than a newspaper competitor nowadays.

~~~
philwelch
But who’s gonna use it? Not even Google can build a Facebook competitor and
get people to use it.

~~~
abvdasker
> Not even Google

Social networking is just one entry in the long list of Google's failures,
many of which were successfully executed by smaller companies:

* Chat. Google has tried like 4 or 5 different times to do chat and ultimately lost out to the likes of WhatsApp, Slack, Messenger and others.

* Location/business Reviews. Despite having Maps, google still has yet to really come close to unseating Yelp in this arena.

* Wearables. Google Glass completely failed. Android Wear is well on its way to the grave. Fitbit, Apple and Samsung have all succeeded in wearables over Google.

* Augmented Reality. Remember Google Glass?

The list goes on. My point isn't that Google can't do anything right — that's
obviously not true. What I'm saying is that Google trying something and
failing isn't really a good argument against it being a viable idea.

Facebook's brand is ailing right now and I think there's growing concern about
the way Facebook has been optimized to dominate the user's attention. There
might be room for a social network that tries to be something much more
minimal than what Facebook has become.

------
Daiz
That's interesting to hear from someone that railroaded DRM into the HTML
spec, a prime example of what could be called 'weaponised' web (could really
call anything moving the open web more toward closed web that, really)
considering the DRM anti-circumvention laws that exist around the world.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I think it's a little hard to blame Tim here, DRM was happening with or
without it being part of HTML. Either it could be in proprietary plugins or it
could be part of the spec, but as long as movie studios were requiring DRM,
DRM was going to happen. If anyone railroaded it through, it would be Google,
who owns Widevine, and via Chrome, basically can determine web standards with
or without the W3C's support, from a practical sense.

So the W3C has to accept DRM to prevent it being in a proprietary plugin, and
Firefox had to also accept the DRM to avoid being "the browser that can't play
Netflix", and everyone effectively has to go along with it to ensure they
still have a seat at the table on the issue, but it all, at the end, comes
back to the MPAA, which isn't going to let you have a license to stream their
content unless it is locked with DRM, regardless of how futile DRM actually
is.

~~~
zentiggr
Blame him or not blame him, it was hypocritical to proclaim in all other
forums for open web policies and then not vote against DRM when the chips were
down. From my very distant viewpoint, it's almost inexplicable.

I couldn't imagine Stallman, Doctorow, or anyone else with as deep a desire
for open systems having that divergent a reaction to the one most galling
topic in the whole discussion.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Stallman and Doctorow have the convenience of not running organizations which
have to work with various corporate needs. They can afford to be religious and
uncompromisingly devout. I don't think Tim has that luxury.

~~~
default-kramer
I think the following quote from Braveheart is awesome. The whole movie seems
designed to turn the audience into William Wallace worshipers, except for this
line, which causes an attentive viewer to stop and think:

"Admire this man, this William Wallace. Uncompromising men are easy to admire.
He has courage, so does a dog. But it is exactly the ability to compromise
that makes a man noble."

~~~
type0
>... ability to compromise that makes a man noble."

Sir Berners-Lee is such a nobility, should we as digital peasants knee before
him? Feudalism of the Web is upon us.

------
UncleEntity
All I see is a great opportunity for the big guys to go from regulation ->
regulatory capture -> rent seeking.

When you have a few big players they love to see regulations that make it
harder for upstarts to enter the market since they won't have an army of
employees who's only job is to ensure compliance with the bureaucratic
demands.

~~~
adventured
Facebook will be at $80 billion in sales in about three years. What could be
better as a corporate juggernaut of that scale, than to have the government
protecting your ass from competition by dramatically raising the bar to
competition.

 _Every_ regulation added to the Web/Internet, that a start-up has to comply
with, is a benefit to the entrenched hyper rich giants. Regulators better be
damn careful every time they lean toward giving in to emotionalism and seek to
regulate as the easiest placation tool.

The US has seen a century of this scenario play out in every single major
economic sector. We already know how it ends: stagnation, low growth, zero
innovation, layoffs, and perpetual rent seeking rotting corporations with low
competitive threats domestically.

~~~
cinquemb
> _Facebook will be at $80 billion in sales in about three years. What could
> be better as a corporate juggernaut of that scale, than to have the
> government protecting your ass from competition by dramatically raising the
> bar to competition._

I already felt the legal pressures from linking to facebook users profiles
with a C & D[0] on bootstrapped company with a friend ($100k annualized in
year 3), so I decided to move to Indonesia and will relaunch here.

> _The US has seen a century of this scenario play out in every single major
> economic sector. We already know how it ends: stagnation, low growth, zero
> innovation, layoffs, and perpetual rent seeking rotting corporations with
> low competitive threats domestically._

Exactly, and in this day in age, it seems like even if one has the tech to
compete, you can always be undermined by the incumbents dropping the ladders
on the way up. Luckily, it's easier than ever to leverage other government's
laws (or lack of jurisdiction) agaisnt one another.

[0]
[https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/2037976](https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/2037976)

------
cat199
"strangely", the quote:

    
    
        Two myths currently limit our collective imagination: the myth    
        that advertising is the only possible business model for 
        online companies, and the myth that it’s too late to change
        the way platforms operate. On both points, we need to be a
        little more creative.
    

from the actual letter was not mentioned or highlighted, merely the point
about regulatory frameworks..

~~~
nothrabannosir
Readable copy for mobile users:

 _Two myths currently limit our collective imagination: the myth that
advertising is the only possible business model for online companies, and the
myth that it’s too late to change the way platforms operate. On both points,
we need to be a little more creative._

~~~
mlinksva
Or we could just do the straightforward thing: tax ads.

~~~
UncleEntity
Not seeing how this would stop a state-level actor intent on engaging in a
disinformation campaign, they'd just have their proxies pay the tax.

~~~
mlinksva
It would shift more of the web to non-ad-funded. People would get more of
their info from venues without ads carrying disinformation, from whatever
source.

~~~
leetcrew
> It would shift more of the web to non-ad-funded.

or it would just shift more of the web to non-funded.

------
bcheung
Censorship and bias of information seem to be the major concerns I have with
tech companies. Treating them as common carriers so they are not allowed to
discriminate seems like something that is needed. Outside of that, I think
they are doing a decent job and question whether more regulation will do more
harm than good.

~~~
ucaetano
> Treating them as common carriers so they are not allowed to discriminate
> seems like something that is needed

Common carriers for what?

Google and Facebook are by definition discriminators. You access Google so it
can discriminate for you, and give you discriminated results that match what
you're looking for, and not the entire internet.

You don't sign up for an ISP for discrimination, you sign up for access, so
you want it to not discriminate at all.

ISPs provide access, social media and search provide aggregation. Trying to
regulate both in the same is pointless.

~~~
bcheung
Yes, this could use some clarification. Aggregation is fine, by discrimination
I meant censoring and blocking certain individuals because you don't like
them. Unless it is something illegal tech companies should respect freedom of
speech.

By analogy, package (mail) is to packet (internet) is to post (social media).
That's the common carrier connection I was trying to get at. ISPs and the
postal service is not allowed to use discrimination to deny service to
individuals because they don't like what they have to say.

~~~
ucaetano
> Unless it is something illegal tech companies should respect freedom of
> speech.

Why would they, when no other company has to? Freedom of speech has nothing to
do with others having to allow you to use their services for your speech.

> By analogy, package (mail) is to packet (internet) is to post (social
> media).

Sure, and email providers are free to block your emails. Or rank them.

I'm not getting your point, are you saying that internet companies should
promote all posts equally?

------
wemdyjreichert
Regulation is not the only solution; lawmakers are imperfect. Decentralized
web FTW.

~~~
wemdyjreichert
And remember, software engineer != politician

------
Mononokay
Too late.

------
jcwayne
Who is "we" in this context? I'd submit that there is no "we" capable of
accomplishing this goal effectively for the long term.

------
HeyWolfey
The Butterfly War was designed to leverage a heavily regulated internet and
make it undermine the cultural institutions that dictate such regulations.

The more you enforce your morality, the more the enforcement will be your
executioner.

[http://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-
War/](http://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-War/)

