
Tim Berners-Lee: we must regulate tech firms to prevent 'weaponised' web - dsr12
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/tim-berners-lee-tech-companies-regulations
======
draugadrotten
FTA: "These problems have proliferated because of the concentration of power
in the hands of a few platforms – including Facebook, Google, and Twitter –
which “control which ideas and opinions are seen and shared”."

They are indeed very active in removing ideas and opinions which are deemed
unsavory. A recent example in from our neighbour country, Sweden.

"Google is facing criticism in Sweden for its failure to prevent anti-Semitic
material from topping searches featuring the term “Jews in Sweden.”"
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/swedish-jews-complain-
google-s...](https://www.timesofisrael.com/swedish-jews-complain-google-
searches-returning-anti-semitic-results/)

"Journalist Willy Silberstein, editor-in-chief Helle Klein and former TV4 CEO
Jan Scherman are some Swedish Jews who are on an anti-Semitic list online.
Their legal representative has reported the list to Google for more than a
month that it should not appear in search results by their name. Only now –
after Expressen and DN's audits – Google starts backing and promises to remove
24 people from the list from their search results."
[https://tech2.org/sweden/google-starts-backing-after-
critici...](https://tech2.org/sweden/google-starts-backing-after-criticism-of-
anti-semitic-hatlist-news/)

I think the above serves well to illustrate the issue of weaponizing the web.
The nazis are using the web as a weapon to list celebrity jews. The jews on
the list are using the web as a weapon to wield power over Google's decisions
and actions. Google is the weapon used by all the groups involved.

~~~
zaarn
I wonder how long until governments start "google search result page 1" wars
against each other (though I think China would have a running start in this
one). Country X demands google can't show results about Country Y anywhere and
Country Y demands google push results to page 1 that make Country X look bad.

~~~
draugadrotten
Google itself is a player in this war since the search results for Country X
when inside Country Y is different than when searching for Country X inside
Country X. (aka "localized results")

I would be surprised if this capability is not already weaponized by CIA in
the attempts to win hearts and minds of countries being liberated.

------
y03a
Does anyone care about his opinions on this kind of thing? He fought to put
DRM into every browser, you can't come back from such a poor political move.

~~~
zaarn
You shouldn't evaluate the validity of an argument based on where it comes
from, rather, evaluate it on it's own merits.

So yes, I do care what he says because it is relevant to my interests.

~~~
y03a
"You shouldn't evaluate the validity of an argument based on where it comes
from"

Then why is his name is in the title? He's not the first person to make these
points. The only reason The Guardian has to publish this over the thousands of
other sources of the same opinion is his name. That was my only point. I
didn't even read the article because I already disagree with the premise, give
more control to the wrong people, just like with DRM. Regulations become legal
"weapons" just as often as they actually help society. When they do, its
usually the existing big companies that can A) afford to comply and B) know
how to exploit the regulations to burden their competitors.

~~~
zaarn
>Then why is his name is in the title? He's not the first person to make these
points. The only reason The Guardian has to publish this over the thousands of
other sources of the same opinion is his name. That was my only point.

And? It's not a very solid point tbh. "Other people said it too" isn't an
argument against anything.

> I didn't even read the article because I already disagree with the premise,
> give more control to the wrong people, just like with DRM. Regulations
> become legal "weapons" just as often as they actually help society. When
> they do, its usually the existing big companies that can A) afford to comply
> and B) know how to exploit the regulations to burden their competitors.

You see, _that_ is an actual argument against the premise of the article. Or
atleast the title since you skimmed over the contents. Though I disagree that
regulation will make things worse considering how bad things already are.

