When Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web in 1989, his vision was clear: it would used by everyone, filled with everything and, crucially, it would be free.
Today, the British computer scientist’s creation is regularly used by 5.5 billion people – and bears little resemblance to the democratic force for humanity he intended.
In Australia to promote his book, This is for Everyone, Berners-Lee is reflecting on what his invention has become – and how he and a community of collaborators can put the power of the web back into the hands of its users.
Berners-Lee describes his excitement in the earliest years of the web as “uncontainable”. Approaching 40 years on, a rebellion is brewing among himself and a community of like-minded activists and developers.
“We can fix the internet … It’s not too late,” he writes, describing his mission as a “battle for the soul of the web”.
Berners-Lee traces the first corruption of the web to the commercialisation of the domain name system, which he believes would have served web users better had it been managed by a nonprofit in the public interest. Instead, he says, in the 1990s the .com space was pounced on by “charlatans”.
OUR web
Please correct the post title: it says “internet inventor” (which is incorrect) and “soul of the web”, while the article name says “web inventor” and “soul of the internet”
the search providers (especially that famously ‘not evil’ one) had a huge hand in centralising and then gatekeeping access to ‘the web’. They have such a disproportionately powerful effect on how users discover content, and huge power to drive self-fulfilling ‘network effects’ where people go where people already are, which has become so normalised that most people couldn’t imagine ‘the web’ without them.
i’m not suggesting it was ever realistic or possible, but what we needed was for that one search provider and indexer of content to be broken up, partially nationalised, and partially integrated into the network specification itself. Only they are powerful enough to become a model for how to functionally disentangle their operations into public and private parts.
the only alternative is to break the centralisation of the web as china is doing and other BRICS nations intend to do, by creating ‘national internets’ which in some ways federate together and in other ways do not. I don’t like this model of development for the future of the internet but the security considerations of the present require this kind of approach.
The fact that no one is challenging “internet inventor Tim Berners-Lee” is making me want to blow up my desktop
Yeah, I thought it was Al Gore
Sadly most people don’t understand the difference between www and the internet.
Yeah but I kind of expected The Guardian to…
I have a simple fix but that which is difficult by virtue of momentum of the people. Don’t visit corporate websites. Avoid google, microsoft, meta, reddit, youtube. Its much more difficult to avoid: whatsapp and maybe messenger if your family is on it. I would argue for photos and online drive, proton is good but i guess the CEO is trying to become/has become a tech bro like the others. so you have to figure out if alternatives like immich (self hosting) or other hosting providers are not fascist.
We should talk about these alternatives all the time to get them into everyday lingo such that people recommend those to others.
Sadly most people’s eyes glaze over if I mention it, so I don’t get too far. But I try!
Aside from the nonprofit makerspace that I’m a part of, which is filled with like-minded nerds, I’ve met ONE single person randomly in real life that wanted to learn more about self hosting. Sent him a brain dump of all the various services I run, topics for him to research, etc.
I don’t know, the thing about the internet is that it does bring a ton of value, and operating it does have costs in turn. Maybe Sir Tim is right about DNS being the point where it got commercial, but it was going to happen somehow. Arxiv and Wikipedia still exist, but how do you do Amazon non-commercially? Even YouTube is a challenge.
There used to be a sort of mantra that technology was neutral and people are good and bad. But actually, that’s not true of things on the web
Arguably, that’s not the distinction. Technologies can be explicitly of control or of chaos. And then that relative structure or freedom can itself be used for good or for evil.
A central platform is of control, Lemmy or Linux is of chaos. And obviously we lean towards the latter a lot, but for some things even Lemmy wants central control and monitoring, so it’s not evil, exactly.
How you do amazon nonprofit is easy. Its already a giant planned economy, just take the profit out and make every vendor pay the cost for using it, Servers delivery etc. The workers would get payed well and the incentive from the public to support it is there, people want this convience and are willing to spend for it.
I’d like to point out that Amazon still hasn’t made a profit. Everything they save doing Amazon things has just gone back into building the system, so far.
Non-commercial would mean no money changes hands. Sir Tim is thinking of the way it still is an amateur radio, for example.
A nonprofit can also reinvest to grow.
Yeah, exactly.
They kind of fix this in the lede, but dude did not invent the internet, he invented the World Wide Web. The internet is a superset of a whole bunch of things that includes the World Wide Web, but dude wasn’t out there inventing TCP/IP and routers and whatnot.
Nowhere does it say he calls himself the creator. I’d be looking at the media for labelling him that.
You’re thinking of the ARPANET. When people think of the Internet. They think of the network that Gore pushed hard to open to the public. And the interface Lee designed. Gopher is having a small resurgence, and Gemini exists. But effectively what the average person sees as the Internet is their child philosophically.
I mean as a techy you aren’t wrong. There’s a lot of underlying things and technologies that sort of glosses over. But to the layperson at large we’re just pedantically nitpicking.
Gopher is having a small resurgence, and Gemini exists.
You forgot email. That seems like a pretty important use of the Internet that isn’t the web.
You mean spam trap? Outside of 2FA or a few other small things, which even those are using it less. Who actively engages with it on a regular basis. I can DM friends and family easier, with less spam and restrictions on multiple other platforms. And those that do actively engage with it are often using HTML hypertext interfaces. (Proton Gmail etc) I didn’t mention Usenet either. Or ssh that I use daily.
Most people don’t have a pop or SMTP app installed anymore. Not outlook, not Thunderbird, etc etc etc. It’s easy to imagine a world without email. So many other apps and services easily slot in to replace it. And already have in many places. Now, try to imagine a world without HTML or HTTP servers. What would that even look like?
Email is absolutely still used massively, especially in the business world. Even if someone is accessing their emails in a browser, they are still being sent with SMTP behind the scenes.
There’s also SSH, NTP, VOIP, FTP, BitTorrent, and probably more that I’m forgetting, that all have varying degrees of usage today.
Don’t get me wrong, HTTP is certainly by far the most used protocol, but it is in no way the only important one that would be difficult to replace.
Okay, and? Go back and read my posts. That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. I specifically mentioned that I was referring to lay people and that I thought myself being a techy that it was glossing over a lot of nuance.
But then I also pointed out that it was nitpicky and pedantic nerdsplaning. Something I should have paid attention to myself. Hell, it’s something I’ve done myself. So it’s not like I’m trying to insult you. I understand 100% how this happens.
You mean spam trap? Outside of 2FA or a few other small things, which even those are using it less. Who actively engages with it on a regular basis.
And those that do actively engage with it are often using HTML hypertext interfaces. (Proton Gmail etc)
My first paragraph was a direct response to these sentences.
It’s easy to imagine a world without email. So many other apps and services easily slot in to replace it. And already have in many places. Now, try to imagine a world without HTML or HTTP servers. What would that even look like?
My second and third paragraphs were a direct response to this.
My generalized interpretation of your comment was that laypeople don’t use email anymore, their only interaction with the internet is through HTTP, and HTTP is the only internet protocol that could not be easily replaced.
My counter argument was that laypeople in the business world absolutely still use email daily, almost always through a client like Outlook, and there are a number of other protocols with varying degrees of usage (among laypeople and enthusiasts) that would also be very difficult to replace.
I apologize if I misunderstood your comment, but hopefully this clarifies my point and intentions.
WWW has been a complete crapshow ever since it started simply because it became popular.
It was designed to serve documents over the internet, except everyone co-opted for their own needs like websites, APIs, etc.
That left us with broken as hell crap at every layer from the joke that is HTML/CSS, the clownshow that is HTTP, and the circus that is JavaScript.
And don’t even get the started on the mountain of vulnerabilities being stupid obvious crap that wouldn’t dare to fly in even basic GNU utilities at the time.
Adding insult to injury, this guy hasn’t even provided a valid solution to this mess like hyphanet or the very newly released freenet.
Which by the way tries to hack cheat the system with WebAssembly so that it doesn’t have to deal with HTTPS directly since its an exclusive client server protocol.
