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”.
Can we change the title to web inventor? I am guilty of using them interchangeably as well, but he did not invent the internet. And I used the internet before the web existed lol.
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.
I’d give anything for the internet to go back to how it was in the early/mid 90s.
Back before it was corporatized, monetized and before all the gardens started building their walls.
“The internet” should just be dumb pipes that transport bits. Period.
A series of tubes, if you will. Not a big truck.
Talk to Mark Andreesen.
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 TBL is right about DNS being the point where it got commercial, but it was going to happen somehow. It was never going to all be a free-to-all, academic thing forever - not all of it, anyway. Arxiv and Wikipedia still exist.
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 be used for good or for evil.
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 would make a somewhat controversial case that one of the main ruiners of the internet and our entire social contract has been the “free with marketing” model that replaced subscriptions.
If we’re going to live in a goods/services/money climate, I’m fine with different companies or media distributors charging subscription fees to pay for their costs. It makes sense, it’s been a working model since the early days of the internet.
What started to become a problem is when more and more services went to “free” models. Now the revenue comes from advertisers, so that comes with a train of baggage. Now producers of content are incentivized to make everything a race to see who gets user attention first and fastest for those sweet, sweet clicks. It is the main contributing factor to public attention-span erosion and the way most people have become willfully ignorant about the outside world. Additionally, content has to be moderated and censored because we wouldn’t want to scare off the precious advertisers. It’s enough to make you want to roblox yourself in minecraft.
Imagine if Youtube broadly was a paid service. You pay premium and there’s no algorithm. No “feed based on your marketing preferences.” No 20-mile long list of AI slop videos with sensational titles to get you to click on them, because the users aren’t making money from clicks but real subscribers who want to see more of the actual content.
Same with many other huge media sites, even social media. If they weren’t beholdened to attention-spans and sensationalism, we would see far less outright propaganda and lies.
I feel like this model has ruined a lot of gaming too, and has allowed publishers to release shitty, unfinished games for free with no moderation for MMO’s and no real care or passion for making a game people want to come back to, and instead just make slop games with skins for impulse shoppers.
“The internet should be for everyone, except the people I don’t like”
- average modern internet user
It’s always the fucking DNS. .__.
deleted by creator
The internet isn’t broken… Humanity is.
*web inventor
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.
People say wifi when they mean the Internet, somehow one cannot expect accuracy. Articles always get written by professional clueless people also.
Nowhere does it say he calls himself the creator. I’d be looking at the media for labelling him that.
They’re replying to the article title, which is incorrect.
Nowhere did they say he called himself the creator, either. They only replied to the statement presented.
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.
But to the layperson at large we’re just pedantically nitpicking.
Important to mention. The idea that the internet isn’t actually on their box is already a frontier of public communications.
But, for Lemmy’s sake, yeah email. And whatever IOT or app protocol, increasingly.
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?
Tons of people engage with email regularily, including through standalone MTAs.*
But my point is that email was big before the web even grew to its current significance. So I think common people have at least that one point of contact with the internet that is quite distinct from the web in their memory.
But maybe it’s really a generational question. I have to concede that a lot of people now use web interfaces for their email client, especially outside of corporate managed devices. Late milennials and Gen Z will have grown up with the web being more significant than email.
* Don’t forget about the MTAs on smartphone OSes, those aren’t web based.
– signed, a late milennial network engineer, whose dad always installed outlook on the family computers
PS: Funny story last week I was at CERN at the CIXP, the CERN Internet Exchange Point, to upgrade a connection to 400Gb/s, and in the lobby of the building they hung up the cover pages of Tim Berners-Lee’s original Hypertext and HTTP papers
Email is still extremely popular and used quite frequently for more than chatting with friends. Businesses use email to communicate with customers. Schools use email to communicate with parents. Doctors use email to communicate with patients. Utility bills are sent via email. Etc, etc, etc.
Just because you don’t have a use for it doesn’t mean it’s useless.
Email is still extremely popular and used quite frequently for more than chatting with friends. Businesses use email to communicate with customers. Schools use email to communicate with parents. Doctors use email to communicate with patients. Utility bills are sent via email. Etc, etc, etc.
Web portal, web portal, web portal, oh and web portal. Web portals.
Where did I say it was useless. You’re trying hard to be offended.
You’re trying hard to just be negative.
Yay. Peak Reddit! Let’s all argue over our assumptions
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.
Every one with an office job uses it daily
“Technically correct” is the best kind of correct.
It’s really not though. Except in that one case.
Indeed
I dont think so.
Saying Lee invented the web, to the lay person, implies that he invented the web we have in 2026. As though he was the grand architect of the platform we use today.
Yes, in the 80s he was a pioneer in digital communication specifications. However, I dont think many of the relevant skills are transferable to addressing the capitalist motives and ethical deficiencies which have infected the web in the interceding 40 years.
It feels a bit like asking an actor their opinion on politics.
Everything you’ve said has been ruined by that last sentence.
It feels a bit like asking an actor their opinion on politics.
This is a remarkably idiotic statement.
If you think one of your differing opinions/misunderstandings causes everything else that person has said to be invalid when your remark basically implies you agreed up to that point, you really need to take a step back from your tribalism and learn some nuance.
And to be fair they are not stating that an actors opinions on politics are irrelevant, they are clearly stating they shouldnt be treated as an expert on the matter based on the context of their comment.
If I am looking for a relevant policy maker and someone with experience in getting policies passed in a government, using an actor, firefighter, musician, dance teach or engineer as anything but a way to gain insight into the area a policy is being written for is generally a dumb idea unless the aforementioned person transitioned from politics into their new field of career.
I am not going to ask a comedian how to design software, their opinion on my applications design maybe relevant and guide my design philosophy but acting like they would have insight into the best data structures and tech stack to use in order to develop that application would be no better than prompting an LLM write it for me. They arent an expert and shouldn’t be treated as such.
Its clear thats what the person you replied to was getting at, so maybe take a step back from being so reactionary because it sounds like you probably have some common ground thats being lost due to the medium we are interacting in.
What a thoughtless vapid take.
And the “World Wide Web” mostly means HTML - “hypertext” documents which can be published on the internet, and which are regular documents but with embedded links to other documents (hyperlinks), and a vision to ultimately create the “semantic web” - human-readable text which can also be processed by computers.
To be exact, Tim Berners Lee invented the original HTML specification, the HTTP communication protocol, and a proof-of-concept browser that implements both of them. These three things were required - on top of TCP, IP, Ethernets, that already existed - to build the Web.
The original hypertext proposal was even more complex than what we ended up getting, connecting ideas both ways.
You supported DRM dude. Self critique, renounce your mistakes, and if you really want to go after ICANN, give me a call. I’ve got the anti-trust suit waiting for you.
For those that don’t know, he ultimately backed EME which was dumb.
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.
You should check out his new js project
I know you wrote this in jest.
But no, don’t give threadiverse brain damage.
It doesn’t matter how noble your intent when inventing or researching, once business has control of something, it is used to gain power and control over people. All you scientists and engineers and researchers need to starts accepting your own contribution to this monster, held accountable for the technologies you help businesses unleash on all of us.
We do not blame Prometheus for what the arsonist did.
If Prometheus saw a dude twitching his fingers, eager to burn shit down and then handed him fire, he damn well should be blamed.
Zeus did…
I think your coming on a little heavy, if you are trying to say that inventors should build systems that are resilient to misuse, I whole heartadly agree. But how your post seems it would imply that no one should be inventing anything that could possibly be corrupted or face the consequences, which is quite a huge pendulum swing that wouldn’t cause the outcome I think you are looking for.
They should consider to not build at all if it’s clear the result is business returning us to slavery.
I agree with the first part, but scientists and engineers are not that much more complicit than literally everyone with a job. Those businesses couldn’t have done that without marketing, hr, janitors, tradespeople, lawyers etc etc etc either. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism and there is no ethical job.
Their complicity is more impactful. They Empower those businesses with new technological capabilities that the public, the state and the population in general is in no position to effectively keep up with a defense against. Employees also have their own responsibility, but the empowerment engineers and scientists are giving businesses by building fucking AI is very different than what an office bureaucrat contributes by managing the logistics. Logistics can only manage what exists, science and engineers are bringing new shit into existence and handing it to psychopaths. I rarely ever hear anything about the responsibility scientists and engineers have by empowering these corporations and other ambitious people even though their contributions make it possible at all.
All these LLM engineers building the spy tools and data collection and analysis systems that will be used on us need to be brought into the conversation when we discuss whose responsible for MAGA and Trump and the technofascist that were watching be built right now. They can’t do it without those inventions and discoveries, so maybe stop fucking helping them?
