Slashdot Mirror
Like Democracy, the Web Needs To Be Defended
climenole tips a great article by Sir Tim Berners-Lee in Scientific American. Quoting:
"The Web evolved into a powerful, ubiquitous tool because it was built on egalitarian principles and because thousands of individuals, universities and companies have worked, both independently and together as part of the World Wide Web Consortium, to expand its capabilities based on those principles. The Web as we know it, however, is being threatened in different ways. Some of its most successful inhabitants have begun to chip away at its principles. Large social-networking sites are walling off information posted by their users from the rest of the Web. Wireless Internet providers are being tempted to slow traffic to sites with which they have not made deals. Governments — totalitarian and democratic alike — are monitoring people's online habits, endangering important human rights. If we, the Web's users, allow these and other trends to proceed unchecked, the Web could be broken into fragmented islands. We could lose the freedom to connect with whichever Web sites we want."
"As an evolved system that facilitates the propagation and security of the underlying principles of democracy, the Web needs to be defended."
Large social-networking sites are walling off information posted by their users from the rest of the Web
That has never been different. There is no right to someone else's resources. If you host your site, nobody should be allowed to make you publish anything other than what is required for technical reasons. The internet is a network of networks. Network operators have ASNs, autonomous system numbers. The web exists because there are only rules which ensure technical compatibility. That's it. If you want content rules, get cable TV.
Are there really many human beings defending small 'd' democratic values, period?
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Is "just one web" really the best thing? What about competition? We've already seen how a tendancy towards global finance can increase the scale of disaster. If somebody attacks THE WEB, it's a global disaster. If they attack ONE OF THE WEBS, there is the possibility of switching to the other network when that happens.
some person's private information is NOT the resource of the site that stores it. a person's private information belongs to that person alone. there can be no other argument to that.
Read radical news here
'competition' ?
this is like saying 'is one world really the best thing ? lets break it up into smaller parts'. or, saying 'is one huge global market is a good thing ? lets break it to smaller parts'.
its stupid. human civilization has been trying to achieve planetary scale on everything. it would be beyond moronic to revert back, when a state of that is reached in some technology ; namely, information exchange.
hey, while we are at it, why dont we go back to feudalism ? at least, there can be competition in between the lords.
Read radical news here
Software patents are one of the biggest threats. Writing a website is writing software, and having a website today is essential for many parts of our democracy. Campaigns on issues or for candidates need websites. Further, writing software is an important freedom in itself, like the freedom to write a book. Most people will never do either, but we all benefit from the small percentage of people who do.
Writing functional software often means reading and writing common data formats, so a patent on a format turns into a veto on others being able to write functional software in that domain.
(In reality, political candidates will never get threatened by patent owners - the patent owners don't want the politicians to feel first-hand how much of a problem it is.)
Berners-Lee makes a quick reference to it in TFA:
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
I dislike the analogy between "large social networking sites walling off your data" and net neutrality infringement/censorship/monitoring. Walled gardens are a perfectly acceptable consequence of a FREE web; net neutrality infringement is the opposite. Would you complain if your
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Worked great for Compuserve and AOL back in the day.
The way I figure it will play out, the major telcos will do it quickly followed by everyone else when Google, iTunes and Amazon cave and pay the protection money. It'll suck for 10 years or so, amazon.com and others will eventually close up shop, people will get bored with AT&TOL and go back to cable tv for their hundreds of channels of nothing important. Companies will stop buying "keywords", and when AT&TOL is begging for people to please give them a try because they put the internets in your computer, someone else will finally step up to the plate and either force cities to break their franchise agreements or manage to con the banks out of enough financing to buy up significant chunks of good wireless spectrum and start selling "the real internet". A .com boom will take off again as people discover that they can go to all sorts of websites, not just the ISP-sanctioned keywords, and we'll be back in the late 90's again before you know it... just in time for the y2038 crisis.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
nothing will happen until after it's too late.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Give any man a forum and he'll tell you how important he is. Give any woman a forum and she'll use to to complain about the other women she works with.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
He mentions the idea that some ISPs are considering a plan where they only deliver content from their site. That's not Web access. Anybody who buys that is not on the web. And that's their own lookout.
When it comes to democracy, you can lead the horse to water, but it's gotta drink all by itself. You can yell, scream, cajole, etc. but in the end voters will make whatever decisions they want to make. They may be mind-numbingly stupid, but mind-numbing stupidity is a part of democracy. I wish it weren't, but the alternative is some mechanism of excluding people, and there's no fair way to do that. Whoever sets up the standards is the dictator.
As a threat to democracy, call me when they start forbidding plain Web access to users willing to pay a reasonable sum for it. The state technology means that you can get the kind of access needed to read (but not watch) the news for a nominal sum practically anywhere. I'd like to see that improved; the price of access in the US is higher than it should be. But it's not a threat to democracy.
Maybe Tim Berners-Lee, and W3C, can chair a process of drafting a constitution protecting
at least the minimum standards of acceptable behavior of actors and intermediaries on the
web. Perhaps this would result in a lowest-common-denominator set of standards, but maybe
that would be better than nothing.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Then it must be destroyed! Down with irrational, tyrannical majorities!
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Well said. However, I would add that there is a flip side to the equation.
The internet has ALSO allowed for information sharing which has until now been impossible at the rates, speed and depth currently available. There are channels of information and networked communication now instantly available which allow for a very high level of awareness for those seeking it. Citizen journalism is nothing to sneeze at, and being able to hash out subjects on forums like this one, having people call my bullshit and point me at truth has been invaluable to me. The web offers itself as a fantastic crucible if you want to use it that way. But I agree; the pull of mind-wasting entertainment on the Web IS ridiculously strong.
Though, personal choice in how the medium is used is important to consider. I don't know that people would be any different without it. In fact, in terms of strict biological/behavioral interference I'd put more blame on cell phones and WiFi devices than the content for numbing awareness and fuzzing people out; for making the poor choices easier to feel satisfied with.
The medium IS the message, a wise man once observed.
-FL
I'm not entirely sure the 'planetary scale' objective you're referring to is as great as you might thing. Separation of powers is very important if you want to maintain freedom and curb oppression. If you can't vote with your dollar or your ballot, you ought to be able to vote with your feet.
The important concept is openness, not uniqueness or monopoly. Nothing is more terrifying than planetary government for example... Because when that government goes bad (they all do at some point), you have nowhere else to go.
When you remove competition in an environment, you might be better off on the short term but the absolute best you can hope for on the long term is stagnation, and you're way more likely to get corruption and a system that preys on the people it is supposed to serve. This is true for standards, corporations, governments, religions or just about any other system.
Mind the frickin' laser...
The Internet is an infrastructure. People have figured out a long time ago that infrastructure is not something where you want people to create competing markets. That merely results in huge inefficiencies as duplication and underutilization abounds.
Furthermore, the Internet is ALREADY an network of networks. Hence the "Inter" in Internet. No need to build multiple Internets,unless you have some specific reasons why you don't want to hook up to the rest of the world - in which case, you build an Intranet.
Remember folks - free markets are never really free, and more competition is not always the answer.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
...by which we ensure we are governed no _better_ than we deserve.
The grandparent poster is not "funny" he's "correct".
The U.S. was supposed to be a "representative democracy" not a "democracy" in an attempt to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The fact that both corporate interests and modern sound-byte media have caused the thing "represented" to no longer be "the general welfare" and instead to be the "corporate welfare" and the "sound-byte of momentary passion" is where things have failed.
The U.S. of A. was always supposed to be a Socialist regime (e.g. union for the ultimate good of the people). Our stupid electorate however cannot tell that apart from National Socialism (union for the ultimate good of the nation) or Soviet Socialism (union for the good of the bureaucracy). Nor do they understand the difference between "unionism" (voluntary commitment to common goals) and "fascism" (compulsory commitment to uniformly dictated structures).
This leads to some oddities. By definition if you think "my country right or wrong" then you are a National Socialist. And if you believe in the unrestrained free market you are an Anarchist.
We often describe a collapsed and irredeemable social construct by saying "it is just a popularity contest". Keep that in mind the next time you look at any election campaign.
Anarchy is good for the web and "the internets", just as it is good for the high seas. Since there are no whales or fisheries in the internet, and there is no real chance of _actual_ piracy or salvage, that anarchy is good. As soon as people try to turn the high-seas of the internet into territory and real estate things will fall to pieces.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Is "just one web" really the best thing? What about competition?
There is already competition between ISPs, who give you access to the web -- that's why we're getting cool things like LTE, LTE-Advanced, WiMAX, etc. If you meant splitting up the resources that make up the web, like the web sites, I don't see what benefit that would bring -- and there is no incentive to be the first one doing it... since that means no one is going to be able to see your site.
If they attack ONE OF THE WEBS, there is the possibility of switching to the other network when that happens.
The nature of the Internet is that most attacks are only going to affect an isolated portion of it. "THE WEB" is not a single entity. BGP is as close as you could get to massive disruption (without silently owning thousands of individual ISPs), but if someone really is being malicious with BGP (rather than the occasional "oops"), they can always be blacklisted. That would still be disruptive, and we could make a global backup network to combat it, but the real solution there is to secure BGP.
Backup networks work for "small scale" networks (read: large companies, governments). This is for internal use for that organization (remember your history: US DoD and the Internet). A global backup network for public use will have big problems, especially if we want to be able to count on *it* being available if the other is *not*.
Also, for any kind of security between the two networks in the event of some huge theoretical attack, the networks would need to be physically separated. This means nothing on one network can access anything on the other network. So you have two isolated PDAs, ISPs have two sets of racks of isolated gear, two sets of intercontinental fiber...
Device manufacturers would be the only ones happy with that.
The problem with the semantic web is taxonomy. Taxonomy is inherently based on a point of view, which is incompatible with the wild individualism of the Internet. A good example is the Usenet newsgroup name space, which engendered countless destructive wars between news admins and users in the 1990s, all over what to name a newsgroup and how it fit in to the hierarchy imagined by the news admins.
Of course the news admins almost always won, since they held the power. But on the open Web, nobody has the power to enforce a strict taxonomic classification of web sites and their associated semantic content. The only places that provide the centralized authority necessary to enforce that kind of organization are the walled gardens like Facebook, so I doubt that Tim will ever see his dream realized.
tell that to the chinese