Slashdot Mirror


Tim Berners-Lee Launches Campaign To Save the Web From Abuse (theguardian.com)

Tim Berners-Lee has launched a global campaign to save the web from the destructive effects of abuse and discrimination, political manipulation, and other threats that plague the online world. A report adds: In a talk at the opening of the Web Summit in Lisbon on Monday, the inventor of the web called on governments, companies and individuals to back a new "Contract for the Web" that aims to protect people's rights and freedoms on the internet. The contract outlines central principles that will be built into a full contract and published in May 2019, when half of the world's population will be able to get online. More than 50 organisations have already signed the contract, which is published by Berners-Lee's World Wide Web Foundation alongside a report that calls for urgent action.

"For many years there was a feeling that the wonderful things on the web were going to dominate and we'd have a world with less conflict, more understanding, more and better science, and good democracy," Berners-Lee told the Guardian. "But people have become disillusioned because of all the things they see in the headlines. Humanity connected by technology on the web is functioning in a dystopian way. We have online abuse, prejudice, bias, polarisation, fake news, there are lots of ways in which it is broken. This is a contract to make the web one which serves humanity, science, knowledge and democracy." Under the principles laid out in the document, which Berners-Lee calls a "Magna Carta for the web", governments must ensure that its citizens have access to all of the internet, all of the time, and that their privacy is respected so they can be online "freely, safely and without fear."
Berners-Lee, added, "We're at a 50/50 moment for the web. We've created something amazing together, but half the world is still not online, and our online rights and freedoms are at risk. The web has done so much for us, but now we need to stand up #ForTheWeb." You can watch his talk here (skip the first 10 minutes).

179 comments

  1. Captain Save a Web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    didn't he go to pimp school?

  2. 2EZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you want to make the web great again, just stop allowing humans to use it. Simple.

    1. Re:2EZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you could do okay by only allowing the pre-eternal-september crowd, and maybe a few of the post-ES ones who can demonstrate sanity when it comes to technology.

      The problem is we had no barrier to entry. You want to fly a plane, you need to show that you know something about flying planes. With the internet, there was no bar to clear, so the impact of the ignorant overwhelmed the impact of the educated.

  3. Frost whis by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    My first wish is for you to get back in that bottle. My second is for you to stay there.

    Doesn't matter what the third one is - it's as likely to come true as the others.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Frost whis by geekmux · · Score: 0

      My first wish is for you to get back in that bottle. My second is for you to stay there.

      Doesn't matter what the third one is - it's as likely to come true as the others.

      Didn't you hear? Blockchain will put the genie back in the bottle.

      Well, OK, technically it's blockchain with a sprinkling of dark matter blended with the Mandela effect and red-wine vinega...damn, I've said too much.

    2. Re:Frost whis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sore: -1 Your Anus.

      stfu.

  4. "It" is the people, not the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Computers are amplifiers of humanity, be the manifestation stupidity, racism, abuse, meanness, kindness, charity, good-heartedness, etc. You name it. The problem isn't the internet, the problem is certain types of people. PEOPLE use the internet. Berners-Lee means well and that is a good start, but he is hacking at the branches of a tree that we would all like to cut down. The quotes sound like is equating fixing the internet with fixing people. Not gonna happen that way.

    1. Re: "It" is the people, not the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also just wait until the other half of the world gets online. You have not seen anything yet. No it is time to destroy social media and all of its spawns. That is the main problem allowing people to connect in ways that foster even more misunderstandings.

    2. Re:"It" is the people, not the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is in part that communication technology is an abstraction for talking to people face to face. Most of us wouldn't take pleasure in trolling people if we were seeing them visually get upset by the things that we did. There is no empathy on the internet.

    3. Re: "It" is the people, not the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In time people will probably kill eachother over trolling done by AI
      What a time to be alive!

    4. Re:"It" is the people, not the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got that right, you fucking fucker! (that's me, online)

      I'm so, so sorry I told you that, AC. I was just trying to be funny. I deeply apologize for my first sentence. (that's me, in real life)

    5. Re:"It" is the people, not the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And history has shown us there is no shortage of bad people. Now their voices are amplified and it's harder to tell who is who.

    6. Re:"It" is the people, not the system by DanDD · · Score: 1

      If computers are the amplifiers of humanity, then networks are the attenuators.

      Right now openness, transparency, and truth are overly attenuated. It didn't used to be that way, alt.pave.the.earth being a past humorous exception.

      Anonymity, location hiding, and special interest groups are destroying what people like Dr. Berners-Lee intended.

      I sincerely hope he can achieve some level of success in his effort to fix what he helped create and what lesser humans have distorted.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    7. Re:"It" is the people, not the system by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The 90s called. They want their "one does not simply walk into social problems with technological solutions" back.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:"It" is the people, not the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are talking about Hillary, aren't you?

    9. Re:"It" is the people, not the system by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do we have to fix people, or just limit the damage they can do?

      To take a real world example we can discourage behaviour like violence by creating consequences for it. We can limit the damage someone is able to do by verifying identity before allowing money to be withdrawn from a bank account.

      I'm not saying we should do exactly the same online, but for example many services offer tools to block/mute abusive users and phishing scams, including controversial shadow bans. It's worth having a conversation about those tools.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Petition to make the internet Cable TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many different points of view. We should all obey our corporate masters who are the new moral authority.

    Unless you are a billionaire you shouldn't be able to voice an opinion.

    Fuck Tim Berners-Lee and fuck the Web.

  6. Bwahahaha by iggymanz · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Oh you sweet naive man, do you also believe in rainbow shitting unicorns and santa claus?

    what a waste of time

    1. Re:Bwahahaha by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      You prove what I'm saying with the first phrase of your reply. Thanks for the validation of what I said.

  7. CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I smell a global-scale Code of Conduct in the works. Fuck that shit. I like the Internet the way it is.

    1. Re:CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the Internet the way it is.

      I prefer it the way it was.

    2. Re:CoC by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      It has stuff like "make the web cheap to use and ubiquitous" and then it has stuff about what content should be on the web. Well, I already know what kind of content these guys don't want on the web- anything that is unprofitable to them, anything that they politically disagree with. It's just a bunch of censorship dressed up like it's there to protect you.

    3. Re:CoC by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      There's some good stuff in there

      Keep all of the internet available, all of the time

      Translation: The Pirate Bay is back!

      Make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone

      Smells like Net Neutrality.

      Respect consumers’ privacy and personal data

      A good sentiment if a bit vague and high-level

      Not so sure about this one:

      Build strong communities that respect civil discourse and human dignity

      Again this is rather vague. It's fine if people build communities where participants are encouraged to remain civil and respectful... and even ban people who do not comply. We already have that. But what if we want PornHub and 4Chan as well? What happens if a community decides not to play ball and remains a foul-mouthed spreader of undignified fake news conspiracy theories? Can something be done about them, or are they also part of "all of the internet, all of the time"?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. Fuck TBL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    governments must ensure that its citizens have access to all of the internet, all of the time, and that their privacy is respected so they can be online "freely, safely and without fear."

    Fuck off, prick. Being online freely, safely, and without fear means being able to say whatever you want. Controlling speech, whether by government or private business, is diametrically opposed to the ability to use the Internet freely and without fear. There is no room for compromise when it comes to freedom. It's either free or it's not.

    1. Re:Fuck TBL. by Immerman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Absolutely. Now, pardon me I'm about to drive my car through your house, while gunning down anyone I see. After all, any interference in my freedom to do that would be a compromise, and thus prove that freedom does not exist.

      In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. The entirety of civilization is built on the compromise of freedoms in exchange for safety, efficiency, etc. As the old saying goes - My freedom to swing my arms stops where your nose begins.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Fuck TBL. by Kielistic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your nose does not exist on the internet.

    3. Re:Fuck TBL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet is just information, mostly words. Your analogy is bullshit. But given your own logic, you should now be banned from the internet.

    4. Re:Fuck TBL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are the problem. Conflating speech(words) with violence(physically harming someone/something)

      Also giving up freedoms for "safety" has worked so well since 9/11.. That's part of the resentment people have that end up voting for Trump.
      The politicians will use "for the childers" to gain as much power as they can until it's too late.

      --Highdude702

    5. Re:Fuck TBL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does driving and shooting have to do with free speech?

    6. Re:Fuck TBL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who would trade freedom for safety, deserve neither and will lose both.

    7. Re:Fuck TBL. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      totalitarians equate speech with action because it can punch holes in their broken ideologies.

    8. Re:Fuck TBL. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Why is free speech in the very first amendment in the bill of rights? Because it is the most powerful, the most dangerous to government, and thus the most necessary to be protected. Guns are important in overthrowing tyranny, but without the speech to impassion people to fight and die over an ideal, they're not worth a damned thing.

      Words hold awesome power to reshape the world - little else ever has. Those who claim free speech as an important bastion democracy, while belittling its power to cause harm, are guilty of blatant hypocrisy.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Fuck TBL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly the problem. We have public gatherings of people who sometimes like to drink, fight and fuck until they drop. This is the human condition and in the real world we use our words, fists and weapons of the designated peace keepers to keep most people alive in those events. We need remote activated electric conditioning devices at our keyboards and touchpads, and we need them now.

    10. Re:Fuck TBL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because words and ideas drive into your house and gun you down?

    11. Re:Fuck TBL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but DRM loaded. Says Sir Tim who backed up DRM to be included as a web standard.

  9. free speech or PC speech by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You really can't have both. Don't believe me? Consider how easily some are offended. You have a choice of not trying to offend anyone, a fools errand, or pushing ahead and offending someone. It all sounds good to 'not be a jerk' but how do topics like illegal immigration get honestly discussed in a PC way. That's the trouble with PC efforts, they ignore or try and re-label reality and reality doesn't bend. If an immigrant is here illegally then they are by definition an illegal immigrant. The euphemism of undocumented immigrant is not helpful and just muddies the water. Is stealing theft or merely an undocumented purchase? I'm a fan of not being a jerk but I'm also a fan of honest discussion and not simply seeking to deplatform those you disagree with.

    1. Re:free speech or PC speech by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Excellent points! I would also add:

      * Who defines what is offensive?
      * What is or isn't offensive? (The person receiving it??)

      Also what if someone is offended by the truth (such as China's retarded ban on the number 64 -- a reference to the 1989 Tiananmen Square murder -- does national Law trump Censorship ?

    2. Re:free speech or PC speech by ewibble · · Score: 2

      I think the discussion needs to be based on truthfulness not inoffensiveness. Saying illegal immigrants should not be here because they are illegal is fine. Saying they should not be here because they are murders, or lazy, needs evidence that they are more so than the currently population. I think we need more evidence based discussion not just people stating random opinions, or give examples, sure there are examples of migrant workers being murders, there are also examples locals as well.

    3. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have both: the government can defend people's right to speak -and- online communities can choose what types of speech they will tolerate.

      The real question here, though, is how do you (as TBL's contract puts it) "build strong communities that respect civil discourse and human dignity"? How do you "support the best in humanity and challenge the worst"? And how do you prevent these mechanisms from being subverted for cruelty and injustice?

    4. Re:free speech or PC speech by boundary · · Score: 2

      Hear, hear. And with organisations like Google and Facebook backing it, it's clear which way it will end up. We need a proper digital bill of rights. This ain't it.

    5. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Saying they should not be here because they are murders, or lazy, needs evidence that they are more so than the currently population.

      Not true at all. Did we prove Mohamad Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers were more violent than the population before they killed 3000? No
      Did many of them overstay visas illegally? Yes

      So you are arguing that 3000+ being killed is acceptable in order to not possibly offend people. We also have Kate Steinle killed by an individual illegal that wouldn't tip their numbers to be generally more violent, but according to your logic her death is acceptable because calling them out might offend someone.

      How about we stop illegal immigration, ALL of it, and allow the ones in that we can be pretty sure are ok. Sorry protecting US citizens offends you.

    6. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...does national Law trump Censorship?

      You just had to bring Trump into the discussion...

    7. Re:free speech or PC speech by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the discussion needs to be based on truthfulness not inoffensiveness. Saying illegal immigrants should not be here because they are illegal is fine. Saying they should not be here because they are murders, or lazy, needs evidence that they are more so than the currently population. I think we need more evidence based discussion not just people stating random opinions, or give examples, sure there are examples of migrant workers being murders, there are also examples locals as well.

      All the examples of PC speech I can think of are attempts at dodging the truth or smearing someone with negative labels for stating the truth (ie Nazi, racist, etc). If people had the truth on their side in the first place 'PC' wouldn't be needed.

    8. Re:free speech or PC speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The focus is always on offence, but it's a straw man. Triggered snowflakes are easy to argue against, doxing and silencing not so much.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re: free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I donâ(TM)t have free speech either because I canâ(TM)t talk to coal miners about their jobs without offending them.

      Do you even realize how stupid that sounds?

      If I wanted a bunch of coal miners to understand my position with the coal industry and my concerns about the environment (honestly), I would use language they are not sensitive to and would not offend them. Otherwise, what is the fucking point? To talk AT them? You can bitch and moan about PC all you want, it boils down to common sense and basic communication skills. Please act all surprised when people donâ(TM)t waste their time listening to you overtly offend them.

    10. Re:free speech or PC speech by Immerman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There is a middle ground - courteous speech. If I'm at the bar and see someone I don't like, I can go give them a ration of shit, and maybe chase them off, or maybe get a punch in the nose for my trouble. Having immediate potential repercussions for discourteous speech is one of the biggest differences between real-life and online conversations. Perhaps we need to bring that online.

      Not necessarily as a top-down "official rules of conduct" sort of situation, such a thing is far too vulnerable to being used for agenda-based censorship by the appointed authorities. But a bottom-up implementation to mimic in-person interactions might be possible.

      One possible off-the-cuff implementation that could be easily implemented by any "members only" social network:
      One of your comments gets flagged as inappropriate by someone reading it, so it and the surrounding context get anonymized and shown to X randomly selected people with no connection to anyone involved (the jury), who then vote Guilty or Not guilty on its inappropriateness. If it gets voted guilty by the threshold margin (1/2? 2/3?) that comment gets hidden, and you get a black mark on your posting record. Accumulate enough black marks, and your posting freedom begins being restricted. If it gets voted Not Guilty by a similar threshold, then the flagger gets a black mark on their flagging record, and accumulating enough of those similarly restricts their flagging abilities.

      Other considerations could also be thrown in to help reduce overhead - e.g. a post needs to accumulate a certain number of flags before being sent to trial. That could actually work well with recording flagging histories as well: the more comments that you flag inappropriate that are found not-guilty, the fewer "flagging points" your flag is worth, some flag-happy busybody might be only worth 0.1 point, while someone who only ever flags comments bad enough that they're always found guilty might be worth several.

      Similarly, if you make a lot of posts that get flagged and found guilty, you might get a few flagging points automatically applied to every post, so that very little additional flagging is needed to send a post to trial. Keep it up and you might even reach the point where your every posts is presumed guilty and hidden until a trial determines otherwise. Or you might just get banned outright.

      There will still be some censorship of unpopular people and opinions, but it will be democratically applied censorship, just as is seen in any real-life social setting, rather than some top-down system designed to enforce the agenda of those in power. And the greater the supermajority required to be found guilty, the less the level of censorship.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you are arguing that 3000+ being killed is acceptable in order to not possibly offend people.

      No. You might have a reading problem; please ask your English teacher.

      Nobody gives a fuck about offending people, Let's take Atta as an example, and suppose it's September 10, 2001. Unless you are part of the conspiracy, you have no reason to believe that Atta is violent. (If you think you do, please explain, because it means you are smarter than everyone who worked in the US government at the time.)

      And since you have no reason to think he might be violent, it would be stupid to say it, because you would just be making it up. Oh, you're be right but only by coincidence and chance.

      And then if you went beyond Atta to saying everyone is violent, then you wouldn't even be right; you'd be factually incorrect. You would reveal your stupidity instead of hiding it, and we want more people to hide their stupidity.

      Don't say things that aren't true. That's the key. Nobody gives a fuck if you offend, but we do want you to stop being wrong. Think and then speak. If you think about whether what you're going to say is true or false before you say it, and then abort the false statements before they leak out, you'll be doing well.

    12. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, mob rule works so well on the platforms that already have them(Reddit...YouTube...)

    13. Re:free speech or PC speech by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that, in addition to freedom of speech, the right to offend should be a human right and/or enshrined in our constitutions. Not that it is ever nice to offend, nor good. But it has become so easy to be offended, and that if that becomes the yardstick of free speech, soon we will not be able to say anything. In addition, rules and laws against giving offense are misused to silence opponents, stifle political debates, and enable religious persecution. In many countries, there is freedom of speech with a big fat "except" attached to it, meaning that one should not offend certain sensibilities. And in many, many cases where that rule is actually enforced, it is being misused, not against offense, but against undesirable opinions.

      Give us the right to offend. Not because we want to offend. But to ensure that no one can silence us simply by claiming to be offended.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    14. Re: free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a lower case trump.

      Crisis averted.

    15. Re:free speech or PC speech by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      âoeInternet media should spread positive information, uphold the correct political direction, and guide public opinion toward the right direction,â the state-run Xinhua news service reported in April, summarizing the instructions of Mr. Xi, who âoestressed the centralized, unified leadership of the Party over cybersecurity.â

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    16. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you get a black mark on your posting record.

      Not my meowmowbeenz!

      Remember, 5's have lives.

      But while I have excellent Slashdot karma, I still think this is an unworkable solution. No one gives a shit as they can go instantly grab an infinite number of new pseudo anonymous accounts. If you CAN'T, then you're already failing some of the major points of this "contract" namely, privacy and letting everyone onto the Internet.

    17. Re:free speech or PC speech by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      You really can't have both. Don't believe me?

      Given that your comment is currently sitting at a +5 rating shows you can. If you would have talked about rapists and murderers coming over the boarder, that'd be another story and you'd probably get modded flamebait.

      The entire problem with online conversation is the lack of any meaningful user moderation, and instead we get Facebook or Twitter trying to play the role of judge when really it should be up to other users.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    18. Re:free speech or PC speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Why does the bar have to be "offensive"? Why not "violates privacy" e.g. doxing and revenge porn?

      Whatever the solution it's going to need to support spam filtering.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:free speech or PC speech by Stolovaya · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't tell if you're an extremist that has blinders on, or you're a troll trying to rile people up. Your response only lends more weight to liquid_schwartz's point.

      Someone being here illegally is not dependent on their skin color. You haven't show anything to explain how liquid_schwartz's post is racist; you saw something you didn't like, and so you tried to shut it down by yelling "racist". That only works so many times (see: the boy that cried wolf). Stop belittling that word.

      That's great that you care about immigrants. Doing what you did doesn't help anything, and only causes further problems.

      You're a part of the problem, not a solution. You should really think about trying to turn that around.

    20. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep you can't have free speech. Why? Because those in charge of the place bend over backwards in fear of small vocal minorities claiming victim status rather than stand up for the majority and prevent everyone from being victimized by the minority.

      PC is BS. It's a subjective set of terms anyway, and humans by nature will never be 100% PC. In the end all PC is a righteousness-high created by tormenting and persecuting others for what someone believes to be "right, and just." Most of the time it's used to avoid criticism or correction by others. This shit needs to stop. A race that cannot self-correct is doomed to extinction. Constantly spouting PC and forcing it on others will only lead to strife, and destruction of the bonds that hold society together.

    21. Re:free speech or PC speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Equally, most of the anti-PC speech I can think of is just attempts to smear and shut people down. Accuse them of calling you a Nazi, call them an SJW, demand your freedom of speech...

      Discussion of anything controversial quickly gets derailed by people wailing "help help I'm being oppressed!" like a Monty Python sketch. They are usually careful to get their argument in before saying "but you can't say that any more" even though they just did.

      Instead of complaining about it, just make your argument. If someone does call you something, tell them why they are wrong.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:free speech or PC speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      What would your bill of rights include?

      I'd start with defining the limits of free speech, e.g. spammers can't hide behind it to avoid getting blocked, asshats can't use it to set mobs on people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "anti-PC speech"? When did that enter the conversation? We were talking about "free speech or PC speech". That's a funny bit of framing. Huh.

      if someone does call you something, tell them why they are wrong.

      Because that worked so well for James Damore. Because you then get to defend yourself from the wave of #metoo, CoC crusaders, and those that would flex their political power to form a mob and get you fired.

    24. Re:free speech or PC speech by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Also having high karma here, I've got to say the whole karma thing is apparently set up more as a game than anything else. Could it be made workable if the goal was actually just to silence the really undesirables? I suspect so.

      One option would be to raise the cost of starting a new account. That would to a large degree happen automatically on a social networking site, since unlike here where everyone posts in a single thread, social networking sites are all about networking - until you've built up a network, nobody is going to hear anything you say. Start a new account, you need to rebuild your network from scratch.

      You could also do things like put all new accounts on probation as probable trolls, effectively putting them just shy of banning-level "karma" so that *any* flagging will get their comments sent to trial, and not many guilty verdicts will get them banned. Force people to behave themselves for a while before they can use their account for trolling.

      Would it be enough? Too much? No idea. But the current free-for-all is clearly bringing out the worst in a lot of people, so maybe its worth trying.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    25. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The focus is always on offence, but it's a straw man. Triggered snowflakes are easy to argue against, doxing and silencing not so much.

      Didn't peg you for a Milo and Crowder fan.

    26. Re:free speech or PC speech by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you just murdered the Civil Rights Movement in its crib.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "anti-PC speech"? When did that enter the conversation?

      It's typical AmiMojo whataboutism

      Take a drink.

    28. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would your bill of rights include?

      I'd start with defining the limits of free speech

      The whole point of bill of rights is to outline what people (public or private) CANNOT put limits.

      What you said there is straight out of 1984 Freedom is Slavery

    29. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would your bill of rights include?

      I'd start with defining the limits of free speech, e.g. spammers can't hide behind it to avoid getting blocked, asshats can't use it to set mobs on people.

      Your bill of rights doesn't include equality? Shame. One person's reasonable leader asking for change is another's "asshat." One person's "spammer" is another's persistent poster on slashdot for SJW values.

    30. Re:free speech or PC speech by Immerman · · Score: 0

      Free speech was never about saying anything you wanted without consequence - just about not letting the government silence you. In person, the threat of a punch in the face generally acts as sufficient deterrent against the most egregious breaches of common courtesy, online we clearly need something to take over that roll.

      Not saying my idea is the solution, but it's something off the cuff that would be very simple to implement.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re:free speech or PC speech by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You know who else uses violence to silence people the disagree with? Fascists. Congratulations, you just invented online fascism. Nice idea you came up with there.

      Seriously, how do you have the complete lack of self-awareness to think up these things?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    32. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of complaining about it, just make your argument. If someone does call you something, tell them why they are wrong.

      Of course, right before you get burned at the stake for being racist/sexist/nazi/whatever.

    33. Re: free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All ducks have two legs. You have two legs, therefore you are a duck. Typical sloppy thinking from you.

    34. Re: free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNS-and-BIND isn't the sharpest spoon in the toolbox. Let's dissect the category errors:

      1. All authoritarians are fascists
      Wrong, all fascists are authoritarians, but not all authoritarians are fascists

      2. All acts of of authority are authoritarian
      Wrong, all society require a level of authority in order to function, for example to enforce the law. Politically authoritarian actions are at the extreme end of the scale, and are not the scale itself.

      Frankly given his ability to jump to huge category errors in a single bound I'm surprised he doesn't put his trousers on his arms and underwear on his head when getting up in the morning, then has to fetch an adult to help, instead retrieving the toaster.

    35. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The insightful part of GP post is this: both the "immigration problem" and racism are rooted in an "us vs. them" world view, and a firm belief in zero-sum outcomes.

      If and when we become well-wishers of all human beings, recognizing them all as members of our own family, and actively and creatively devising win-win scenarios, these issues are indeed solved trivially.

      apropos: Qur'an 2:268:
      Satan would herald you poverty and bid you to the shameful...

    36. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I normally don't agree with you. but you are 1000% correct in this. Without the freedom to offend you lose the freedom to be an individual.

      --Highdude702(mods)

    37. Re:free speech or PC speech by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Equally, most of the anti-PC speech I can think of is just attempts to smear and shut people down. Accuse them of calling you a Nazi, call them an SJW, demand your freedom of speech...

      Strange. Because we've just had an entire platform shutdown by moral busybodies because they allow offensive but legal speech. These are the same people who make the argument that "free speech is violent speech." I'm reminded of the early days of 8chan, including yourself where you claimed that it was "a pedo site and should be shutdown" this is PC speech, with a lie added in. You didn't like that it had material while offensive, was legal under US law. You openly stated that people who used the site were pedophiles. You openly used this line of reasoning to stifle other view points and opinions. And now look at today. What's the progressive/democrat response to uncomfortable facts? You're a racist. What's the response when a person expects open debate even if it's offensive? You're a nazi. What's the response of your government in the UK when someone posts facts, or opinionated a view that is deemed 'socially unacceptable'? You government arrests them. That's the end of the line of political correctness.

      Discussion of anything controversial quickly gets derailed by people wailing "help help I'm being oppressed!" like a Monty Python sketch. They are usually careful to get their argument in before saying "but you can't say that any more" even though they just did.

      Maybe it's because they are actually being oppressed? A black women makes a post on twitter saying "kill all whites" and is never sanctioned or even required to delete the post. A white women quotes this and gets their account suspended. A women says "kill all men" and has a post history showing violence and/or violent attacks against men. Nothing happens. A man says "kill all feminists" and his account is banned, even though there's no history of a violent nature. A gay man has a long history of making jokes about "fags, and gay humor" his account is banned. A black islamic face in US politics, who has decades of anti-semitic posts and he's still right there, spewing the same stuff.

      No the double standard is palpable, and people see it. Not only on social media, but in life itself. A 30 year old female teacher has sex with a 12 year old, people cheer it on. Make comments "he was lucky" "where was she when I was 12" and so on. She never sees the inside of a jail cell, and isn't even given community service. A 30 year old male has sex with a 16 year old girl, and women screech from the rooftop it's rape, etc, etc, etc, and he spends 7 years in jail. A 25 year old teacher has a lesbian romance with a 16 year old girl, people fall out of the woodwork to defend it. A 25 year old male teacher has a gay roman with a 17 year old boy and it's rappeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee all the way down, and he spends years in jail.

      A man is falsely accused of rape, has proof it was a lie, that it was an outright fabrication, and an attempt to destroy his academic career/schooling/etc. The response is "well he might have done it anyway." And it might go as far as him being kicked out of school, or fired from his job. It follows him forever. The woman? Nothing. Feminists and left wing pundits line up saying "she was very brave." A women sexually assaults a man, and he's the one fired. Feminists and progressives circle the wagons around her, and call the man who brought it up a rapist and misogynist. The more extreme cases state that "he should have been glad for that attention."

      Instead of complaining about it, just make your argument. If someone does call you something, tell them why they are wrong.

      The irony of this coming from you is downright hilarious.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    38. Re:free speech or PC speech by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      asshats can't use it to set mobs on people.

      Wow...really huh? The political left would be fucked, that's their main way to go after people who have contrary opinions on various things. I'm sure you can start with the "oh but not really..." gonna remind you about all those social justice movements that go after people for having the wrong opinions, or making a politically incorrect viewpoint, or daring to donate to a campaign against gay marriage.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    39. Re:free speech or PC speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Informative

      You mean Gab? It's back up. Once again, I'll ask you a simple question: Would you force people to host Gab and supply it with services?

      As for calling people Nazi's... I notice Lywood Rooster is just the latest Slashdot conservative to start calling liberals Nazis. His current signature associates liberal/socialist policies with Nazism in a most disingenuous way.

      This is the hard right playbook. Accuse you of doing what they are doing themselves. They have no shame, they aren't bothered if you call them out. They know that you care, that you want to take the moral high ground by not doing it, which means you weak. Well, fuck that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:free speech or PC speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's almost like I don't approve of mobbing?!?!? Strange huh.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no way for me to steal, and then declare to the government through article ### that "i had to take it to feed my family".
      there is a way to cross a border and apply for assylum to the government.

    42. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would your bill of rights include?

      Let's start with the actual Bill of Rights we do have. If we bothered to enforced them (especially the 1st Amendment, which you apparently want to repeal. I will remind you that censorship is fascism, always), we would hardly need to tack on more laws, just enforce and expand the rights we have.

    43. Re:free speech or PC speech by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      You mean Gab? It's back up. Once again, I'll ask you a simple question: Would you force people to host Gab and supply it with services?

      I would if they want to be held harmless for the content they host. If you're pruning content them you're liable for what remains. Want to be held harmless - then leave it all alone.

    44. Re:free speech or PC speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And how far down the chain does this go? For example if the card payment processor didn't want to handle billing for the host because of Gab? Or if your office manager decided to block it at work?

      And what if Gab decided they couldn't be bothered to police illegal images on their site, would they still have to be hosted? Is the cut off just illegal material, and if so under what jurisdiction, or can other forms of abuse be banned too? Gab has banned spammers and trolls in the past, for example.

      I don't mean to bombard you with questions, what I'm looking for is a more complete description of the rules and how it would work in practice, for the purpose of debate. I think we can do better than we do now, but there needs to be a complete proposal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you force people to host Gab and supply it with services?

      Compelling people to provide services to others is a pretty hairy scenario. Hotels are compelled to service people regardless of race. It was an issue back in the day. Common carriers trade away their authority over what they ship for not being liable for what they ship. I support network neutrality and honestly believe that ISPs should be common carriers that should strive to do as little as possible to fuck with the contents of what they transport. EVERYONE is allowed on the Internet. If the cops want to come with a warrant and bust my head for this post containing illegal thought-crimes, mediacom's CEO doesn't go to jail as a co-conspirator. A common carrier hosting service would be an interesting idea. But we don't have that and we certainly want web services that aren't common carriers. If gab found a web hoster claiming to be (or to act like) a common carrier then yes, they should be forced, per the contract and truth in advertising, to host... whatever. Now, most of the people on Gab are horrendous. And the shooting was a terrible thing and this guy should likely fry. But I don't want mob justice and swaths of institutions suddenly picking which political viewpoints are allowed on the Internet. This is a moral issue and not a legal one. There were a LOT of people who thought that the hippies were going to spell the end of the USA. That they were morally bankrupt degenerates. How would you feel if hippies couldn't ride the bus or send telegrams or get accepted to universities? (On the flip side, I fully understand it's reasonable that they'd have a hard time getting loans).

      Should Gab be held liable for the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? Should paypal, Stripe, goDaddy, Joyent, and Twitter (As they provided services to Gab) be held liable for the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? And let me make this clear, they ARE being held liable.

    46. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like I don't approve of mobbing?!?!?

      If you don't approve mobbing, then you shouldn't have suggested putting limits on free speech, as that is exactly the tactic mobs do: they limit the speech of others

      I mean, here's you accusing anti-PC people trying to shut down other people's speech.

      Read: you may say and think you're against mobbing, but you're doing the same thing as the mob you complain about.

    47. Re:free speech or PC speech by bug1 · · Score: 1

      "Build strong communities that respect civil discourse and human dignity"

      Its pretty simple really.

    48. Re:free speech or PC speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destroying my reputation offends me, so do making my neighbors attack me at the street. Hopefully I'm armed when that happens in this scenario. Exceptions to the absolute freedom of speech are made to preserve the peace and public order, and sometimes even to avoid a civil war. People with somebody to protect do rarely miss this point. This applies even more so for those who live in the violent societies where simple work related dispute can escalate into public beatings at the streets.

  10. Step 1: Tim Berners-Lee stop what you're doing by aicrules · · Score: 2

    Step 2: Internet proceed as usual

    You may act like you're here to save the day Tim, but intelligent people know better. Keep your personal political bullshit out of it and go find a new hobby.

  11. I am afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that horse has left the barn a loooonnnnnggggg time ago..

    1. Re:I am afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, all the horses ran out of the barn about two decades ago, the barn burned to the ground about a decade ago and now the savages are hunting those horses to the last corners of the planet to kill them off one by one.

  12. Want to really "save the web"? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Stop $1 per unlimited domain/sub-domain hosters like GoDaddy etc. as most newly reg'd domains = malicious - fact:

    "95 percent of all newly registered domains are associated with malware or spam" Paul Vixie

    * FROM https://www.gdatasoftware.com/...

    (On what TBL wants? Hey - imo @ least, a GOOD 3/4 of the "Antifa SOROS-LOSERS" out there (along w/ others of the TONS of bogus groups he finances)?? Just on the payroll of George Soros (20++ BILLION goes a LONG ways) & they don't even BELIEVE in what they're doing - they're just there for the "$" (fucking shitbag TRAITOR fucks)).

    APK

    P.S.=> You're NEVER going to change BOGUS people though - mankind's been TRYING to stop crime in all its forms since the dawn of our existence - hasn't worked yet - all you can DO is preventative measures, ala MY work (which definitely works on THAT front VS. what I quote from Mr. Vixie above) https://it.slashdot.org/commen... ... apk

    1. Re: Want to really "save the web"? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got your ass handed to you in the Slashdot thread you linked to. You really are a retard and a chickenshit.

    2. Re: Want to really "save the web"? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you the dumbfuck who thinks hosts do port filtering? What a fucking dumbshit you are!

    3. Re: Want to really "save the web"? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun rambling on about hosts bullshit and lying all election night.

    4. Re:Want to really "save the web"? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey retard I'm still waiting for your to produce that list you claimed your shitware can produce. To remind you it is a list of host file entries that blocks all possible hosts in the APK-is-a-retard.com domain. I've even stated that I would accept a list that only contains just 1% but you can't produce it. This is because your 2-bit software doesn't fucking work just like you.

  13. Oh please! There is only one issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to get around the ISP. Everything else is fluff designed to impose some form of censorship. That is unacceptable. We must never permit any kind of censorship on the internet. Never never never. Censorship is offensive and evil, the sole purpose of which is to protect powerful people and institutions.

  14. The A bomb by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    "AS HIROSHIMA SMOULDERED, OUR ATOM BOMB SCIENTISTS SUFFERED REMORSE"...
    Wanting Governments to give up easy and cheap mass citizen surveillance,
    Wanting billion dollar global corporations to give up the power of harvesting every nuance of our personal lives for marketing dollars,
    Wanting people to take back rational thought and fund institutions with editors, fact checkers and individuals actually held accountable instead of the instant gratification of being "liked",
    Wanting acronym agencies to forgo the power of global spying with the push of a button
    Tim, you and Dr. Oppenheimer know what it's like to "want".... or maybe you're just one of the "cry baby scientists" as referred to by President Truman after he dropped a couple of bombs

  15. Hmm by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Under the principles laid out in the document, which Berners-Lee calls a "Magna Carta for the web", governments must ensure that its citizens have access to all of the internet, all of the time, and that their privacy is respected so they can be online "freely, safely and without fear."

    Does that include people who get "de-platformed"?

    Yes, I know that wasn't done by government ...but hmm, lookie here:

    Companies will
    Make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone
    So that no one is excluded from using and shaping the web.

    But it seems that the de-platformed are excluded from "shaping" it ...

    1. Re:Hmm by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      BTW, I tried to link to a section of the "contract", but not only are there no anchors, the HTML is just plain an abomination. This is from TBL?

      Oh ... it's Squarespace.

      I find something oddly punderful about this, but I can't put it into words.

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too hip to pun on squarespace? Put your latte aside for a moment and ponder this:

      Now we do know that TBL is pretty square, as he can't even be bothered to drive his own html-vehicle himself.

      Puzzling out how that fits with his earlier idiocies ("DRM GOOD!", but also his poor design that went on to become html, http, the url (://), the entire premise "competence not required, for WE are a COMMITTEE!" as per all-around better man Naggum characterising the W3C, and so on) left as an exercise.

    3. Re:Hmm by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Everyone (at least in) has seen street preachers with megaphones screaming about about Jebus and how we're going to hell if we don't repent.

      Now imagine if he decided to get to every store in the mall and pull that act in the mall. After getting kicked out the fifth store, you could argue that he's being "deplatformed", when really, no one wants to hear him. Unlike the mall, people online can create new accounts pretty easily so no one is truly deplatformed unless they don't want to comply with the standards of acceptable speech spelled out on each platform.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    4. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when the corporations own all the streets, yes, deplatformed is blatant censorship. When the corporations own the government, being deplatformed is censorship. Https everywhere is all about controlling who gets to speak.

  16. Censorship is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, censorship is coming. The Chinese have developed the technology. It's not going to be a surprise when they export it wholesale. Many "liberal" governments are just as anxious to censor the dissent as are dictatorships. The mega-corporations are already doing it, and the technology to censor unapproved viewpoints is getting cheaper. USENET was wild and free, but the internet will become CompuServe, curated and censored, by the time my grandchildren are there.

  17. Re:What does ze mean exactly? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The notion of "hate speech" is nonsensical in a Country with true freedom of speech. There is a difference between speech and promoting criminal acts. Unfortunately, we in the US of given up rational thought and are no longer able to tell the difference.

  18. The right to offend is the right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > "and without fear"

    Is impossible because people are afraid of stupid shit. Specifically they are afraid of other's speech.

    > prejudice, bias, polarisation, fake news,

    Being able to express any/all of those is a freedom. Specifically the Freedom of Speech. Trying to disallow those is oppression and censorship. Freedom of Speech only exists if you are free to be rude, hateful, offensive, lie, spread misinformation, and express unpopular opinions. There are, of course, limits already covered by laws. Slander, inciting violence, fraud and many others. But, fundamentally, if you lack the right to offend you lack the right to free speech.

    1. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's only "censorship" when the government does it, under the Constitution, dumbass.

    2. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by DanDD · · Score: 1

      Free speech and democracy were created at places like Pnyx. Can you imagine a hoard of Persian trolls trying to anonymously derail a discussion or a vote by disguising their voice and wearing a bag over their head?

      Disagreements, arguments, even fist fights, and the tossing of rotten fruit and half eaten lunches should not only be expected, but encouraged. But that's not what we have.

      What the internet has devolved into is truly dystopian.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    3. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only "censorship" when the government does it, under the Constitution, dumbass.

      If that is true, why is not having net neutrality bad? It should be perfectly acceptable to the xkcd free speech crowd for ISP's to limit what their customers can do and see online. It's not censorship if the government isn't doing it after all.

      Or what about minorities? Why is it wrong for a private institution, like google, or microsoft, or amazon, or facebook, or a private university, to disallow the ability for anyone to say there are more than two genders on their platforms or within spaces they control? Surely people that are for deplatforming transphobic people on grounds that the government isn't involved makes it not against free speech must also be for allowing google and amazon to show no results for any pro-trans content on the same grounds.

      Free speech is a principle. In the US it's nominally considered a "natural right." A right everyone has all the time. You can't get to pick and choose with free speech.

    4. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      almost as important should be the right to anonymity. Take that away (for whatever purpose) and a chilling effect on free speech and expression will occur.

    5. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Anyone can censor. You're confusing the First Amendment with the overall concept of free speech.

    6. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      When people say things like "without fear" they generally mean what a reasonable person would consider fear inducing.

      That's actually less demanding than the law, which in the UK where Tim is from does actually require you to consider the other person's mental state to some degree, e.g. telling a suicidal person to kill themselves can get you in serious trouble.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be less of an issue if the platforms we used were better at filtering down to content we actually wanted to see. Not to ignore the problem of filter bubbles, but Alice's freedom of speech doesn't imply Bob must listen, especially if it's something Bob knows he will find offensive.

      Tumblr at least tries with its community norms of tagging posts and software for filtering out tags. Twitter has it's awkward shared blacklists, but it would make more sense if a social network actually used its social links to determine who you might actually be interested in hearing from in a more granular way than Twitter's option of private and therefore get contact only from an explicit whitelist or public and get contact from everyone with a Twitter account.

    8. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, fundamentally, if you lack the right to offend you lack the right to free speech.

      A man is offended when another speaks from a different perspective of reality. Where one man sees hate, another sees love. Where one man sees treachery another sees loyalty to a greater cause, while a third sees the damage caused and hunts both of the sides down. Science save us!

    9. Re:The right to offend is the right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we know the UK has no freedom. That is why half of your country said fuck you we don't want to play anymore.

  19. Re:What does ze mean exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    governments must ensure that its citizens have access to all of the internet, all of the time, and that their privacy is respected so they can be online "freely, safely and without fear."

    Letting everyone have access to all of the Internet, all of the time doesn't seem like such a good idea with the rise of white supremacists and the alt-right, because they would make the "safely and without fear" part impossible. I could get behind this if a clause is added saying that right-wing groups should not be considered citizens or something along those lines.

    Way to think one sided.

  20. Squarespace, seriously? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 0

    Squarespace, seriously?

    The father of freaking HTML is using a cheesy hosted "website builder" to put up a document that is every bit as as stark and simple as any he did almost 30 years ago?

    It probably took longer to clicky clicky everything than it would have to mark it up by hand.

    The political stuff aside, we're doomed just from a nerd standpoint ...

    1. Re:Squarespace, seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your whining about the format instead of the point of it is as useful as that generally is.

    2. Re:Squarespace, seriously? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Squarespace, seriously?

      The father of freaking HTML is using a cheesy hosted "website builder" to put up a document that is every bit as as stark and simple as any he did almost 30 years ago?

      It probably took longer to clicky clicky everything than it would have to mark it up by hand.

      The political stuff aside, we're doomed just from a nerd standpoint ...

      And just to be clear, I have no problem with CMSs and visual editors per se, but in this case the HTML produced is a hot mess, and it is less functional than an ancient hand marked up HTML document (for example, they didn't bother to put any anchors in it so you could link to a section).

    3. Re:Squarespace, seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at his freakin' user name.

  21. What's stopping you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go on, set up a USENET server. Invitation only, like gmail. Have pre-september folks distribute the invitations around. Top-post and you're out again.

    Methinks Berners-Lee is trying his best to fix his mess but he obviously cannot. Quite interesting to see just how rotten the thing is, and how muddled his thinking, still.

  22. Hprses Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dearest Timmy:

    1. The web is not the internet. The internet was here before your truly great invention, and it continues on without your input.

    2. The horse has left the ban. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. A free internet means that people are free to say even the most unpleasant things about your puppies dying in a fire. Sorry, that's the way it is.

    3. You gave your baby away. The world took it and turned it into a monster over which you have no say or sway. Sorry.

    4. Nobody cares what you think. While your ideas where world changing in 1989 when V.34 28.8kbps dial-up modems were the new shiny hotness, you have presented no new ideas of any significance since then. See point 3.

    HTH K THNX BY

    ATH

    Carrier Disconnected

    1. Re:Hprses Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Random know-nothing delusional AC uses chat forum and thinks he's talking to a well respected web founder directly. News at 11.

  23. Re:What does ze mean exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes ... Trotskt-slut SJW nibberizing bitches think they define acceptable speech and actions. Mini-tyrants to a prick and a cunt. They need to be slapped down into the mud ... and smash-faced slapped down hard.

  24. Definitions by sinij · · Score: 2

    For me, saving the Web from abuse would be to put further measures to guarantee free speech flourishes. This includes criticizing and ridiculing useful idiots like Tim Berners-Lee that would happily see us march into totalitarianism. Make no mistake, web free of offensive content is web that is censored to suppress all dissent, all calls for societal change, all nonconformity.

    1. Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, saving the Web from abuse would be about making every single web developer out there to actually learn HTML instead of letting them continue with that copypasta javascript-heavy programming they do right now...

      I thought Tim Berners-Lee of all people would appreciate that.

  25. PC speech all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're using a PC right now anyway, aren't you? Have been for how many years now? No, this is not a coincidence.

  26. Might not want by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you can't not act and talk like a racist, or react only based on fear

    You might want to take a REAL long look in the mirror buddy.

    Because all I see from Democrats these days is action based on fear, mostly in support of various kinds of racism that are deemed preferable. Including accusing a supreme court justice of rape because you feared him.

    When you stop acting from a position of fear, perhaps then voters will be willing to listen to you once more.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Might not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. The partisan Kendall fag doll once again proving that repubtards are worthless meatbags taking up air.

      Go hang yourself you fuckjng cuck.

  27. can't have total freedom and total safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'd think that people would understand this by now.

    so fucking pick.

    FREEDOM

    or

    SAFETY.

    i'd say freedom is the more important.

  28. relevance by jdawgnoonan · · Score: 1

    Is Tim Berners-Lee even relevant for any reason today?

  29. so much for graceful degredation by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Turn off JavaScript and then visit http://fortheweb.webfoundation...

    I am oddly moved by the giant silhouettes of not really identifiable things.

    1. Re: so much for graceful degredation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For the web"

      Right below it is a picture of a bunch of fucking niggars.

  30. well-intentioned, yet- by sheramil · · Score: 1

    I see that Mr Berners-Lee has made his decision. Now, let us see him enforce it.

    (Also, the Magna Carta was backed by a clique of well-armed and extremely angry Barons and their personal armies, and was later annulled by the Pope.)

  31. Communication Is Key by kackle · · Score: 1

    They said the great thing about the Internet was the ability to communicate with anyone from around the world. The bad thing though is the ability for anyone from around the world to communicate with me.

  32. Re:What does ze mean exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol, angry inbred nazi goes deep into muddy gay sex analogies, forgets what he was whining about. The world ignores it and the retarded inbred nazi goes extinct, the end!

  33. Praiseworthy but probably irrelevant by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    For, the people who are abusing the net will not sign the contract and will carry on as before, whereas those who sign the contract do not abuse, and probably have not abused the net anyway.

  34. Re: The right to offend is the right to free speec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are an idiot. You(Republicans) decided corporations were "people". Thus you gave them the right to police any behavior they wanted. Don't like it? Do the republican free market thing and switch. You guys built this shit house and now you complain about it. Fuck off.

  35. Good luck with that by scdeimos · · Score: 2

    In case you haven't noticed the print and video media innundate us with negative and politically motivated stories every hour of every day. I don't see how the internet is going to become any more saintly than the real world we all live in.

  36. Feel good fluff that's a little bit questionable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... this is a fluff piece with a bunch of feel-goods thrown in to get everyone excited about an as of yet undefined "The full contract".

    Our intention is for the full Contract for the Web to be a strong mechanism for each party to be held accountable for doing their part to build an open and free web.

    Yeah, that. I'm not a big fan of the idea that I have to sign up to your thing to even have a voice is what this thing entails. Especially when it involves my government and my ISP. Just what the hell is a "strong mechanism" to hold a citizen accountable for respecting civil discourse? Because I can name a handful of absolutely despotic solutions to that problem which I would actively fight against. A strong mechanism for making companies provide affordable internet access sounds a lot like price-control.

    The one part that really seems to be at cross purposes to the other goals is where companies "challenge the worst in humanity". When did the plan shift from the Internet being a basic right for everyone to a curated walled garden only acceptable people are allowed into? Like... is the Internet for everyone? Do you want to only allow on people with similar ideologies or are you ok with hate-filled bigots posting on social media? Because if it's for everyone, and everyone gets to use and shape the web, then you have to accept that not everyone is super-happy-friendly and gets along with everyone else. Censoring them is abusive. Barring them from the Internet is monstrous.

  37. Sticks and stones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...may break my bones but WORDS will never hurt me. Free speech my ass.

  38. 2014 called... they want their article back by ebyrob · · Score: 1

    https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_...

    So this was a talk he gave in 2014. Up to the minute news here on Slashdot now eh?

  39. Unrealistic expectations by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    "For many years there was a feeling that the wonderful things on the web were going to dominate and we'd have a world with less conflict, more understanding, more and better science, and good democracy,"

    Maybe that was just a dumb idea that came from a place of utter ignorance, like when you're a little kid and believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny?

    Simply having that idea doesn't mean it was ever likely to happen.

    --
    -Styopa
  40. But who will save the web from TBL by Snufu · · Score: 1

    and his codification of digital rights management into web standards?

  41. Bloat by slipped_bit · · Score: 1

    Can we save it from bloated web sites that demand to load all sorts of scripts, fonts, and other (mostly) useless stuff?

  42. Online threats by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    abuse and discrimination, political manipulation, and other threats that plague the online world

    Because fortunately, none of this exists outside of Internet!

  43. Re:What does ze mean exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you!! Well said!

  44. Re: The right to offend is the right to free speec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The opposite. Letting people do and be what they want is good. Deplatforming is bad. Rights are good, particularly the most important right of all: the ability to express yourself. It's an important value to have for everyone, everywhere and should not be limited to a legal concept.

    Just to make this clear, I will give you the dignity of a reply:

    "You are an idiot." Bad place to start. I do see that you were downvoted then voted back up to 0, so someone here spends modpoints on insults they like.

    "You(Republicans) decided corporations were "people". " I'm not a Republican. Corporations are not people. The supreme court, not Republicans, ensured even groups of people have the right to free speech. Fallacy of composition, but there it is.

    "Thus you gave them the right to police any behavior they wanted." Not true and not related.

    "Don't like it? Do the republican free market thing and switch." See this is the problem. The right to self-expression is treated as paramount for some groups, and deplatforming is good to do to other groups, directly attacking that same right. At the same time the reverse is also treated as true if you are the right sort of person, not those evil conservatives or whatever.

    "You guys built this shit house and now you complain about it. Fuck off." You are arguing that companies and universities have the right to deplatform and silence others, insist that Republicans are evil for doing the same, but also are evil for complaining about the same. All your points lead to the same place: whatever you dislike is equivalent to Republicans and whatever is Republican is equivalent to what you dislike. No reason. No principles. That's far, far worse than anything either party has foisted on the American people.

  45. As Marcus Allen said? "I got this"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & vs. LOSERS like YOU that "HIDE" from me? You need to SEE this to understand ME https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    APK

    P.S.=> You're so FAR beneath me & those LIKE me (+ you KNOW it hiding from me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous, weezil)... apk

    1. Re: As Marcus Allen said? "I got this"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't have this. Otherwise, you wouldn't have run from the posts in that thread. You also wouldn't have posted this unprovoked personal attack against hey!.

    2. Re: As Marcus Allen said? "I got this"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An anonymous coward complaining that other people are posting as anonymous cowards. You aren't very bright.

  46. 1 word did you in... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & "pontifcate" - I've NEVER ever used THAT word so not even a "nice try" IMPERSONATING me fool. Seriously? Is that all you have now??

    APK

    P.S.=> I don't use THAT word (w/ good reason) & I honestly feel sorry for "you & yours" when you resort to SUCH petty transparent bs... apk

    1. Re: 1 word did you in... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liar. You posted it, just like when you said hosts do port filtering. Now you've been scrambling to cover up your lie.

  47. SIMPLE TEST u FAIL & FACT U IMPERSONATE ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0.0.0.0 test1.com:53
    0.0.0.0 test2.com:53
    0.0.0.0 jowie.com
    0.0.0.0 jealous.com
    0.0.0.0 jowie.com
    0.0.0.0 test3.com
    0.0.0.0 borlnd.com
    0.0.0.0 tester.com

    * RUN THAT DATASET THRU MY PROGRAM & WHAT RESULTS COME OUT THAT HAVE A "PORT FILTER" ATTACHED?

    NONE!

    Only borlnd.com, tester.com, test3.com, jealous.com & jowie.com (last 2 are for YOU, lol) REMAIN (no filters on them)

    MY PROGRAM EVEN PREVENTS THAT MISTAKE!

    APK

    P.S.=> THIS PROVES MY PROGRAM'S OUTPUT DOES NOT ALLOW "PORT FILTERING" ENTRIES IN HOSTS as I said!

    ALL DESPITE you IMPERSONATING ME & LYING (for YEARS now) saying hosts do + STALKING ME via UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS too (loser weezil).

    It's LONG PROVEN YOU DO THAT c6gunner https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

    + your LIES saying I have a MacOS model (I don't YET) OR that hosts cure Spectre/Meltdown (hosts don't but you LIE impersonating ME saying they do - FILTERS in hosts too!)... apk

    1. Re: SIMPLE TEST u FAIL & FACT U IMPERSONATE ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:SIMPLE TEST u FAIL & FACT U IMPERSONATE ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK you created that strawman in a false attempt to make it look like others were claiming things they weren't. Your retarded ass got caught in one of your many lies, and to try and cover it up you had to lie some more. This is because you are a fucking retard.

  48. You lose - you did THIS to yourself... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: This SIMPLE TEST destroys you https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Easily... apk

  49. Learn to read... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts CAN stop PortSmash - has to run locally - IF hosts block the SOURCE of such malware? No threat.

    APK

    P.S=> Dude, grow up... apk

  50. Run, Forrest, Run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chickenshit APK ran from this post and this post.

  51. TBL by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    Is a hypocrite,

    In one breath, he says people should have free access to all information on the Internet yet in the next breath he says fake news is a problem.

    If he meant what he said per a free flow of information he would understand that having someone, anyone, "defining fake news" is the opposite of freedom.

    I'm more than perfectly capable of determining what is real and what is fake. I don't want TBL defining it for me.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  52. Re: Even CHINA copied me (vs. DNS down/redirected) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World-class person doesn't buy his house from daddy for $1.

  53. My Pop's a MAN (of his word)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: He made good on a deal we made when I was a boy in elementary school - you get good grades? We pay your college but my bro (what a surprise & BETTER MAN THAN ME + God shed his grace on him now more than ever) wasn't doing well in elementary school (living under my MA was tough - mental torture I dealt w/ well, my Sis ran away, My bro was crumbling there until he lived w/ my Pop (more fair)).

    * The CAUSE (working class immigrants parents worried more than I)?

    My bro wasn't doing well early on in Elementary school (where by comparison I was straight A & kept that up, keeping MY END of the bargain into highschool) & they told me "He's not you so the deal is off until later, IF ever" FINE - I love my brother (great guy, wish I was MORE like him actually) so thus it was. HOWEVER - under my Pop's "rule" he excelled & got FULL RIDE to S.U. (even beat the black folks @ their OWN history contest (your kind? Looks @ us poles like them but w/ white skin)) & years later? They made good & gave me a deal - one I pumped 35k into to make MY happy home & it is.

    APK

    P.S.=> Dude, please- grow up - you have issues STALKING me... apk

  54. I "ID" myself - you don't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You're UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous - I sign off "APK" because I stand behind my words, unlike you. Grow up boy...

    APK

    P.S.=> Imo, you're applying your energies in the WRONG direction (that is UNLESS I threaten some 'agenda' you have & STILL you lose, lol) - make something good, be of SERVICE to others as I have been (or go to hell, up to you)... apk

    1. Re: I "ID" myself - you don't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liar. You frequently don't sign your posts. You like to pretend to be someone else who supports you, and those posts aren't signed. Your long anti-Jew spam post isn't signed, either.

      You are a liar and everyone knows it.

  55. APK is a faggot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He lives in a $1 home and spends his time trolling Slashdot and sucking off his roommate. I have a net worth of several million dollars and own multiple houses that are far better than APK's. I earned my money writing software that people actually find useful, unlike that hosts file shit. As a bonus, my software actually works well, unlike APK's third rate shit. I also don't make bogus claims about the capabilities of my software.

  56. I'll let Mark Clayton speak FOR me... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Man, that guy had the utmost confidence in his ability & w/ THAT kind of ability you SHOULD have that confidence" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... position 23:57 (about a fellow polack Marino).

    * :)

    APK

    P.S=> Dude, I'm happy for you but I don't NEED millions to get laid (apparently, you do) & what ware is that of yours you speak of? apk

  57. Al Davis: Meet Marcus Allen... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    * Says it all... DO see it, I told you that here https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    APK

    P.S.=> Your kind CANNOT hold a GOOD MAN DOWN - the rest of us will NOT let you (& I feel truly sorry for you & yours - your delusional psychopathic history always shows you hurting yourselves)... apk

  58. People kill people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... online abuse, prejudice, bias, polarisation, fake news, there are lots of ways in which it is broken.

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Likewise, hold the people responsible: Take the profit out of fake news, make concerted/vexatious slander into a crime (slander itself remains a civil issue), punish those inciting criminal acts.

    Most important, eliminate the "it's your job to know the truth" meme. Now, truth is rarely whole or total but an attitude that corporations, particularly those with a big audience, can say anything because they don't have a responsibility for their actions, is hypocritical and class-warfare.

  59. Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To fix things like this is really simple. Create a huge walled garden AOL style internet where everyone who wants to use it signs on with the real name etc. This will be monitored and policed so anyone who wants a nice safe internet is free to sign up, log in, and enjoy comsuming whatever pap their corporate masters deem to be "eucational" and "safe". ALl the millenial crap like Facebook, Instagram etc. can go in there.

    The rest of us will then continue using the wonderful cess pit we already have. A great mix of wonderful stuff mixed in with profanity, hate speech, foulness and all. If you want to use it you do so at your own risk and "if thine eye offends thee PLUCK IT OUT"..

    If you want to be treated like a child go ahead but leave me out of it.

  60. Only took me minutes to trash you easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only took me minutes to trash you easily - hope YOU enjoyed it (you must be a sadomasochist, lol): That's why you "hide" unidentifiable anonymous now (I've busted you up SO MANY TIMES under your doubtless MANY sockpuppet accounts too).

    APK

    P.S.=> Thank you though (for making ME look GOOD & yourself like the WEEZIL shit you are)... apk

  61. I created what WORKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & it works vs. threats for less minus as many false positives + speeds you up 2 ways (you create 0) https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    * Most importantly? It worked vs. your BULLSHIT (with solid proof of it in that link above).

    Why don't you be a MAN & identify yourself to me so we can GET TOGETHER in person so I can FUCK YOU UP by punching your fucking teeth out fucker? I've had it w/ your PUSSY bullshit punk.

    APK

    P.S.=> All little PUSSIES like YOU do is STALK me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts (OR you IMPERSONATE me which that link also proves as I caught 1 of you doing it there, not a first, there's others I have recorded SLIPPING that way) & do ZERO on your end (you're just too STUPID & LAZY to is why imo)... apk

  62. LOL! What about YOU pussy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about your "notware" U don't have & where's your "MILLION$" you brag on too? https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... lmao - you LYING little punk?

    ANSWER - They're NOT!

    * All I need is to get the names of ANY threatening (or tracking etc.) source & it IS blocked to protect you + works e.g. https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + hosts SPEED YOU UP 2 ways (ad & script tracker blocking & hardcodes (that also protect you vs. DNS tracking OR redirect poisoning + DNSChangers)).

    Doing ALL that, NATIVELY + more efficiently for less.

    (Once they're known as SOON as they're exposed, I block them & it works - no questions asked).

    APK

    P.S.=> My work, WORKS - your (lol) "HOTAIRWARE" per that link above from YOU? Doesn't - period (& that's because you're a BLOWHARD do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" BULLSHIT artist PUNK that STALKS me (or impersonates me) behind UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts (you're no man - you're a WEEZIL & you not only KNOW it, you constantly PROVE it))... apk

    1. Re:LOL! What about YOU pussy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got it. You can't deliver on what you say your shit does. Now you have to deflect away from your continued unending failure. You are a retard and your retarded software doesn't provide any security as it can't even block all hosts from one domain. That means it provides no reduction in the attack surface and thus no real security.

  63. AGAIN:Where's those "MILLION$" of yours? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's your "MILLION$" https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... YOU can't deliver on? You KEEP AVOIDING THAT ("gosh I wonder why?" - lol, not).

    * Me? I deliver JUST FINE as I add threats to hosts & here's the proof https://search.slashdot.org/co...

    (& I do so on DGA trackers that do what you say using those trackers data too)

    APK

    P.S.=> Let's see YOU DO BETTER - oh, that's right - you already PROVED in the 1st link above YOU CAN'T, lmao... apk

  64. Retard APK retards again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck do you think you are talking to retard? You have lots of people that beat your retarded ass and mock you. That wasn't me.

  65. Do tell us of your "MILLION$", lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell us of your "MILLION$", lol (that you don't have as you always RUN from backing this up from you) https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    * RoTfLmAo @ U fool...

    (... & all those LIKE you)

    APK

    P.S.=> Do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" chatterboxes... apk