Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the Magna-Carta-for-the-web dept.

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).

63 of 179 comments (clear)

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

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

  2. 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."
  3. "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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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...
    10. 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
    11. 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.
    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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.
    16. 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!
    17. 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!
    18. 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
    19. 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
    20. 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.

    21. 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
    22. Re:free speech or PC speech by bug1 · · Score: 1

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

      Its pretty simple really.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
  11. 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).

  12. 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.

  13. Re:Fuck TBL. by Kielistic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your nose does not exist on the internet.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. relevance by jdawgnoonan · · Score: 1

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.)

  19. 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...
  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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
  25. But who will save the web from TBL by Snufu · · Score: 1

    and his codification of digital rights management into web standards?

  26. 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?

  27. 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!

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

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

  29. 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
  30. 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.