When Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web in 1989, his vision was clear: it would used by everyone, filled with everything and, crucially, it would be free.

Today, the British computer scientist’s creation is regularly used by 5.5 billion people – and bears little resemblance to the democratic force for humanity he intended.

In Australia to promote his book, This is for Everyone, Berners-Lee is reflecting on what his invention has become – and how he and a community of collaborators can put the power of the web back into the hands of its users.

Berners-Lee describes his excitement in the earliest years of the web as “uncontainable”. Approaching 40 years on, a rebellion is brewing among himself and a community of like-minded activists and developers.

“We can fix the internet … It’s not too late,” he writes, describing his mission as a “battle for the soul of the web”.

Berners-Lee traces the first corruption of the web to the commercialisation of the domain name system, which he believes would have served web users better had it been managed by a nonprofit in the public interest. Instead, he says, in the 1990s the .com space was pounced on by “charlatans”.

  • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Everything you’ve said has been ruined by that last sentence.

    It feels a bit like asking an actor their opinion on politics.

    This is a remarkably idiotic statement.

    Edit: if you think an actors opinion on politics doesnt matter, then neither does that of a musician, firefighter, dance teacher, engineer, developer, or anyone else other than a politician.

    That line of thought is really fucking stupid.

    • AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      If you think one of your differing opinions/misunderstandings causes everything else that person has said to be invalid when your remark basically implies you agreed up to that point, you really need to take a step back from your tribalism and learn some nuance.

      And to be fair they are not stating that an actors opinions on politics are irrelevant, they are clearly stating they shouldnt be treated as an expert on the matter based on the context of their comment.

      If I am looking for a relevant policy maker and someone with experience in getting policies passed in a government, using an actor, firefighter, musician, dance teach or engineer as anything but a way to gain insight into the area a policy is being written for is generally a dumb idea unless the aforementioned person transitioned from politics into their new field of career.

      I am not going to ask a comedian how to design software, their opinion on my applications design maybe relevant and guide my design philosophy but acting like they would have insight into the best data structures and tech stack to use in order to develop that application would be no better than prompting an LLM write it for me. They arent an expert and shouldn’t be treated as such.

      Its clear thats what the person you replied to was getting at, so maybe take a step back from being so reactionary because it sounds like you probably have some common ground thats being lost due to the medium we are interacting in.