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”.
It doesn’t matter how noble your intent when inventing or researching, once business has control of something, it is used to gain power and control over people. All you scientists and engineers and researchers need to starts accepting your own contribution to this monster, held accountable for the technologies you help businesses unleash on all of us.
I think your coming on a little heavy, if you are trying to say that inventors should build systems that are resilient to misuse, I whole heartadly agree. But how your post seems it would imply that no one should be inventing anything that could possibly be corrupted or face the consequences, which is quite a huge pendulum swing that wouldn’t cause the outcome I think you are looking for.
We do not blame Prometheus for what the arsonist did.
Zeus did…
I agree with the first part, but scientists and engineers are not that much more complicit than literally everyone with a job. Those businesses couldn’t have done that without marketing, hr, janitors, tradespeople, lawyers etc etc etc either. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism and there is no ethical job.
They kind of fix this in the lede, but dude did not invent the internet, he invented the World Wide Web. The internet is a superset of a whole bunch of things that includes the World Wide Web, but dude wasn’t out there inventing TCP/IP and routers and whatnot.
You’re thinking of the ARPANET. When people think of the Internet. They think of the network that Gore pushed hard to open to the public. And the interface Lee designed. Gopher is having a small resurgence, and Gemini exists. But effectively what the average person sees as the Internet is their child philosophically.
I mean as a techy you aren’t wrong. There’s a lot of underlying things and technologies that sort of glosses over. But to the layperson at large we’re just pedantically nitpicking.
But to the layperson at large we’re just pedantically nitpicking.
Important to mention. The idea that the internet isn’t actually on their box is already a frontier of public communications.
But, for Lemmy’s sake, yeah email, straming, VOIP and video calling, whatever IOT or app protocol.
email, straming, VOIP and video calling, whatever IOT or app protocol.
Only email and VOIP are the two non-web based techs. HTTP (streaming, video calling, IOT, and app apis) is web, not internet tech. HTTP is a big piece of the internet. Nearly everything runs on HTTP.
Gopher is having a small resurgence, and Gemini exists.
You forgot email. That seems like a pretty important use of the Internet that isn’t the web.
You mean spam trap? Outside of 2FA or a few other small things, which even those are using it less. Who actively engages with it on a regular basis. I can DM friends and family easier, with less spam and restrictions on multiple other platforms. And those that do actively engage with it are often using HTML hypertext interfaces. (Proton Gmail etc) I didn’t mention Usenet either. Or ssh that I use daily.
Most people don’t have a pop or SMTP app installed anymore. Not outlook, not Thunderbird, etc etc etc. It’s easy to imagine a world without email. So many other apps and services easily slot in to replace it. And already have in many places. Now, try to imagine a world without HTML or HTTP servers. What would that even look like?
Tons of people engage with email regularily, including through standalone MTAs.*
But my point is that email was big before the web even grew to its current significance. So I think common people have at least that one point of contact with the internet that is quite distinct from the web in their memory.
But maybe it’s really a generational question. I have to concede that a lot of people now use web interfaces for their email client, especially outside of corporate managed devices. Late milennials and Gen Z will have grown up with the web being more significant than email.
* Don’t forget about the MTAs on smartphone OSes, those aren’t web based.
– signed, a late milennial network engineer, whose dad always installed outlook on the family computers
PS: Funny story last week I was at CERN at the CIXP, the CERN Internet Exchange Point, to upgrade a connection to 400Gb/s, and in the lobby of the building they hung up the cover pages of Tim Berners-Lee’s original Hypertext and HTTP papers. And further in the have his original NeXTStation displayed
Every one with an office job uses it daily
Email is absolutely still used massively, especially in the business world. Even if someone is accessing their emails in a browser, they are still being sent with SMTP behind the scenes.
There’s also SSH, NTP, VOIP, FTP, BitTorrent, and probably more that I’m forgetting, that all have varying degrees of usage today.
Don’t get me wrong, HTTP is certainly by far the most used protocol, but it is in no way the only important one that would be difficult to replace.
Okay, and? Go back and read my posts. That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. I specifically mentioned that I was referring to lay people and that I thought myself being a techy that it was glossing over a lot of nuance.
But then I also pointed out that it was nitpicky and pedantic nerdsplaning. Something I should have paid attention to myself. Hell, it’s something I’ve done myself. So it’s not like I’m trying to insult you. I understand 100% how this happens.
You mean spam trap? Outside of 2FA or a few other small things, which even those are using it less. Who actively engages with it on a regular basis.
And those that do actively engage with it are often using HTML hypertext interfaces. (Proton Gmail etc)
My first paragraph was a direct response to these sentences.
It’s easy to imagine a world without email. So many other apps and services easily slot in to replace it. And already have in many places. Now, try to imagine a world without HTML or HTTP servers. What would that even look like?
My second and third paragraphs were a direct response to this.
My generalized interpretation of your comment was that laypeople don’t use email anymore, their only interaction with the internet is through HTTP, and HTTP is the only internet protocol that could not be easily replaced.
My counter argument was that laypeople in the business world absolutely still use email daily, almost always through a client like Outlook, and there are a number of other protocols with varying degrees of usage (among laypeople and enthusiasts) that would also be very difficult to replace.
I apologize if I misunderstood your comment, but hopefully this clarifies my point and intentions.
Email is still extremely popular and used quite frequently for more than chatting with friends. Businesses use email to communicate with customers. Schools use email to communicate with parents. Doctors use email to communicate with patients. Utility bills are sent via email. Etc, etc, etc.
Just because you don’t have a use for it doesn’t mean it’s useless.
Email is still extremely popular and used quite frequently for more than chatting with friends. Businesses use email to communicate with customers. Schools use email to communicate with parents. Doctors use email to communicate with patients. Utility bills are sent via email. Etc, etc, etc.
Web portal, web portal, web portal, oh and web portal. Web portals are what people use. Apps, too. Email, you mean GMail and Outlook?
Where did I say it was useless. You’re trying hard to be offended.
You’re trying hard to just be negative.
Yay. Peak Reddit! Let’s all argue over our assumptions
“Technically correct” is the best kind of correct.
It’s really not though. Except in that one case.
Indeed
I dont think so.
Saying Lee invented the web, to the lay person, implies that he invented the web we have in 2026. As though he was the grand architect of the platform we use today.
Yes, in the 80s he was a pioneer in digital communication specifications. However, I dont think many of the relevant skills are transferable to addressing the capitalist motives and ethical deficiencies which have infected the web in the interceding 40 years.
It feels a bit like asking an actor their opinion on politics.
What a thoughtless vapid take.
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.
And the “World Wide Web” mostly means HTML - “hypertext” documents which can be published on the internet, and which are regular documents but with embedded links to other documents (hyperlinks), and a vision to ultimately create the “semantic web” - human-readable text which can also be processed by computers.
To be exact, Tim Berners Lee invented the original HTML specification, the HTTP communication protocol, and a proof-of-concept browser that implements both of them. These three things were required - on top of TCP, IP, Ethernets, that already existed - to build the Web.
The original hypertext proposal was even more complex than what we ended up getting, connecting ideas both ways.
People say wifi when they mean the Internet, somehow one cannot expect accuracy. Articles always get written by professional clueless people also.
Nowhere does it say he calls himself the creator. I’d be looking at the media for labelling him that.
They’re replying to the article title, which was incorrect but has now been fixed.
Nowhere did they say he called himself the creator, either. They only replied to the statement presented.
He didn’t invent the internet.
Yeah, that was Al Gore!
Note that what Gore said was that he “took the initiative to create the Internet”. That’s actually true; his lobby work for a civilian network were one of the most significant factors in commercializing ARPANET. He never claimed that he invented the thing.
Quite true.
He never said he did in the article. Instead check on media for saying it.
You supported DRM dude. Self critique, renounce your mistakes, and if you really want to go after ICANN, give me a call.
For those that don’t know, he ultimately backed EME which was dumb.
I don’t know, the thing about the internet is that it does bring a ton of value, and operating it does have costs in turn. Maybe Sir Tim is right about DNS being the point where it got commercial, but it was going to happen somehow. Arxiv and Wikipedia still exist, but how do you do Amazon non-commercially? Even YouTube is a challenge.
There used to be a sort of mantra that technology was neutral and people are good and bad. But actually, that’s not true of things on the web
Arguably, that’s not the distinction. Technologies can be explicitly of control or of chaos. And then that relative structure or freedom can itself be used for good or for evil.
A central platform is of control, Lemmy or Linux is of chaos. And obviously we lean towards the latter a lot, but for some things, even Lemmy wants central control and monitoring, so it’s not evil, exactly.
deleted by creator
It’s always the fucking DNS. .__.
“The internet should be for everyone, except the people I don’t like.” - average modern internet user
Glad he’s able to call out the domain name system for the crock of shit that it is.
The internet isn’t broken… Humanity is.
Removed by mod
Kinda dumb that this was censored.
QED∎
I’m missing your point, what do you think “like-minded activists” means in this context?
Let’s see yours.
I for one do not want like-minded individuals in any settings. I like diverse perspectives, unlikely thoughts, out of this quo activities, revolutionary ideas, xeno fora, etc. The weirder the better.
Does Tim praxis anything of the above?
I didn’t have a point. Your post made no sense to me!
Do you think the people who build the web should be like-minded with you about diversity? I think everybody in this thread agrees that the web should work with screen readers; do you think other opinions are valid?
Did it make sense later?
Do you think the people who build the web should be like-minded with you about diversity?
No. But if this is the case, then the consequences is what we are living with right now.
do you think other opinions are valid?
Always. I am just laughing my opinion required to be censored 🧵, which proved my point.
Dude…
He could have patented what he made. He choose to put the good of everyone over himself. He has some pretty radical ideas about information being accessible and free.
He is saying the classist fucks as you call them took the domain system and privatized it for profit and control.
If anything he is saying let the diversity of opinion and thought matter, let the power to publish be in the hands of everyone.
He choose to put the good of [like-minded activists] over [his not TeX].
He has some pretty radical ideas about information being accessible and free.
For his clique. Are the blind part of it? Are the slaves part it, are the illiterate part of it? He most certainty wasn’t the innovator of free press. But he sure didn’t keep accessible to the silenced.
He is saying the classist fucks as you call them took the domain system and privatized it for profit and control.
Who do you THINK WAS PART OF THAT PROCESS‽ The disabled, the poor, and the oppressed‽ What strange minded individuals would even conceptualize the hierarchical administration of addressing‽
If anything he is saying let the diversity of opinion and thought matter, let the power to publish be in the hands of everyone.
And how do you achieve this? In the jungle, in a zoo, in a computer lab with academically groomed scientists? Please explain how you actually diversify opinions, provoke thoughts, and arm people the powers to publish freely. Do I have to bring my clean room uniform too⸮
Your link was about ICANN and DNS. This is one of the problems he is complaining about, as it’s corporate and not in the hands of the public.
Also something Berners Lee had nothing to do with, that was invented earlier.
And I said that here in my last response to you.
He is saying the classist fucks as you call them took the domain system and privatized it for profit and control.
Maybe you should ask some questions, nicely, instead of going off like a raving lunatic when you don’t know what you are talking about.
Who is ICANN comprised off?🙃
Are you just stupid? You called. A person names and had a rant because they don’t like who ICANN is comprised of.
What the hell, how dumb are you?
The solution is that it needs to be difficult to go online. Like a 5 minute wait time, with some sort of logic puzzle you need to solve.
Based. Smartphones made it way too easy for morons.
Internet was fun when it was a place. Accessible via computer on a desk in your home.
There are still places on the internet that are too difficult to access for smartphone users.
I agree they made the internet shit because they have no standards and love making businesspeople happy, for some reason.
If it’s any consolation, those places are still going to get MORE difficult to access when open PCs that run an OS you control cost $5,000.
Just put user limits on websites.
We just need to get rid of the comment sections of everything
*web inventor
WWW has been a complete crapshow ever since it started simply because it became popular.
It was designed to serve documents over the internet, except everyone co-opted for their own needs like websites, APIs, etc.
That left us with broken as hell crap at every layer from the joke that is HTML/CSS, the clownshow that is HTTP, and the circus that is JavaScript.
And don’t even get the started on the mountain of vulnerabilities being stupid obvious crap that wouldn’t dare to fly in even basic GNU utilities at the time.
Adding insult to injury, this guy hasn’t even provided a valid solution to this mess like hyphanet or the very newly released freenet.
Which by the way tries to hack cheat the system with WebAssembly so that it doesn’t have to deal with HTTPS directly since its an exclusive client server protocol.
You should check out his new js project
I know you wrote this in jest.
But no, don’t give threadiverse brain damage.
the search providers (especially that famously ‘not evil’ one) had a huge hand in centralising and then gatekeeping access to ‘the web’. They have such a disproportionately powerful effect on how users discover content, and huge power to drive self-fulfilling ‘network effects’ where people go where people already are, which has become so normalised that most people couldn’t imagine ‘the web’ without them.
i’m not suggesting it was ever realistic or possible, but what we needed was for that one search provider and indexer of content to be broken up, partially nationalised, and partially integrated into the network specification itself. Only they are powerful enough to become a model for how to functionally disentangle their operations into public and private parts.
the only alternative is to break the centralisation of the web as china is doing and other BRICS nations intend to do, by creating ‘national internets’ which in some ways federate together and in other ways do not. I don’t like this model of development for the future of the internet but the security considerations of the present require this kind of approach.
Please correct the post title: it says “internet inventor” (which is incorrect) and “soul of the web”, while the article name says “web inventor” and “soul of the internet”
