Tim Berners-Lee: Facebook Threatens Web, Beware

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, warned that social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Friendster constitute one of "several threats to the Web's universality," arguing that such sites create "closed silos of content" that may threaten the Internet's status as a "single, universal information space."

In an article in Scientific American, Berners-Lee argued that the openness of the Internet is at risk and must be defended lest we "lose the freedom to connect with whichever Web sites we want."

"Some of [the Web's] most successful inhabitants have begun to chip away at its principles," wrote Berners-Lee. "Large social-networking sites are walling off information posted by their users from the rest of the Web. Wireless Internet providers are being tempted to slow traffic to sites with which they have not made deals. Governments--totalitarian and democratic alike--are monitoring people's online habits, endangering important human rights."

Social networking sites are threatening the Web's core principles by collecting and retaining users' information--from their contacts to their photos to their email addresses--then offering up that information to users only within their own websites, Berners-Lee argued.

"Each site is a silo, walled off from the others," he explained. "The more you enter, the more you become locked in. Your social networking site becomes a central platform - a closed silo of content, and one that does not give you full control over your information in it.

He warned, "The more this kind of architecture gains widespread use, the more the web becomes fragmented, and the less we enjoy a single, universal information space."

Berners-Lee also defended net neutrality and criticized Google and Verizon's policy proposal, which recommended that information traveling over broadband and wireless networks be treated differently and would enable Internet service providers to discriminate against some information traveling over its networks.

"Unfortunately, in August, Google and Verizon for some reason suggested that net neutrality should not apply to mobile phone-based connections. Many people in rural areas from Utah to Uganda have access to the Internet only via mobile phones; exempting wireless from net neutrality would leave these users open to discrimination of service," Berners-Lee wrote.

Vint Cerf, known as one of the "fathers of the Internet," recently outlined the 3 crises he believes are facing the Web. These include, according to ComputerWeekly the shortage of IPv4 addresses; the "security and reliability" of networks; and improving mobile access.

Read Berners-Lee's full article here.

Comments

[ShoreSage]

08:37 PM on 11/28/2010

and the republicans want to hand over control of the web to a chosen few...

[kv3854]

01:15 PM on 11/28/2010

Wait a second... I thought Al Gore invented the internet..

[Dave Atch]

09:28 PM on 11/27/2010

Apparently Berners-Lee has hit on a number of important aspects. The demographics we are handing over right now actually to me seem a smigen less deleterious than two facets in just one of the paragraphs above. 1)Dependence on a "central platform," and 2)The walled off "silo" aspect. [don't know if he gets around to...even more promotion of "visual thinking"] The walled off silo makes me think of ideas re mimesis. Lots of owners of websites, however, all along have expounded like they're walled off (so there may be shades in what B-L's saying of "get away from our symbolic analyst-turf"). OTOH he's right that more folks with their own sites seem to demonstrate that more folks will simply conform to the walled-offness we have experienced with prior bloggers. When people emulate models to acquire more being, according to some thought they lose being. According to St Augustine it's the number of models (or acquired tastes) that drains being. I can see this, as when we parade our anchors-in-culture out there we believe we are dwelling in a pluralistic community spiced with variety; but it can be a serious self-delusion when it becomes in reality a walled off silo (doublethink?). I can see alternative uses though.

[George R Williams]

06:45 PM on 11/27/2010

I'm against any federal law governing how the Net is used. We all know how politics play a role in our society, much to the worse. Any such laws are the slippery slope to making the Net a political football. Isn't that why we have the 1st Amendment, to prevent political speech from being controlled by the government? Shouldn't we have a COTUS amendment protecting us from government control of the Net, a media of political speech?

[jabailo]

02:12 PM on 11/27/2010

The problem with "web universality" is the same problem with "free trade" and even "open source". You end up with a lot of people working for almost no money, and a few big players getting all the revenue and benefits from the free labor.

Look at Google and Bing. They call themselves "search and knowledge engines" but they are not. They are content aggregators. They scoop up all the free material that it took people time and effort to collect and write down and present it as if it were part of their own system.

Facebook isn't much better, but sites like http://Helium.com at least offer a mechanism for people to both present and sell (for money) their written products.

Again, there is Wikipedia which purports to be the end-all of knowledge, but my own experience with them and their censor ship for any opinion that violates the "science is settled" consensus goons.

So, yes, silos with interfaces might be a superior way to go...so that those who work, get rewarded justly.

[DaneAZ]

05:06 AM on 11/26/2010

I agree with most of what mr. Berners-Lee has written here.
I was a young adult when the web came into existence - I remember how things were prior to and after the creation of a healthy and flourishing web.
The top-money dogs Always want to control everything, it's their nature, plus their greed factor. It was amusing watching them flounder when they thought they could simply outspend the little-guy and get back to controlling media and information that way....
Now they have a new tactic- buy all the actual hardware that forms the networks, then get their lobbyists to go fool a bunch of millionaire politicians who don't understand the whole thing anyway.

I am pretty sure we will soon be looking BACK at the short-lived period of a free and open internet - or at least one that had a level playing field.

Sad.

[Dave Atch]

09:36 PM on 11/25/2010

Speaking of "discriminate," I have gotten the distinct impression that if, for instance, I were to click "Like" after an article on the MoJo Fcbk page or after one on the Common Dreams Fcbk page...those "Likes," as opposed to all other such "Likes," are registered on my wall days later.

[birdsdofly]

10:15 PM on 11/24/2010

Ha, for some reason this reminds me of old school federalist and anti- federalists.

[Fourth Horseman]

09:28 PM on 11/24/2010

Facebook at this point in internet history is a necessary evil for ease of contact.

However, much like AOL before it, those using facebook will find that there is a big beautiful internet out there and you don't NEED facebook to get you there and when you get there, it doesn't try to chain you to it.

Something smarter, safer and more committed to your privacy will knock facebook off the map. It's only a matter of time. Maybe "Diaspora" or my even bigger hope. Mozilla will.

I have a feeling Mozilla will shock everyone and take over and no one will see it coming.

[barrada nicto]

02:16 AM on 11/26/2010

" Facebook at this point in internet history is a necessary evil for ease of contact. "

There is, fortunately, nothing necessary about facebook.

[Fourth Horseman]

03:39 AM on 11/26/2010

A large % of people would disagree with that. I'm on it, yet really don't want to be but as I said, "ease of contact."

I like tech and I like new ways for people to connect with each other. However, I don't like to see it abused and I see that far too often these days. Facebook will learn it's lesson at some point. They all do.

[hypnotoad72]

10:35 AM on 11/24/2010

Agreed.

GREAT article, thank you!

[Kitten of D00M]

11:22 PM on 11/23/2010

The worst threat to privacy is Facebook's insistence on, and the public's sheeplike compliance with, the policy that demands you use your real name. Of course, any fake name will do, but most people prefer to use a nickname as they can with MySpace (a far less intrusive network, IMO), but at the point of creating an account and finding their pithy moniker has been rejected, they usually capitulate and use their real name. The next thing they know, their friends are posting relatively harmless comments on their wall with potentially devastating results. "congrats on the new job!" would be a problem if you haven't given your notice at the old job yet, "all set for your vacation next week?" could put a burglar in your backyard by Friday night. A friend of a friend of a friend isn't necessarily YOUR friend.

[Me282]

04:23 PM on 11/23/2010

I absolutely HATE how there are certain sites or connections or whatever that require me to access or "like" through facebook. I have an account, but I don't want it to be my access point to the internet!

[barrada nicto]

02:18 AM on 11/26/2010

I wish we could turn off all the damn facebook links on Huffpost. They really diminish the experience.

[redmaple]

11:36 AM on 11/23/2010

Although I consider net neutrality a very important I don't think that, in the long run, social network are as treatening. Eventually people are going to see the drawback of a close system and either abandon these sites or facebook and co. will become more transparent.

[famebook]

08:26 AM on 11/23/2010

Cue Gandolf!

[famebook]

08:46 AM on 11/23/2010

Sic Gandalf - and The Fellowship of the Ring!

[miamia25]

04:46 AM on 11/23/2010

I dont know if this is true. FB tries hard to make your info public and available on the www. You have to work hard to keep it private and then still its not private and people can see it. Also, you can make your profile public if you want to.

[barrada nicto]

02:20 AM on 11/26/2010

I'm beginning to get spam that originated with FB.

They are really out of control.