Bitcoin Magazine

A Response to Sir Tim Berners-Lee: We Can Fix the Web Without Regulation

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a renowned computer scientist and the inventor of the World Wide Web, recently articulated concerns in The Evening Standard regarding the issues of polarization, conspiracy theories, and mental health crises attributable to design flaws in online platforms. He suggests that rectifying these issues may necessitate regulatory intervention.

This assertion is drawn from Chapter 13, “Design Issues,” of his newly published book, This Is for Everyone: The Unfinished Story of the World Wide Web, which the author highly recommends for reading.

The author acknowledges Berners-Lee’s assessment but contends that regulation is not the optimal solution. The deterioration of the web is not solely the result of design deficiencies; economic factors also play a significant role. Design decisions are influenced by incentives, which have been adversely affected by fiat currency and the advertising model it sustains. The influx of inexpensive credit through fiat-driven venture capital has redirected Silicon Valley from innovation led by engineers to profit-driven surveillance.

To restore the web, the author argues for the adoption of open-source protocols coupled with open-source money.

Understanding the Issues with the World Wide Web

Berners-Lee identifies two prevailing symptoms: polarization and deteriorating mental health. The author’s agreement with this perspective is unequivocal.

1. Polarization and the Collapse of Shared Reality

Berners-Lee notes that “the most egregious symptom is polarization. Social media, as currently built, leads users to take extreme political positions and demonize the opposing side. This makes constructive engagement difficult, allows outlandish conspiracy theories to flourish, and promotes demagoguery over deliberation.”

While polarization is a genuine concern, the amplification of content works in both directions. The algorithms that propagate conspiracy theories also bring to light truths that mainstream media may suppress. In an era marked by censorship and propaganda, this amplification has occasionally been the sole avenue for the emergence of truth.

The more profound issue lies in the fragmentation of shared reality. A breaking news event may lead to discordant narratives depending on the platform—whether it be Twitter, TikTok, Bluesky, or Reddit. Each faction relies on its own authorities for “truth formation,” incentivized to provide emotionally convenient facts. The advent of large language models also introduces synthetic personas that can skew discourse on a grand scale. Regulation, therefore, may not restore trust, as the crux of the matter involves not only the content itself but the mechanisms through which trust is cultivated.

Moreover, algorithms are optimized for outrage due to its profitability, a predicament that regulation alone cannot rectify, as it is intricately tied to economic conditions.

As Neal Howe and William Strauss articulate in The Fourth Turning, we find ourselves in a crisis era characterized by fraying consensus, realigned power structures, and the obsolescence of traditional arrangements. This reality implies increased friction in online interactions, manifesting as tribal division, narrative conflicts, and heightened coordination challenges. Thus, the current turmoil is expected, and proactive measures are necessary.

2. Mental Health and Addictive Algorithms

Berners-Lee states: “Many social media users report suffering mental health issues after prolonged usage. The catalogue of ills related to social media is alarming: anxiety, depression, jealousy, inadequacy, feelings of isolation, body image issues.”

The author concurs that social media possesses both liberating and destructive qualities. The correlation between rising anxiety search queries and social media usage underscores the pressing need for reform.

Berners-Lee also asserts that “social media companies are using machine-learning techniques to make users addicted to their platforms.” The author agrees that this design is intentional, emphasizing that techniques to cultivate addiction were ingrained within Silicon Valley’s culture over two decades ago.

Jack Dorsey, former CEO of Twitter, echoed these sentiments at the Oslo Freedom Forum in 2024, emphasizing that the debate should center around free will, as users are conditioned to engage based on algorithmically driven recommendations.

Dorsey has previously indicated that Twitter evolved from a protocol vision to a platform dominated by growth, control, and advertising monetization. His current support for open-source protocols suggests that true reform must originate from foundational changes, as internal adjustments alone are insufficient.

While Berners-Lee proposes the reconstruction of algorithms to prioritize joy over outrage, the author believes that, given current incentives, this vision may not be feasible. Research indicates that high-arousal emotions, particularly anger, disseminate more rapidly than calm or positive feelings.

Previous attempts to pivot away from harmful content have proven costly; for instance, Facebook’s adjustments in 2018 resulted in significantly reduced user engagement. As long as companies are obligated to maximize shareholder value, regulatory efforts will be futile as long as outrage remains more profitable than positive engagement.

The Role of Regulation on the Internet

Berners-Lee has consistently championed the principles of net neutrality, encryption, and decentralization. His acknowledgment of the necessity for regulation comes as somewhat of a surprise, particularly given his historical stance.

Quoting Yuval Noah Harari, Berners-Lee states: “If a social media algorithm recommends to people a hate-filled conspiracy theory, this is the fault not of the person who produced the conspiracy theory; it is the fault of the people who designed and let loose the algorithm.” While the author recognizes the validity of this statement, a careful analysis of Harari’s technocratic worldview reveals a penchant for centralized solutions that undermine individual autonomy.

Berners-Lee’s admission that regulation may be necessary, despite his longstanding opposition to it, seems like a concession to despair. The escalation of algorithmic manipulation, misinformation, and addiction may have contributed to this shift in his perspective. Nevertheless, the author maintains that regulation is not the solution.

Moreover, it is worth noting that governmental regulation often solidifies existing power structures and uses the guise of “safety” to justify censorship, often leading to ineffective results—an example being the EU’s cookie law, which did little to advance user interests.

True democracy in the digital sphere should be crowd-sourced and founded on open protocols—rules without rulers.

The Economic Headwinds Against a Dynamic Internet

The primary challenge lies in fiat currency, which has distorted economic incentives since its full implementation in 1971. While productivity continued to rise, real wages stagnated, as outlined in the documentary WTF Happened in 1971? The results have included escalated inequality, rising debt, and deteriorating social conditions following the severance of the gold standard.

Historically, under a hard-money system, stability in prices and wages facilitated growth. However, with fiat currency becoming the standard, this equilibrium vanished, leading to increased strain on the workforce and prompting companies to prioritize short-term gains over ethical considerations.

The advertising model pioneered by Google has undermined the traditional media landscape, rendering it reliant on state funding and corporate sponsorships, further exacerbating polarization online.

The venture capital framework, fueled by easy credit under the fiat regime, has shifted the incentives for Silicon Valley, favoring predatory practices over innovative engineering. The combination of centralization and monopolization has intensified.

As Jeff Booth notes in The Price of Tomorrow, technology exerts a natural deflationary force. In contrast, Saifedean Ammous highlights that actual inflation rates—beyond the Consumer Price Index—are alarmingly high. Governments have employed monetary expansion to counteract deflation, placing companies in a competitive race to extract more from users, exacerbating the cycle of exploitation.

The implications are visible in the equity markets, where traditional firms struggle in an environment increasingly dominated by a select few.

Historically, fiduciary duty, codified in U.S. corporate law, mandated that directors act in the best interests of shareholders. However, with the SEC’s 1970 mandate pushing for quarterly reporting, a culture of short-term profitability emerged, hindering ethical considerations.

The Convergence of Economic Forces

This interplay of fiat currency, shareholder primacy, and venture capital financing has precipitated a perfect storm, leading companies to prioritize engagement, user data exploitation, and sensationalism. Regulatory measures cannot bring about sustainable change so long as the underlying economic structures remain intact. Until society transitions to sound money, design solutions will falter under economic pressures.

Bitcoin as a Potential Solution

Bitcoin presents a dual opportunity: it not only addresses the shortcomings of fiat currency but also lays the groundwork for innovative online business models. Unlike traditional financial systems, Bitcoin does not benefit any particular group and is structured to realign incentives at the foundational level.

Bitcoin embodies the enduring characteristics of gold—durability, scarcity, uniformity, and unforgeable costliness—while integrating the advantageous qualities of fiat: divisibility and portability. This synthesis culminates in a monetary system that is decentralized, censorship-resistant, and programmable.

As the fiat system continues to falter, Bitcoin holds promise for averting a complete collapse of the global debt structure, returning monetary practices to a sound basis.

Restructuring Online Incentives

Jack Dorsey has posited that the internet is akin to a nation-state, suggesting that it will develop a native currency autonomously. With Bitcoin now available as this currency, the potential for transformation is immense.

Bitcoin can fundamentally alter incentives online by facilitating micropayments, allowing users to support creators directly. This shift could render the ad/data mining model obsolete and foster honest interactions.

Furthermore, Bitcoin’s decentralized nature disrupts the existing venture capital paradigm, leveling the playing field for investment opportunities. Consequently, innovative and ethical platforms could thrive, unencumbered by the pressures of growth-focused investment.

In this configuration, the internet could return to its original principles of being open, interoperable, and driven by user needs, as the monetary layer aligns with these tenets.

Bitcoin is not merely a tool for reforming the web; it represents a fundamental shift in incentives that extends beyond the digital realm. Sustainable systems, both online and offline, can emerge when the mechanisms of exploitation are dismantled.

To encapsulate, Sir Tim Berners-Lee aptly identifies the symptoms afflicting the internet, yet the author contends that regulatory responses cannot adequately address the centralization perpetuated by states and corporations. The root of the issue lies in the flawed structure of money and the cultural shift towards shareholder primacy that has ensued since 1971. Through the reinstitution of sound money via Bitcoin, the internet may finally realign with its fundamental principles.

In conclusion: reforming the economic foundation will be pivotal for a more equitable online environment.

Source link