Web Creator Tim Berners-Lee Launches Plan To 'Fix' the Internet (cnbc.com) 109
Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, is officially launching his plan to "fix" the internet. From a report: The World Wide Web Foundation, a non-profit campaign group set up by Berners-Lee, has secured the backing of tech giants Facebook, Google and Microsoft for the scheme, dubbed the "contract for the web." The British computer scientist first outlined his vision to overhaul organizations' approach to the internet at the Web Summit event last year. At the time, he said the web was "at a tipping point." The contract calls on companies to respect consumers' data privacy and urges governments to ensure everyone has access to the internet. "Never before has the web's power for good been more under threat," Adrian Lovett, CEO of the World Wide Web Foundation, told CNBC in an interview Friday. He added that the rise of hateful content and fake news being propagated online meant something had to change. "We're launching the contract for the web for the world's first-ever global action plan to protect the web as a force for good, bringing together companies, governments and citizens from around the world to say these are the things that need to be done to put things back on the right track."
Other organizations backing the contract include DuckDuckGo, Reddit, GitHub and Reporters Without Borders. One major component of the pledge is the requirement that the web remains an accessible tool for all users. Lovett said that, "despite the progress we've seen in getting the world connected, half the world doesn't have access." He said the contract comes with nine core principles, while underneath them is a total of 76 clauses. "Not every organization has to abide by all of them," he insisted. "A good number of those 76 will be relevant." Berners-Lee will deliver a speech in Berlin, Germany, on Monday where he is due to say the contract will serve as a blueprint for governments, companies and citizens to safeguard the web as a force for good. The World Wide Web Foundation says it is working with partners to develop tools that can measure progress on the contract's various clauses.
Other organizations backing the contract include DuckDuckGo, Reddit, GitHub and Reporters Without Borders. One major component of the pledge is the requirement that the web remains an accessible tool for all users. Lovett said that, "despite the progress we've seen in getting the world connected, half the world doesn't have access." He said the contract comes with nine core principles, while underneath them is a total of 76 clauses. "Not every organization has to abide by all of them," he insisted. "A good number of those 76 will be relevant." Berners-Lee will deliver a speech in Berlin, Germany, on Monday where he is due to say the contract will serve as a blueprint for governments, companies and citizens to safeguard the web as a force for good. The World Wide Web Foundation says it is working with partners to develop tools that can measure progress on the contract's various clauses.
Re:Genie...doesn't...fit...back...in....bottle!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how any interaction between TBL and the corporate giants can lead to any good results. It's a bit like St. George inviting the dragon to talk things over reasonably, assuming they will be able to find common ground.
But the fact remains that St George wants to save the damsel, and the dragon wants to eat her. Not much middle ground there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. 200 years ago he would be in the pulpit preaching his 'New Testament' to the 'miserable sinners' in the village. Danger or turning into the L.Ron Hubbard of the 21st Century.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And yet the Maker was still a man, as TBL did not include a sarcasm tag in his initial tablets of protocol description, much though it would be useful in times such as this. That honor he gives to another, still shrouded by the veil of prophecy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sir Tim Berners-Lee is normally called "Tim", and he is a knight of the realm. Hence "Sir Tim". I am sure he does not insist on the honorific, but it's polite - especially when he is referred to by strangers in a public forum.
Re: (Score:2)
A single idea in a long list of concepts based on Vanavar Bush's 1920's concept "Xanadu"?
Europeans may not have invented the Internet - although, as with the Manhattan Project, they contributed a lot - but at least they have their facts straight.
Project Xanadu was started in 1960 by Ted Nelson. (Who will be only too glad to tell you all about it if you ask him - see, for example, YouTube).
Whereas Vannevar Bush (note spelling, accent on the second syllable) wrote "As We May Think" in 1945, expanding his ideas about the "memex", which he had first dreamed up in the 1930s.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how any interaction between TBL and the corporate giants can lead to any good results. It's a bit like St. George inviting the dragon to talk things over reasonably, assuming they will be able to find common ground.
But the fact remains that St George wants to save the damsel, and the dragon wants to eat her. Not much middle ground there.
Sounds more like St. George defining his political opponents (you know, the hateful and fake folks) as "dragons", which it's conveniently OK to lance ...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but when I read the comments on Slashdot I feel like I'm drowning in cynicism. This project is idealistic people trying to do something good. You may say cynicism is "realism", but I say the internet was founded on idealism and most of the good things it's accomplished were because of it.
There's always middle ground, lots more than you think. Google and Facebook have lots of reason to support the principle, "Make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone." And maybe it's going to take so
Re: (Score:2)
Part of his proposal is to have the government ban targeted political speech.
One problem with that is the government in the United States was never granted authority to do that by the citizens. So at least part of his plan is a total non-starter, unless you think he can convince a super-majority of States to repeal freedom of speech and that it would somehow be a good thing to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Where does it say that? Here's the list of principles [contractfortheweb.org]. There are three principles for governments: "Ensure everyone can connect to the internet", "Keep all of the internet available all of the time", and "Respect and protect people's fundamental online privacy and data rights". Which of those involves banning targeted political speech?
You can click through for the detailed proposals behind each one. I don't see anything close to what you say. About the closest one is, "Developing mechanisms to
Re: (Score:2)
I mean TBL by "his", not the org. He states in his NY Times Editorial [nytimes.com] on the subject:
Impossible Rules (Score:2)
Facebook, Microsoft AND Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure they will "fix" the Internet REAL good.
Re:Facebook, Microsoft AND Google? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Its opt-in, nonbinding, and not technical. They get to claim some virtue while not changing behavior. Most of the points are developing plans, not action. The rest are things you're doing because you want to, or things you don't want to do.
There are problems, at most this is raising awareness.
Biggest mistake... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about this contract item for companies?
Establishing effective channels for consultation both during development of technologies and after their release, as a means to ensure the rights and interests of the full breadth of communities, in terms of gender, race, age, ethnicity, and other intersectionalities, are taken into account.
Ensuring a diverse workforce: releasing periodic reports including metrics that show progress towards a more representative workforce.
What a daft idea. The Internet flattened the information space to where a single person could develop something entirely on their own. How does diversity help this? What magical benefit does diversity confer on a business? Does diversity include political and religious beliefs?
This is yet another code of conduct wrapped in feel-good language that prioritizes the siloing of data by big corporations over the democracy of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Most internet tech is developed by large companies now. HTTP 2/3, upgrades to DNS, endless JavaScript Frameworks and modern JavaScript itself, WebAsm, all the major browsers, all the major messaging apps, most of the new transport layers like WiFi and 5g, cloud services...
They should work for everyone. We have all seen the webcams and hand dryers that can't see darker skin. Clearly the teams that built didn't have any dark skinned people on them.
Re: (Score:2)
GDPR has massively improved privacy for EU citizens and was developed by and is administered by governments.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Berners-Lee is a boomer. Are you referring to him, or parent?
Yup, he's an old white male. We can't listen to him, by definition!
Riiight (Score:3)
The backing of Facebook, Google, and Microsoft and they say they're going to "respect" the consumer's data privacy? I call bullshit. Unless of course they mean "rape" when they say respect.
Re:Riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious to hear what EFF, Mozilla, and others have to say about this.
I suspect the plan will involve some variant of "we (tech giants) hold the keys" and "we call the shots" approach.
Re: (Score:2)
The backing of Facebook, Google, and Microsoft and they say they're going to "respect" the consumer's data privacy? I call bullshit. Unless of course they mean "rape" when they say respect.
I think they mean they will "respect you in the morning"....
Easy way to "fix" the Internet... (Score:2, Funny)
Easy way to ensure the Internet is "fixed":
1: All L1 ISPs require a healthcheck (NAC) before a device can connect. This goes on to the edge ISPs, ISP routers, and LAN equipment. Any device that doesn't pass the healthcheck will be blocked, and the ISP notified about an unauthorized device.
2: All devices, as part of NAC will run an AV like program that checks for copyrighted/patented/unlicensed works, both when files are opened and during scans. If found, the device is removed from the network, and the
Re: (Score:3)
+1 insightful. This is likely what they will propose. Berners-Lee is just a stooge.
Re: (Score:1)
Self Important A hole (Score:2)
Last I heard from him, he and his team were doing a Reddit AMA and claiming credit for not just the web but FOSS and the internet. WWW wasn't even open sourced upon release and rather than having a FOSS license like GPL they just made it public domain. That to me shows a general lack of awareness of the pre-existing open source community at the time.
Lately I've also been questioning whether the web was a net plus for humanity. I'm sure the internet in general is. But while the internet brought us better pro
Re: (Score:3)
The Web was a blessing until the NSF sold part of the Internet backbone to AT&T. The rule prohibiting advertising was removed. After that, the fact that ISPs didn't have to care if their users did bad things, where in the past, there was more active policing, allowed exploits to blossom.
Then came the speculators and the bubble money.
I don't really blame the web. I blame the political muckety-mucks for not keeping a vital resource under their oversight. This would have kept the ads and such to AOL/CI
GPL as tired battle cry of a lost war (Score:3)
Anyone with any awareness of the history of the day would know that the GPL was far from universally admired within the open source community and that the BSD/MIT licenses plus the public domain both had a deeper track record.
One avenue to power is to create a political monoculture like the
Re:GPL as tired battle cry of a lost war (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with any awareness of the history of the day would know that the GPL was far from universally admired within the open source community and that the BSD/MIT licenses plus the public domain both had a deeper track record.
That was before Linux dominated and BSD all-but-died, which was specifically due to the GPL. We know this because major Linux contributors have cited the license as the reason why they chose to contribute to Linux over BSD.
GPL is based on the lie that the conceptual category of "source code" is an adequate perimeter to defend the "freedom" we wish to obtain, without expanding the notion of source code to include the EDA design files of Apple's T2 chip, and similar chips built into every modern phone.
RMS knew that software was only part of the battle. The GPL was revised in v3 to handle one hardware-related threat, Tivoisation. Customers have to choose open hardware, and it hasn't been there to choose. Hopefully RISC-V will lead to what you're looking for, now that it's actually feasible.
the GPL hasn't protected us from the modern smartphone era in any meaningful way.
That wasn't its job, and it can't protect anyone from anything unless people choose GPL'd products. Google is now making noises about contributing back to the Linux kernel, and the Android version of the Linux kernel has continued to be Free Software all along. That's why there's AOSP (or derivatives) for so many devices. You say that the GPL hasn't protected us in any meaningful way, but you can get LineageOS for so many phones specifically because it actually has done so.
Every phone without an unlockable bootloader depends on the Linux kernel being available as either GPLv2 or GPLv3, because if it were GPLv3 only, it would fall afoul of the Tivoisation clause. If you really want to see change in phones, we need the Linux kernel to be GPLv3 only, which would essentially require all phones to have unlockable bootloaders. Don't complain to us, complain to Linus.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux is GPLv2 only, it's not GPLv2 or later like a lot of other software. You can't choose to use/redistribute Linux under the terms of the GPLv3.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Self Important A hole (Score:1)
Authenticated packet/message provenance (Score:2)
At minimum, they should propose a cryptographic authentication mechanism to identify the originating ICANN registered IP address of each packet/message routed over the internet.
This should be verifiable and cryptographically incorruptible so one can always verify where a packet/message ultimately originated, no matter how many hosts/servers it is routed through or forwarded from.
Being able then to configure my machine to reject any packet/message that does not carry this cryptographically authenticated
The protocols exist. You can block everyone (Score:2)
> Being able then to configure my machine to reject any packet/message that does not carry this cryptographically authenticated provenance would rid the Internet of the majority of spam, malware, DDoS attacks, wire fraud, etc
> Or am I just being profoundly naive? If so, in what way(s), specifically?
IPSec and other protocols already exist and people use them. You CAN block all non-secure traffic, today.
Of course, most people don't secure their traffic, so you'll be blocking almost everything. Heck, w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IPSec and other protocols already exist and people use them. You CAN block all non-secure traffic, today.
That's not so useful without Opportunistic Encryption. Which we had with freeswan for a moment, but then it was found to have some massive security hole, and we lost it. Hopefully tcpcrypt [tcpcrypt.org] will pan out...
"Fixing" the web (Score:4, Insightful)
" He added that the rise of hateful content and fake news being propagated online meant something had to change."
Translation: If you're not on MY side politically, get ready for Internet censorship. "For the greater good", of course.
Re: (Score:2)
" He added that the rise of hateful content and fake news being propagated online meant something had to change."
Translation: If you're not on MY side politically, get ready for Internet censorship. "For the greater good", of course.
Yep, that's it exactly. We have to "fix" that you can now get samizdat from anything except AM radio.
Where does an old white male like Tim get off telling us what to do anyhow, I ask you?? ;)
Pretty much (Score:2)
The problem with liberal bien pensants like him is that they think their views are the "proper" views to have and everyone else is some racist knuckle dragging luddite who needs to be shown the error of their ways. Its just intolerant intellectual arrogance dressed up as right thinking.
Also while he might have created the web his creation has long ago escaped his control. Graham Bell might as well have tried to police what people said using the phone system 30 years after he invented it, its just as absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with liberal bien pensants like him is that they think their views are the "proper" views to have and everyone else is some racist knuckle dragging luddite who needs to be shown the error of their ways. Its just intolerant intellectual arrogance dressed up as right thinking.
No, he's saying the "proper" views to have are ones that don't involve racism, fact-free conspiracy theories and similar forms of knuckle-dragging idiocy/shitgibbon lunacy. But such views have overtaken everything to the right of liberalism in the US, so it's an understandable mistake you made.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech means just that. And if for example I want to state that on the whole black people are far more involved in gang violence than whites then I will and I don't expect to be called a racist by some middle class prick for stating a fact.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact itself may not be racist but bringing it up unprompted (among most other uses, such as advocating for racial profiling) is racist, Mr. Racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever you say game BOY. When your balls have dropped get back to me and maybe we can have a grown up discussion about it instead of you trotting out the usual suckers cliches.
Re: (Score:2)
Racism is only a suckers cliché to racists - they're the suckers, to the ownership class that wants to keep the 99% distracted with a pointless fight amongst themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I find my initial reaction to someone or some group being given more control is almost always, "This can't be good," and I also find that I am almost always right in this feeling.
1st of all, free speech. No, it doesn't mean "except hate speech" or any other speech. The "greatest generation" that saved us from the Nazis and the Japanese had a saying, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'd defend to the death your right to say it." That idea seems lost today. _I_ believe in it, but I'm 72. I thin
Re: (Score:1)
1st of all, free speech. No, it doesn't mean "except hate speech" or any other speech. The "greatest generation" that saved us from the Nazis and the Japanese had a saying, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'd defend to the death your right to say it." That idea seems lost today. _I_ believe in it, but I'm 72. I think there's a strata of age groups that have lost that idea, and don't want people saying hateful things. Yeah, it'd be nice if they didn't, but the proper response when they do is... more speech. That would be you saying, "You're wrong and here's why."
And today's world of mainstreamed falsehoods and resurgent fascism is the aftermath of this failed approach. What was Einstein's definition of insanity again?
Re: (Score:2)
USSR and China are the result of the opposite approach.
Why did you choose these examples, rather than the much more similar Europe with its anti-hate-speech laws?
Also, "Resurgent Fascism" has been roundly derided by all sides of the public, and only gained traction when it was recently censored.
You confuse cause and effect, which requires getting the timeline slightly wrong. It hasn't been roundly derided by all sides of the public, rather it took power in a number of countries over the last few years after decades of spreading these ideas to vulnerable people under the "marketplace of ideas" philosophy and seeing conspiracy theory culture as a healthy part of a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
There is objective truth. There are facts.
Those who demand we pretend that all alternative facts are equally valid are the ones peddling fake news. They push this narrative that you can choose your own truth and reject anything you don't like. Pretending is just as good as knowing.
Oh, it'll be easy to do it. (Score:2)
OK (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how that code of conduct doesn't apply to businesses, and how it all goes one way.
He seems to be acting like a corporate shill that wants to turn the Internet into another one to many broadcast medium to sling ads, celebrity tripe, and infomercials, just like TV and radio, and destroy the many-to-many aspect.
Fox meet henhouse, your new home (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler didn't cause "the jewish problem", it was hitler himself who considered there to be a "jewish problem" and did attempt to offer a solution for it. This is a very poor analogy.
It's more like asking hitler to solve "the nazi problem", which was directly the fault of hitler and was a serious problem for churchill and stalin.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler didn't cause "the jewish problem", it was hitler himself who considered there to be a "jewish problem" and did attempt to offer a solution for it.
Hitler was very far from being the only person who hated the jews. He took advantage of the existing situation.
This is a very poor analogy.
That much is true.
It's more like asking hitler to solve "the nazi problem", which was directly the fault of hitler
That's not true, either. The Nazis existed and were nationalistic and antisemitic before Hitler took them over. He only exacerbated the problem.
Re: Fox meet henhouse, your new home (Score:2)
"Fix" (Score:2)
The contract calls on companies to respect consumers' data privacy and urges governments to ensure everyone has access to the internet.
Oh, sounds good ...
He added that the rise of hateful content and fake news being propagated online meant something had to change.
Oh ... so not "everyone", then. Certainly not those you think are "hateful" or "fake". I'm sure you can impartially decide all that.
Re: "Fix" (Score:1)
I think he meant "fix" as in "fix the boxing match".
Anyone remember P3P from a decade ago? (Score:2)
This stuff reminds me of the P3P initiative from a while back, which at best was useless, and wound up discard. Companies just ignored it. Same with the "do not track" button.
The only real thing that works is blocking and having the web browsers not allow things to happen (autoplay videos, pop-ups, pop-unders, audio ads, etc.). Everything else is worthless lip service.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing the point: this is about preventing hate speech and fake news on the Internet, not blocking incoming malware. Malware is fine.
Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's "hate speech" and "fake news" that are the biggest threats on the internet. Not censorship, or walled gardens, or malicious advertising.
That list of backers reads like a list of companies who would like to distract you from the actual damage they're doing to the internet.
The end of Net Neutrality (Score:3)
Those two things are the pillars of the Internet. NN means your ISP can't use their control of the tubes to block things they don't like or they compete with. Section 230 means anyone can run a public forum without fear of lawsuits.
These two things are what keep the Internet from becoming cable TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, "hate speech" is a real problem. It's probably worse than trolls and astroturfers. This is not because it's factually incorrect, though it often is, but rather because its socially divisive. People have a strong tendency to divide themselves into groups, and then play "us against them", and this has historically been quite injurious (as in, among other things, deadly) to large numbers of people. "fake news" is only a general social problem as a subset of "hate speech", which it often, per
Having given people a voice... (Score:2)
...apparently TBL has decided he doesnâ(TM)t like what they have to say. Shaddap peasants!
Re: (Score:2)
...apparently TBL has decided he doesnâ(TM)t like what they have to say. Shaddap peasants!
It's all perfectly logical; he wants to give "everyone" access, for some values of "everyone".
With Goog, FB, and MS on board... (Score:2)
What? (Score:2)
The "fix" for a poorly defined problem is to get a large number of actors with strong incentives against the fix to agree to play nice together.
I have no idea what could go wrong there.
Doesn't add up... (Score:2)
But Facebook, Google, and Microsoft *are* the problem with the world wide web. They're not going to pay to fix it.
Those giants won't fix anything... (Score:2)
Yeah, because that's work THIS time (Score:2)
> that the rise of hateful content and fake news being propagated online meant something had to change.
1. Define "hateful" content? Hateful according to WHOSE definition?
2. Attempting to fix the symptoms and not the cause is doomed to fail:
You can take people out of politics but you can't take politics out of people.
3. How is this going to address the corruption of MSM (Main Stream Media)?
4. Censorship is NEVER the solution; it is PRECISELY the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Define "hateful" content? Hateful according to WHOSE definition?
Please allow me to link you to this pretty generic definition of hate speech [wikipedia.org], that is pretty well legally codified in countries outside the USA.
2. Attempting to fix the symptoms and not the cause is doomed to fail:
The problem is that anyone can make libelous and slanderous comments in a public forum without fear of repercussion - the media giants claim they are not responsible for what is posted on their sites, though they claim copyright over the content posted on their site.
3. How is this going to address the corruption of MSM (Main Stream Media)?
Now you're just trying to change the topic. If you have a problem with the "MSM" then boycott them or
Re: (Score:2)
Please allow me to link you to this pretty generic definition of hate speech [wikipedia.org], that is pretty well legally codified in countries outside the USA.
Fuck you, fascist.
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
ALL speech needs to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
> pretty generic definition of hate speech
There is no such thing as "hate speech" -- only another asshole's OPINION. Speech doesn't have emotion. Stop with the bullshit words.
> outside the USA.
If you actually READ the article you would have come across:
Hate Speech == Censorship. PERIOD.
>> How is this going to address the corruption of MSM (Main Stream Media)?
> Now you're just trying to change the topic
Also known as: (Score:1)
There are multiple internets (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with moving off of this one.
Sure, China will stay on the old one, but we can firewall that.
Cold irony (Score:2)
Okay, so I went to the Web site [contractfortheweb.org]. "Government Principle 3" (which is a lot like "Companies Principle 5") says "Respect and protect people's fundamental online privacy and data rights"
Yeah, okay, fine, sounds good to me, what's not to like? Except at the bottom on the window, there's this: "We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better." And there are two choices: "Accept Recommended Settings / Control your settings".
When I tried "Control your settings", I got this message: "These
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed that this crap seems to apply only to some private internet and not the global Internet.
The ContractForTheWeb.org site seems to only have a few trackers and malicious third-party JavaScript. But it does have them.
Fixing? Whatever... (Score:1)
Why not literal robotic lawyer contracts? (Score:1)
Seems like an area ripe for automation. I'd like to get free money when these companies lie to me, or don't disclose something (and we find out later).
Inclusive Web? (Score:1)
Why should anyone have to shape their freedoms to other "groups".
What is "best practices"? A person has the freedom of speech, the freedom to publish, the freedom to be the press.
That is not something another group has a right to shape.
Why should anyone have to use their time and money to go around "standing up" online?
If they feel they want to do that, they can. To make people do that online? That
The backers are CORPORATIONS.... (Score:2)
The very fact that giant multinational corporations - who routinely do evil against citizens until they're caught - are supporting this new Foundation is proof enough that in fact it won't "fix the Web" at all, and will instead make it worse. That other corporate-backed entity in which Berners-Lee has had a hand, the W3C, has for decades now been responsible for reshaping HTML and the Web to be profoundly more friendly to corporate motives and agendas than those of citizens. Before 2000, it was easily pos
Challenging Issues (Score:2)
1) Unless people are willing to pay $10/month for your data not to be used, your data will be used. Almost zero percent of people are willing to do this instead of a free/data used service.
2) Nearly half the world lives on under $5.50 a day. It is not surprising that many are not willing to pay for Internet connectivity, as it is all they can do to feed themselves. [Note that extreme poverty is being reduced rapidly, especially in Asia, but there are still plenty of people who aren't going to drop the ca
Re: (Score:2)
1) Unless people are willing to pay $10/month for your data not to be used, your data will be used. Almost zero percent of people are willing to do this instead of a free/data used service.
Even if you pay, your data will still be used, sold, etc. Welcome to the dark future.
Stealing From TV... (Score:2)
I just saw this episode of Silicon Valley... didn't work out there either.
"half the world doesn't have access." (Score:2)
Hi, Tim,
I was part of a government working group in 2004 to get "access to everybody" and it's 15 years later and we still have people who can"t get Internet reliably and affordably, in the "first world". Government failed.
By 2023, Starlink will be available globally. Fortunately for us here it'll be next year for my neck of the woods where those people still don't have access.
When government fails it gets more funding.
passed the point (Score:2)
we're passed the point of fixing, better just start a new 'internet'.
that will last us a good 20-30 years, maybe, before we have to create another new one again.
etc.
Re: (Score:1)