Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Warning Sounded on Web’s Future
Blue Marble Climate ^ | September 17, 2008 | John Nicklin

Posted on 09/21/2008 12:22:44 PM PDT by Delacon

BBC News (09/15/08) Ghosh, Pallab

Sir Tim Berners-Lee is helping to create the World Wide Web Foundation, a new organization that will certify Web sites it finds to be trustworthy and a reliable source of information. Berners-Lee says there needs to be a new system that will give Web sites a label for trustworthiness once they have proven to be a reliable source. “On the Web the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable,” he says. “A sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging.” Berners-Lee and colleagues at the World Wide Web consortium examined simple ways of branding Web sites, but concluded that a whole variety of different mechanisms are needed. In addition to creating a trustworthiness rating, the World Wide Web Foundation also will strive to make it easier for people to get online. Currently, only 20 percent of the world’s population has access to the Web. The foundation also will explore ways of making the Web more mobile-phone friendly, which will increase its use in Africa and other developing parts of the world where there are few computers but plenty of handheld devices. The foundation also will examine how the Web can be used to benefit those who cannot read or write. “We’re talking about the evolution of the Web,” Berners-Lee says. “When something is such a creative medium as the Web, the limits to it are our imagination.”

So what does this have to do with climate change, global warming, and our current state of fear? I guess it depends on who decides what is trustworthy and reliable, and what criteria they apply to make such decisions. Defining what a cult is, or isn’t, depends greatly on whether you are inside or outside that group. What defines a conspiracy?  

Consider the ramification of sites like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That being rated as untrustworthy because they challenge the “consensus.” Or the effect of RealClimate being rated untrustworthy because it tows the party line. The holy grail would become certification as trustworthy and reliable rather than a pursuit of truth or presenting ideas for discussion. What political pressure will be placed on such a governing body to give favourable ratings to some sites and withhold such ratings from others just because they agree or disagree with the polemic at any given time? Where does the idea of free speech come into play? Organizations such as the UN could exert enormous pressure to effectively silence those who question the actions of certain UN bodies like the IPCC, or the WHO.

While I would like to see the WWW clean up it’s act, we could end up with a sterile cyberspace where only proper thought is allowable or tolerated.  The current beauty of the WWW is that it allows for the free distribution of ideas. The current ugliness of the Web is that it allows for the free distribution of ideas.

In time, the Foundation could find that its efforts are counter productive. Sites that do not get the favoured status could become even more popular simply because they are outside the club. One thing the Web has shown is that people do not like to be told what to believe. Currently, there are an alarming number of conspiracy, cult, and porn sites on the Web. The people who frequent such sites are not likely to care what rating is applied. In the case of the pro-conspiracy crowd, such ratings would only strengthen their arguments. Even if they could stop the Web dissemination of “wrong” ideas like the Large Hadron Collider creating Earth-swallowing black holes or misinformation on health risks where none exist, they would not stop the same ideas from being spread through other channels like the tabloid media. Isn’t it better to get such ideas out in the open early so they can be refuted quickly? At any rate, people will believe what the wish to believe, trustworthiness of a site will have little effect on that. 

Like climate change, we can only wait to see what comes next. Also like climate change, it may be just a tempest in a teapot.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: censorship; climatechange; globalwarming; internet; regulation; web; worldwideweb; www
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Delacon

Ok, fair point. I was referring to a world wide type of regulation that kept things from even being posted on the web, not specific countries blocking what they don’t want their citizens to see.

Speaking of, I lived in Kuwait for a few years and they censor the web for porn, gambling, anti-islamic or pro christian references, and references to pork and alcohol products. It is amazing what gets censored. If you googled breast cancer you could get no information because the word breast was in the search term. Sometimes it was laughable, but was most infuriating was that a US company was providing them daily lists of web sites they could feed into their database to help them censor the web.


21 posted on 09/21/2008 5:41:45 PM PDT by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Control of the web will happen sooner or later. The ruling elites cannot afford an independent source of information. They will do it by stealth or by any other means. The web as we know it and have enjoyed it for the last ten years has a limited life span. Once they figure out how to shut down sites like this one they will do it.


22 posted on 09/21/2008 6:07:30 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Yahoo already classifies websites to some extent but google does not. Google’s search algorithm has been broken for a while now and it’s one reason why they push Wiki entries to the top.

The Yahoo effort is not exhaustive but I would trust it mroe then any google results.


23 posted on 09/21/2008 6:12:29 PM PDT by TrevorSnowsrap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Being a librarian, I have to ask, how many books are denied publication based solely on whether some group or other dislikes the content? How many people would it offend? I venture to say, not many books are denied publication because someone would find them offensive.

Why would we do to web sites what we won't/don't do in the publishing industry? Just because those ideas/books are out there does not mean anyone is required to view/read that material. I'm not much of a fan of censorship and I rather enjoy the idea that everything is available on the world wide web—even though I'll never seek most of it out.

24 posted on 09/21/2008 10:39:25 PM PDT by singfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Delacon, I wonder how they would see FreeRepublic? How would they rate us? Rating all those webs would be a hell of a job, dontcha know? Who, ultimately, would do the rating?
25 posted on 09/21/2008 11:00:07 PM PDT by singfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yazoo

You might recall about two years ago the UN tried to rest control of the internet from ICANN(jointly with the World Wide Web Consortium control the net) and are still trying to. Thats how it will happen. Willingly or maybe not, the W3C and ICANN may submit to UN authority then all those countries such as China and Kuwait will have a say on what should or should not be allowed on the web. Berners-Lee may find it more expedient to go that route.


26 posted on 09/22/2008 6:07:49 AM PDT by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Watts Up With That is one of my sites to visit every single day.


27 posted on 09/22/2008 6:09:59 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom
Being a librarian, I have to ask, how many books are denied publication based solely on whether some group or other dislikes the content?

Extremely well stated! The Web is like your TV. Nobody forces you to sit there and watch shows you do not enjoy. You simply can change channels. (You are a librarian, I am a couch potato.)

28 posted on 09/22/2008 6:13:56 AM PDT by mlocher (USA is a sovereign state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson