I think we can all agree that the internet is a fantastic invention that has shaped both the 20th and 21st centuries; for quite a while it was the wild west of innovation. Nevertheless, what once was a great variety, has now declined into a monolith wherein only a few companies have monopoly: Google, Amazon and Facebook, among others, dominate practically every possible service. If you want entertainment, you watch YouTube; if you want online shopping and hosting, you go to Amazon; if you want social media, you go to Facebook and Instagram; if you want communication, you go to WhatsApp, Messenger and G-Mail. Suffice it to say, almost everything you do is enabled by “Big Tech”. And although it is fair to argue the fact that these services may in some ways simplify our lives or make them better, there are certain issues with the way in which they and the internet are currently operated. Namely, the model employed in this new era raises questions about privacy, sustainability and efficiency. This especially in the wake of the recent Facebook server outage that took Facebook itself, Messenger and WhatsApp along with it
In my opinion what differentiated the early internet from what we see today, is its openness. More specifically, the free protocols were what made the internet internet a truly innovative space.
For example, have you ever wondered why the dozens of E-Mail providers are able to send and receive mail between them? And why, as the internet has progressed, services moved away from this model? Namely: E-Mail employs an open protocol, SMTP, meaning that everyone can make a server; yes, even you can do it. See, the early internet was a time when protocols roamed free: WWW, SMTP and IRC, to name a few. You could pick a provider, or make your own server. The end user was first, having the ability to choose the platform they wish to use.
Tim Berners-Lee’s invention of WWW and the associated technologies of HTML, URI and HTTP were crucially made open. According to Lee: “Had the technology been proprietary, and in my total control, it would probably not have taken off. You can’t propose that something be a universal space and at the same time keep control of it.”1
Conversely, modern services have become increasingly closed. For instance, you cannot send messages between the popular chat services these days. They are restricted to their respective platform and there is no intercommunication with the competition. This is telling of the general trend: people opt for monolithic solutions to their service needs; i.e. instead of more or less open paradigms, people use proprietary technology. This in turn worsens intercommunication. Instead of one universal communication application of choice, we end up with half-a-dozen that don’t inter-operate. I am not a rocket scientist, but this seems like an issue; especially for efficiency and sustainability.
Thence the solution should be even more so evident. “One protocol to rule them all” is necessary! But it has to be one we can choose and agree to use. A decentralised solution would have an open spec, in the spirit of Tim Berners-Lee; easily be implemented by anyone, just like the genesis of the internet. A multiplicity of applications could spring wherefrom the end user could take the pick of the litter.
The issue of protocols is evident, but you may ask furthermore, what other issues exist with a centralised internet? Although there are benefits to both centralised and decentralised internet topologies, I posit that decentralisation is the superior of the two. I am currently convinced that it can solve a large portion of the internet’s current problems.
Not only is sustainability and efficiency a problem with the status quo and future trends, but privacy and control over our own data is also at stake.
“Hypothetically speaking, let’s say a beloved internet service of yours would simply poof and disappear tomorrow. What would you lose? Say, for instance, your blog were hosted on a popular hosting platform and their servers were accidentally wiped. Due to the centralised nature of that service, all the content and data would be gone.” – I wrote this before the big Facebook outage and it seems to ring even more true after what occured. Although no data was indeed lost, it just goes to show the fragility and instability of internet centralisation; with a multiplicity of services being completely down.
Suffice it to say that “Big Tech” are in control of the platforms you use. They are free to govern their realm however they desire, while the end user is left to trust the companies’ word on safekeeping data and providing stable service.
Finally, I would say generally that arguments without following solutions are just simple and annoying complaints. So, I hope to point out some ways to resolve the current situation.
Firstly, it is worth mentioning that basic standard internet protocols still work well and poeple should use them more often when possible:
Furthermore, another interesting (and relatively novel) idea is constructing social media as a federation of independent separately-hosted platforms.
That is, anyone can host a node of a larger network to which users can register. Following that, the rules enforced on each server are independent. This solves the problem of speech policing, although it arguably may increase the so-called “Filter Bubble”. I.e. someone may make a node for *insert political affiliation* and only get opinions supporting said affiliation, in turn preventing them from having a multifaceted understanding of reality, etc. However, in terms of free speech, perhaps it is difficult to have your cake and eat it too, but if the cake is taken away entirely, I think we can agree that it becomes a problem.
That being said, this idea is currently (perhaps) best implemented by Mastodon, a social media platform. I am not affiliated to them by any means, but I have tried it once and it seemed like it was heading in the right direction.
Lastly, many services which you think can only be delivered by “Big Tech” can actually be easily hosted on your own, either with or without your own server. However, you stay in control of your own data.
Although centralisation has its advantages, there is no doubt that the way things are progressing is at a detriment to the end user. Just look at the recent Facebook outage and the constant decrease in privacy of the end users. From efficiency and sustainability to privacy, it seems to me as if decentralisation could be a solution.
World Wide Web Foundation. (n.d.). History of the Web. https://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/ ↩︎