What is the web, essentially? Connection. Connecting communication, connecting content, connecting media, connecting communities, connecting trade. The Web is designed to connect things.
The web is already decentralized; just ask anyone who was at one time restricted to the "online service providers" like AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy. But whether or not the web is decentralized, it still connects things. I don't think decentralization will improve the connections; rather, as anyone who has ever run a large network will tell you, decentralization causes almost as many problems as it solves.
In many ways, making the web more decentralized could make it easier to defeat its simple design and raise new problems. So to my mind, we need to be addressing more specific challenges and design with the intent to address those challenges, and not simply to make change for change's sake, the way most technological improvements have haphazardly occurred.
As a very simple example of the decentralization of the web, let's look at the real new Web: mobile application platforms. On Apple's platform, pornography is not allowed. This is the result of the kind of "social protections" that our societies have traditionally been governed by. But if this was instead totally decentralized, there could be the potential for "harming children" and other persons sensitive to certain content, and as a result, governments both local and around the world may enact laws forbidding certain content on the network, or even the whole network itself.
Is the loss of certain content like pornography - specifically in a _centralized_ marketplace like the Apple Store - worth the access to such a large marketplace of content and applications? Or should we tempt society at large with unrestricted access to content? One could argue that if we were not so dependent on the internet already, modern uses could have resulted in it being banned around the globe long ago.
Here's an example of a targeted solution: an open platform, with subscriber-specific controls. Imagine a universal mobile network and platform, so apps would just run on Android, iOS, etc. But now, to find and access the applications, you would pay $1.99 a month to a company that curates the content for you. Less of what you consider garbage, more practical content. And you could use the company that restricts pornography, or the company that promotes totally unrestricted content. Suddenly there is both increased freedom, choice, and universal compatibility.
Then there's questions of how connected we really want to be. YouTube comments and Twitter are some examples that to me exemplify the kind of harsh environment that the human mind is capable of creating. Will decentralizing the web further result in an increase in this kind of damaging combination of anonymity and unrestricted communication? Is humanity really ready to have an unrestricted, unlimited form of connection?
Now keeping that in mind, let's imagine a new decentralized web: platforms that provide the same content in different ways. Imagine being able to browse YouTube comments, and only see the ones flagged as positive, uplifting, and helpful - but not by YouTube users, but anyone who used that specific browsing platform. You could choose a platform that conforms with your particular world view, and thus see primarily content that you agree with. But wouldn't this simply breed new forms of closed societies that don't take into account things that you don't like, or information you wouldn't have normally wanted to see or hear? Could this not actually set humanity back by reducing exposure to the parts of life we may not like, but are ultimately real and part of society?
We are as flawed as we are complex, and the unforeseen side-effects of the changes we implement will affect the future of how humanity is connected. I think we should tread carefully.
The web is already decentralized; just ask anyone who was at one time restricted to the "online service providers" like AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy. But whether or not the web is decentralized, it still connects things. I don't think decentralization will improve the connections; rather, as anyone who has ever run a large network will tell you, decentralization causes almost as many problems as it solves.
In many ways, making the web more decentralized could make it easier to defeat its simple design and raise new problems. So to my mind, we need to be addressing more specific challenges and design with the intent to address those challenges, and not simply to make change for change's sake, the way most technological improvements have haphazardly occurred.
As a very simple example of the decentralization of the web, let's look at the real new Web: mobile application platforms. On Apple's platform, pornography is not allowed. This is the result of the kind of "social protections" that our societies have traditionally been governed by. But if this was instead totally decentralized, there could be the potential for "harming children" and other persons sensitive to certain content, and as a result, governments both local and around the world may enact laws forbidding certain content on the network, or even the whole network itself.
Is the loss of certain content like pornography - specifically in a _centralized_ marketplace like the Apple Store - worth the access to such a large marketplace of content and applications? Or should we tempt society at large with unrestricted access to content? One could argue that if we were not so dependent on the internet already, modern uses could have resulted in it being banned around the globe long ago.
Here's an example of a targeted solution: an open platform, with subscriber-specific controls. Imagine a universal mobile network and platform, so apps would just run on Android, iOS, etc. But now, to find and access the applications, you would pay $1.99 a month to a company that curates the content for you. Less of what you consider garbage, more practical content. And you could use the company that restricts pornography, or the company that promotes totally unrestricted content. Suddenly there is both increased freedom, choice, and universal compatibility.
Then there's questions of how connected we really want to be. YouTube comments and Twitter are some examples that to me exemplify the kind of harsh environment that the human mind is capable of creating. Will decentralizing the web further result in an increase in this kind of damaging combination of anonymity and unrestricted communication? Is humanity really ready to have an unrestricted, unlimited form of connection?
Now keeping that in mind, let's imagine a new decentralized web: platforms that provide the same content in different ways. Imagine being able to browse YouTube comments, and only see the ones flagged as positive, uplifting, and helpful - but not by YouTube users, but anyone who used that specific browsing platform. You could choose a platform that conforms with your particular world view, and thus see primarily content that you agree with. But wouldn't this simply breed new forms of closed societies that don't take into account things that you don't like, or information you wouldn't have normally wanted to see or hear? Could this not actually set humanity back by reducing exposure to the parts of life we may not like, but are ultimately real and part of society?
We are as flawed as we are complex, and the unforeseen side-effects of the changes we implement will affect the future of how humanity is connected. I think we should tread carefully.