Re: How the father of the World Wide Web plans to reclaim it from Facebook and Google

>From the article: "The question is whether architecture will be enough."

The answer is no.
We live in world where few ideas succeed without a strong business case.
The architecture is the easy part.

On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Anders,
>
> I'm using this email to respond to both [1] in creds; in addition to the
> below, with some lateral considerations.
>
> See this video where Mr Gates and Mr Musk are discussing in China AI [2].
>
> I haven't fully considered the implications, whilst i've certainly been
> considering the issue; i have not fully considered it, and as modern
> systems become subject to government contracts as may be the case with
> enterprise solutions such as those vended by IBM [3], may significantly
> lower the cost for government / enterprise, in seeking to achieve very
> advanced outcomes - yet i'm unsure the full awareness of how these systems
> work, what potential exists for unintended outcomes when work by
> web-scientists[4][5] becomes repurposed without their explicit and full
> consideration of the original designers for any extended use of their
> works, what the underlying considerations are by those who are concerned
> [6][7] and how these systems may interact with more advanced HID as i've
> kinda tried to describe recently to an audience here [8] and has been
> further discussed otherwise [9] [10].
>
> I'm a little concerned about the under-resourcing that seems to plague
> Manu's / Dave's original vision (that included WebDHT) to the consultative
> approach that i believed had alot of merit in how it may interact with the
> works of RWW at the time (alongside WebID) which have al progressed, yet,
> not seemingly to a solution that i think is 'fit for purpose' in attending
> to the issues before us.
>
> I have considered the need for people to own their own biometric
> signatures.  I have considered the work by 'mico-project'[11] seems to be a
> good supporter of these future works, particularly given the manner in
> which these works support LDP and other related technologies...
>
> But the future is still unknown, and what worries me most; is those who
> know most about A.I. may not be able to speak about it as a citizen or
> stakeholder in the manner defined by way of a magna carta, such as is the
> document that hangs on my wall when making such considerations more broadly
> in relation to my contributory work/s.
>
> i understand this herein; contains an array of fragments; yet, am trying
> to format schema that leads others to the spot in which i'm processing
> broader ideas around what, where and how; progress may be accelerated and
> indeed adopted by those capable of pushing it forward.
>
> I remember the github.com/Linkeddata team (in RWW years) wrote a bunch of
> things in GO, which is what the IPFS examples showcase, and without
> providing exhaustive links, i know Vint has been working in the field of
> inter-planetary systems [13], therein also understanding previous issues
> relating to JSON-LD support (as noted in [1] or [14] ), which in-turn may
> also relate to other statements made overtime about my view that some of
> the works incubated by credentials; but not subject to IG or potential WG
> support at present - may be better off being developed within the WebID
> community as an additional constituent of work that may work interoperable
> with WebID-TLS related systems.
>
> Too many Ideas!!!
>
> (perhaps some have merit...)
>
> Tim.H.
>
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
> credentials/2016Aug/0045.html
> [2] https://youtu.be/TRpjhIhpuiU?t=16m26s
> [3] http://blog.softlayer.com/tag/watson
> [4] http://webscience.org/
> [5] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
> [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8
> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_Intelligence
> [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch of ideas in it:
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RzczQPfygLuowu-
> WPvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/edit?usp=sharing
> [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqF3w2yrZI
> [10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x_VpAjim6g
> [11] http://www.mico-project.eu/technology/
> [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMxDNuuAiQ
> [13] http://www.wired.com/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/
> [14] https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/36
>
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren <
> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-08-11 15:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> > Really good article, mentions Solid and other technologies.  WebID is
>> mentioned by the author in the comments too ...
>> >
>> > http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/
>>
>> One of the problems with the Web is that there is no easy way letting a
>> provider know where you come from (=where your Web resources are).  This is
>> one reason why OpenID rather created more centralization.  The same problem
>> is in payments where the credit-card number is used to find your bank
>> through complex centralized registers.
>>
>> Both of these use-cases can be addressed by having URLs + other related
>> data such as keys in something like a digital wallet which you carry around.
>>
>> There is a snag though: Since each use-case needs special logic, keys,
>> attributes etc. it seems hard (probably impossible), coming up with a
>> generic Web-browser solution making such schemes rely on extending the
>> Web-browser through native-mode platform-specific code.
>>
>> Although W3C officials do not even acknowledge the mere existence(!) of
>> such work, the progress on native extensions schemes has actually been
>> pretty good:
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Aug/0005.html
>>
>> This is approach to decentralization is BTW not (anymore) a research
>> project, it is fully testable in close to production-like settings today:
>> https://test.webpki.org/webpay-merchant
>>
>> The native extensions also support a _decentralized_development_model_for_Web_technology_,
>> something which is clearly missing in world where a single browser vendor
>> has 80% of the mobile browser market!
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>