Reactions to
Weaving the Web
by Tim Berners-Lee

Chapter 10: Web of people
Plus the video: Nerds 2.0.1, Part I

Lindsay Alaishuski
This chapter brings out many of the reasons why I will never pursue a career in law and/or business. The legal aspect of this chapter is just an ongoing bickering about what should (or should not) be done to control what is on the web. I never think a decision will be reached, and if for some miraculous reason a decision is made, there will always be unhappy people. As for business side of this chapter, everyone wants to get 'on top'. That's why, someday, we will be using these 'filtering' browsers, and most likely not even be aware that we're using them. That is unfair to the consumers.

Reading about filtering browsers reminded me of a software program a girl I know uses. First of all, there are programs out there that you can make money by searching the web (AllAdvantage, for example). You download a banner that tallies up your web-browsing time. You receive a few cents for every few minutes you surf. Of course, the banner has advertisement links on it which the banner company endorses. I'm sure both the advertisers and the banner company profit big on this deal, while you make just a few cents for your efforts. Is it worth it?

It's programs like this that boggle my mind. Why can't people make money the fair and square way?? I guess I'm old fashioned, but it's pretty sad when companies must be greedy and set up schemes such as these. I'd prefer to advertise and sell MY products to MY customers. As you can see, I'll never be a businesswoman.

Someday, the "vertical intergration" Berners-Lee talked about will be all over the web. I feel sorry for those consumers who fall into that trap, but I will try my best to continue to be an educated, consumer from the old school, even if it means always buying my books from the Bryn Mawr Bookstore.

Diana Applegate
Tim finally turns away from technical jargon a bit and addresses some of the important social implications of the Web in Chapter 10. I was particularly interested in his discussion on how software, and hardware, can deliberately exert control over our experiences on the Web. Shopping portals like Yahoo! Shopping are already doing this. They have a list of "featured shops" and prominently display links to these at the top of the page. Are they sincerely trying to help the consumer, or are they merely concerned with collecting as much advertising $$ as possible? I also wonder about the various shop-bots out there, and how they are getting their results. I've gotten into the habit of using four or five different 'bots or search engines since each one seems to bring up totally different sites. I think it's important to "read" the Web critically, as one would read a text. In order to be responsible users, we must question what is being presented - as opposed to accepting everything at face value - and then draw our own conclusions.

As for the film, I thought it was a lot of fun to watch. I liked the discussion near the beginning about "living a web lifestyle". I guess I'm almost as big of a nerd as those guys in the film, because I feel like the web is definitely a huge part of my life. I do most of my communicating with people either through email or through Instant Messenger, and I rarely ever buy CDs or books in the store anymore. =Most of the shopping that I do for anything is done online. And I faithfully turn to the web for the news and weather each morning. I'm not sure if I should be proud of my behavior though. I feel like I'm saving a lot of time and money by using the web as much as I do, but at the same time, I may also be turning into some sort of hermit!

Did anyone else notice how women were depicted in the film? I know that the computer industry, especially in the early days, was male-dominated...but the only women shown, aside from the writer named Fawn in the beginning, were porn stars, casino girls, switchboard operators or hula dancers! It seemed like these scenes were stuck in there solely for amusement/comic relief since they really had no bearing on the rest of the film. I found this to be a little odd, especially since the movie was done fairly recently.

Hilary Chamberlain
I Found that this chapter covers a whole lot of ground with different issues surrounding the web. What I especially liked was the discussion about commerce on the web, how companies can make a search bias without the person using the computer ever knowing about it. It makes me think every time I turn on my computer, when I search the web using a patricular search engine, do they restrict what I see?

Also, I am very glad to know that they totally refuse to allow the government to pass laws that will censor material on the internet. There are things that everyone will find objectionable, I am pretty sure that there's not a web site out there that every single person loves. It is impossible for anyone to choose what should everyone be able to access and what should be blocked. If people are afraid of what their children might see, then they should realize...... It's the parents who are paying for the internet connection, the computer, and the software. It's the parents who let their children search the web without supervision. To me, censorship is a parent's job, definately not the governments. I can think of two different options besides filtering software to prevent kids from freely searching the web, which seems to be the main problem. First, parents can sit down with their kids when they want to look something up.... this way objectionable material can be talked about if it ever comes up. Second, they could just restrict the access to the web. I got along just fine without it when I was ten, and I don't see why kids would really have to use it on a regular basis. I would prefer for my children to learn a variety of ways to search for information, like the libraries, etc. I think the major problem is that the web is like a babysitter for parents, just like the TV is, but parents have absolutely no control over what their kid sees. And that scares them, but they want someone else to fix the problem. At least that's what it seems like to me. (see page 134... "as parents we have a duty to protect our young children....")

I also really liked the idea of e-business marks, "branding of quality" for web sites. Because anyone can post whatever they want, it's nice for people to decide they like a site, and then be able to use that site's seal of approval to rate other sites. It helps to narrow down the search field enough to make it managable for people. And the key here is that the individual chooses what site to use. The government isn't telling you what sites are approved.

Beth Fedornak
Chapter 10 Tim's idea of the web was that the web was designed to be more of a social creation than a technical one. And with the introduction of the consortium they were trying to accomplish a usage of the web with little constrains or government interference.

Unfortunately the web sometimes became a battle ground between big business and big government. The business attempted to dominate some aspects of the web with their inventions, improvements and mergers while on the other hand the government tried to control the web with possible censorship.

I can understand how parents would want this information to be censored so that young eyes could not be exposed to some of the racy material on the web, however, we do live in a world of free speech and the government has to learn it cannot control the whole world. These different groups of people such as government, conservatives and religious groups need to realize that they are not going to be able to control the different types of published material in the world. They have failed for years to stop magazines such as Playboy and Hustler or XX or R movies what makes them think they can stop the information on the Internet? Whether or not these groups agree with this information they must learn to accept it in all formats.

I'm also glad that the industry has attempted to regulate and improve electronic commerce. I have ordered several things via the Internet and have questions weather or not my order was safe. It all goes back to Tim's original thoughts: We must establish trust when dealing with the Internet.

Alicia Jorda
One of the items that seemed really interesting to me was the single paragraph mention of the way that the www is at least in some way, a centralised entity: "the domain name system runs on a set of hierarchical computersÖ At the top of the hierarchy are 5 computers that store the master listÖ" Although I don't know how the domain name system works to begin with, I just find it funny that for all the decentralisation of the www, there exists this vergance of information, even if it's simply the 'addresses' of sites. Berners-Lee barely hints at the possibility this allows for control of the web. I think discussing that chance may have been interesting. I just figure that if the entire domain name system relies on these 5 sole computers, and despite its being dwarfed by the "social centralization that parallels it" the topic warrants more discussion, mabe just as a jumping off point to discussing the chance that the web somehow becomes controled or (more?) centralised (God forbid!).

Jennifer Picagli
This section deals with the more 'controversial' parts of the internet, and Berners-Lee tries his best to avoid taking sides with any issue. His idea of ISPs only providing content they choose seems a bit unrealistic; while AOL and CompuServe etc. seemed to do this in the beginning, other, smaller companies do not seem to want to put forth the effort and money into creating their own version of the internet; if they keep their costs minimized, they can offer their ISP more cheaply to consumers and will grab a larger share of the general internet community. While people who, for the most part, do not quite know what they're doing on the internet, the portal-like companies can be easier for them. Purists (myself included) like ISPs which let you connect and the less frills, the better. What is interesting is the idea of expanding the domains to include anything else rather than the preset three letters or country code ending. However, it would be 'nicer to the companies' to have InterNic (or whoever does the doman registrations now) require that the company be legitimate (as opposed to a domain-name clearing house) and have it somehow relate to that business. There's nothing better than domain fishing (typing in a random word between www. and .net or .com) and coming up with 'this is a reserved name! what's your bid?' The worst is that these sites will show up in searches and "...well, hey, I was searching for such and such and there it is, suchandsuch.com...hey...there's nothing there!"

Then there's the filtering software debate. He wisely avoided taking a side, or at least, didn't let on that he does. The *concept* of filtering software is fine; I myself filter my own e-mail and certain obnoxious people and domains get filtered right into the trash, as does the word 'money' in the subject line, or 'profit', or most of the words generally associated with subject lines in spam. Recently, Peacefire (the youth anti-censorship group) is being sued by CyberPatrol -- and, might I add, is being slandered and having their side misconstrued by the press. This group provided content which brought to light the fact that that particular piece of software had too much 16-bit encryption to be very useful, and then showed how to remove the encryption. They have also printed lists of sites which are blocked, labelling some as 'not errors' (i.e., they obviously could be considered 'bad'), 'marginal errors' (ambigious, maybe indecent sites) and 'obvious errors'. What bothers me the most is the inaccuracy as well as the predefined value criteria these organizations use; for example, the informational site of the Ontario Centre for Religious Tolerance is among the most blocked sites. People of certain religions cannot even access their organization's official site, in certain instances, on filtered computers.

Megan Rutter
I was a little confused at first as to why this chapter is titled "Web of People" when most of it discusses control, filters, domain names, and politics. However, Tim Berners-Lee's statement "The web is more a social creation than a technical one" (123) is very true. The web does in fact "help people work together" by bringing people together and giving them a common forum for open discussion. It makes documents available to anyone despite what type of computer or browser they have. Berners-Lee says it is not a "technical toy." (123) I disagree with this statement somewhat. While the web is readily available to everyone, it is very technical. What goes on behind the scenes is very technical; we just have editors and browsers that make it easy. The technicalities occur behind the scenes and do not affect people's usage of the web on a day-to-day basis. But that does not mean that they do not exist; We just aren't very aware of them. This chapter also deals with the issues of control, trust, and privacy. These are social concerns, not technical ones.

On Nerds 2.0.1:
I have to say that I think Ray Tomlinson is the coolest guy in the world. To think that e-mail was just "a hack!" And he came up with the @ and made no money! I thought it was really neat the way the movie intertwined the man on the moon with the first computer network. It really put things in perspective. The interviews were very interesting. I liked what some of the men said about the internet and the web, especially the comment made about protocols and how it was like a highway system with no cars, or a phone call to France with a great connection but no conversation. Overall, I really liked the movie and found it really interesting. What was Tim Berners-Lee doing at this time?

Yun-Wen Shaw
I think a major chunk of importance in this segment was to show how essential it is for things to be user-friendly in order to promote its popularity. This is, of course, similar to many other things that we encounter. I suppose that people just don't want to bother themselves with spending the time to learn and explore things that they might seem difficult. I can empathize somewhat; no one wants to have to learn or study outside of the classroom if they can help it.

I remember the early days of the Internet, when my family subscribed to Prodigy. This was in the days before the popularity boom of America Online, I suppose. And I remember how cool it was to be able to sign onto this program and explore the Internet for the first time. However, back in the day, the program was not licensed together with an web browser, so there was not much to do except to check the weather, some news, and exchange random emails with strangers. Tim Berners-Lee describes the success of the first of such programs that featured a web browser. I think it is true, the importance of the web to the Internet. Without it, the Internet seems almost incomplete as if it doesn't serve a real purpose. In my eyes, I see the world wide web as the heart of the Internet; it seems to be what the Internet was made for, almost. I'm sure however, that in the future, we'll find another application that seems so essential that we cannot imagine the internet without it. It just goes to show what people tend to take for granted.

The issue of pornography on the web is a huge issue. One that I am still concerned with it myself, having a younger sister in the family who tends to glue herself to the computer and the Internet. It is interesting that the solution that the consortium came up with, called Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS), is something I and probably many others, have never heard of. Such a censoring system seems ideal, but hard to manage. The fact that Washington declared this movement unconstitutional actually surprises me, because of the excessive censoring of the media in recent years with the V-chip on new =TVs, and America Online's long-standing accessibility/censoring options which can be regulated by the head of the household to what he/she may consider appropriate for each family member.

Even nowadays, it seems that it must be very difficult to regulate the excessive hoard of pornography that floods the web. It isn't surprising that so many small porn companies would jump at the opportunity for something like the web to further push their business onto other people. After all, the web was designed for information sharing and to create a online community similar to that of reality, right? It seems to me, however, that it is highly unfortunate that our web community is most similar nowadays, to the streets of B'way and 42nd street in New York...with so much good, yet so much more bad that comes with it in the same package.

Tim Berners-Lee wrote in his book, that he designed the web "...for a social effect, to help ppl work together, [that] the ultimate goal of the web is to support and improve our weblike existence in the world." I agree with him, in that we have to make sure that the society that we build over the Internet reflects the kind of society we want to be. We cannot let things like Internet pornography take over something with so much potential by making the most use of it of all other groups. It seems too much of a shame. And we as the future, will be the ones to fix this and improve the future of the Web, as it reflects our own. Not too idealistic, I hope.

Bonnie Underwood
i think the main issue that i picked up on in chapter 10 was trust. when i first began the book, i thought the idea of having no one in complete control over the web was a little farfetched. but it seemed to be working. however, in ch 10 Berners-Lee talks a bit about where the web is going and laws that are created to hold it back so that society can catch up. i think right there that's a little loss of control. i feel like that's society saying "we have the power to slow you down so that we can catch up and possibly get one step ahead," which really never happens since things move so quickly. also, although it is kind of an unspoken thing, i think one of the beauties of using the internet is that everyone is equal. if you talk with strangers online, you don't know each other and no one is better than anyone else. but when people (and companies) want to use the web, things change. for example, if two people want a particular domain name, the one with the more money is going to get it. so no one is equal at all anymore. then there is the idea that when you go to a certain site, you're not only getting information from that site, but all the other sites that have icons on that one. Berners-Lee mentions the fact that certain computers come with keyboards that have certain buttons that will take you to particular search engines instead of others and things like that. The fact is, i feel like we really don't have all that much control. when we type something in, we assume that we will get what we want, sometimes not even thinking about the possibility that it is a filtered view. it's a big issue and one that is going to be around for a long time, especially since debates are always continuing about the content of the web and such things.

Annie Zipper
Tim Berners-Lee deals with some very relevant issues in this chapter. I admire his conviction that the Web is a reflection of the people who use it and not merely a piece of technology. His ideas for how people should interact and work is refreshing and honest. He continues to complain about how his idyllic vision of the Web has been corrupted by big business and software companies who seek to monopolize the market with search engines that bring you to a certain company's Web sites, etc. His complaints are valid, however, and he makes an interesting point on p. 135: "The larger point to remember is that laws must be written in relation to actions, not technology." In discussing the issue of censorship on the Web Berners-Lee urges readers not to blame the new technology for the problems of "indecent" content on the Web but to look at the indecent material indepently of its medium. One can find pornography in countless forms; the Web is only one. This is an important point to keep in mind because it can help the federal government find an answer to the censorship question. In my opinion, the government should deal with censorship of "bits" in the same way it has dealt with censorship of "atoms" such as magazines and movies. Restriction of the Web is a dangerous practice, a point Berners-Lee makes very well in this chapter.

Alicia Zukas
Orbit.com, orbit.net, orbit.org- do you remember when we were trying to pick out a name? While I highly doubt that we would pay the holders of these domains any amount of money FOR that name, Berners-Lee makes a good point about the trade of selling domain names:

"(Distributing domain names) does serve as a good illustartion of the way a single centralized point of dependence put a wrench in the gears of an otherwise smoothly running decentralized system" (129).

Someone now has to be in charge of distributing names, and the prevention of someone registering a name that he will never use, rather sell at a profit, can't be prevented. The book gave several examples of going around this, which I hope will be used more readily in the future of using geographically based name.

Searchengines have become the bain of my existance, as well. I was expecting the author to touch upon this topic, as he did. I believe aol's searchengine comes to mind. If I type in any topic, I will automatically get advertisements from Amazon on that topic as well whoever else endorses aol. Not that advertizing has got out of hand, but I do like the author's idea in choosing a feature on a searchengine to eliminate ads. When clicking on Netscape bookmarks, I see links which I can't edit of where to purchase plane tickets, flowers, shop for toys, etc. Berners-Lee says: "These buttons or keys take the user into a controlled view of the world" (131).

A great point shortly following discusses the fact that we have no control over how our connection is to various sites, usually blaming it on the site itself, and not the ISP. I NEVER expected Berners-Lee to say: "It would be great to see some self-regulation or even government regulation in these areas" (131).

Compuserve and child pornography- I was living in Germany when these events started to arise, which really gave Compuserve a bad rap in the eyes of conservative Americans, but never really effected the German public. They already didn't like Compuserve, because of their high fees and expensive, less-efficient stray from Deutsche-Telekom, the German internet provider. It was nice to read some familiar material, though.

While the THREE MYTHS have crossed my mind for a millisecond, purely as thoughts, it would be sad to see other people actually believe these. They all infringe on free speech rights. I do not quite understand the concept of embedded links. I hope we can discuss this in class.

<	BACK to Reactions