TNL.net is designed for modern browsers but the content is still readable in older ones. If you want to ensure the best experience, please install a browser that was developed after 2009.

tnl.net

The Open Web (1990–2020)

I’ve just received this story from the future in my inbox.

INTERNET — The open web, which allowed an explo­sion of cre­ativ­ity and befud­dled many cor­po­ra­tions and gov­ern­ments died at 12 a.m. on the morn­ing of March 1, 2020. It was just short of its 30th anniversary.

The cause was can­cer, accord­ing to open stan­dards advo­cates. While it suf­fered from fail­ing health since the intro­duc­tion of the iPhone, and the suc­cess of closed sys­tems like Face­book or Twitter.

The off­spring of Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cail­liau, the open web showed early promise by sim­pli­fy­ing how con­tent on the inter­net could be accessed. Its birth her­alded an explo­sion of cre­ativ­ity that democ­ra­tized con­tent dis­tri­b­u­tion and allowed large amounts of peo­ple to share their knowl­edge and inter­est with like-minded individuals.

In the 1990s, the open web expe­ri­ences a turn as rock star as it helped cre­ate mil­lions of new jobs and gen­er­ated new wealth for many individuals.

But two reces­sions took their toll. It was blamed for the first one and forced to go mostly into hid­ing for a large part of the first decade of the 21st cen­tury. Dur­ing that time, the open web reformed itself, focus­ing on mak­ing itself even eas­ier to use, and birthing blog­ging, pod­cast­ing, video and photo shar­ing. These con­cepts and sites related to them allowed mil­lions of peo­ple to post con­tent rang­ing from the inane to the highly intel­lec­tual.

The sec­ond reces­sion, how­ever, helped improved the open web’s rep­u­ta­tion as peo­ple real­ized that spec­u­la­tors were the guilty par­ties in both reces­sions. With its rep­u­ta­tion reha­bil­i­tated, the open web started flour­ish­ing again in the late 2010s.

Unbe­known to it, ene­mies of the open web were gath­er­ing strength and plan­ning its demise.

In 2008, Apple intro­duced the iPhone app store, pro­vid­ing a san­i­tized sub-set of the con­tent avail­able on the inter­net. Through 2010, Apple would con­tinue its attack on the open web, high­light­ing that iPhone apps were a bet­ter way to con­sume con­tent on the inter­net, while keep­ing those apps under tight con­trol through an opaque approval process. While many open web advo­cates screamed, the gen­eral pub­lic seemed per­fectly con­tent with the more restricted approach.

Mean­while, com­pa­nies like Twit­ter and Face­book cre­ated walled gar­dens on top of web tech­nol­ogy, clos­ing up access to con­tent that was cre­ated or used on their ser­vices. Cen­tral­ized on their own plat­forms, the ser­vices allowed to “sim­plify” user inter­ac­tion with the inter­net, while requir­ing reg­is­tra­tion and tight­en­ing con­trol as to what users could and couldn’t do with those services.

For the next decade, the num­ber of walled gar­dens increased and the web became increas­ingly balka­nized. By 2020, the open web was lim­ited to a group of roughly 1,000 web sites that were not acces­si­ble to the major­ity of inter­net users.

Originally published on June 28, 2010 in Politics, Technology . You may find related thoughts pieces under the following terms: , ,

  • http://clevershark.com Tony E.

    Watch out, you’ll be branded an Apple-basher for crit­i­ciz­ing the App Store :o )

    Per­son­ally I’m more con­cerned with the closed-door net neu­tral­ity nego­ti­a­tions that would lead estab­lished firms like Skype to lend their sup­port to ISP restric­tions as long as their apps are allowed to oper­ate within them. Basi­cally an appli­ca­tion of the “got mine, f— you” atti­tude that seems to per­me­ate Amer­i­can think­ing at the moment.

    • http://www.tnl.net/blog/ Tris­tan Louis

      We’re long past the point where I should be wor­ried about being branded as an Apple basher (my recent series of post should have got­ten the point across that I’m wor­ried about the iPad as a replace­ment for reg­u­lar computers.

      But it’s true that the net neuter-ality (not a typo, just try­ing to be funny) are also cause for concern.

  • Tom Can­non

    I can’t believe Jon Con­nor wasn’t there lead­ing the free web whilst the moms and pops worry about keep­ing their kids away from it. Did your news flash con­tain no hope for mankind. Hop­ing you get another flash­fwd with bet­ter news soon.

    • http://www.tnl.net/blog/ Tris­tan Louis

      Tom,

      That’s because the T-10000 finally went back to before his great-grandparents were born and pre­vented their birth (it was all in the western/ sci-fi mashup Ter­mi­na­tor 10k)

  • Ted shel­ton

    The his­tory of radio offers a use­ful his­tory les­son in an open medium becom­ing closed. Will “secu­rity” be the new “lim­ited air­waves” that com­pels us to build back the walls again? I sin­cerely hope not. But to roughly para­phrase our found­ing fathers in the US “the price of an open Inter­net is eter­nal vigilance”

    • http://www.tnl.net/blog/ Tris­tan Louis

      Ted,

      I’d love it if you were to elab­o­rate on the radio sim­ile since I’m not famil­iar with that his­tory. I do agree with your para­phrase, though :)

  • http://tedshelton.blogspot.com Ted Shel­ton

    Check out this brief arti­cle in Wired from the “why things suck” series on Radio:

    http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16–02/su_radio

    Back in the early days of radio there was lim­ited con­trol of radio fre­quen­cies — even after the FCC was estab­lished and licenses were being handed out there was lit­tle enforce­ment. So any­one could set up a trans­mit­ter (web­site) and broad­cast (host) con­tent for their local (global) com­mu­nity. But there was a con­cern that sta­tions would over­lap with each other so when I was try­ing to tune into the show I wanted, I might acci­den­tally get a dif­fer­ent one. So in came reg­u­la­tions and expen­sive licenses. Then came media own­er­ship rules that allowed econ­omy of scale to put these sta­tions in a small num­ber of hands.

    Could some­thing like that hap­pen with the Inter­net? Between secu­rity con­cerns and piracy con­cerns, there are cer­tainly lots of “rea­sons” to have more con­trol over who has a web­site. But per­son­ally I think this genie is too far out of the bot­tle. Any­one try­ing to stop the Inter­net now sim­ply makes their coun­try (state, town) less com­pet­i­tive then other places in the world.

    And there will be a lot of well argued resis­tance to such a path. But we should remain vigilant!

    • http://www.tnl.net/blog/ Tris­tan Louis

      Ted,

      Thanks for the extra details and the link. Part of the prob­lem is that it’s not so much stop­ping things as much as slow­ing things down. We might see small steps towards a more cen­sored net over time, each of them not much of an issue when looked at alone but, in the aggre­gate, end­ing up with a sub­stan­tial change in the wrong direction.