You Don’t Have to be in Silicon Valley to Rebuild the Internet
Perhaps it might sound contradictory to be saying this as we arrive in San Francisco for the second Decentralized Web Summit, but we have a concern that now is not a good time to be associated with Silicon Valley; particularly the Silicon Valley of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. It is no surprise that we are not fans of the way these companies have become part of an oligarchy running today’s online world.
We have always been strong advocates for returning control of data to users. However, as we meet to debate the future of the internet and demonstrate the progress we have made with our decentralised technologies, it is vital that the message coming out of the Summit very much aligns with one of the key themes of the event, “Global Visions,” rather than “Silicon Valley Visions.”
The reasons are simple. Firstly, the worldwide web is exactly that — it has taken contributions from individuals around the world to turn it into a robust, viable platform. Its originator was a Brit, who was working in Switzerland with a bunch of international scientists. Of course, the US has made a huge contribution from the early days of ARPANET through to the work of Vint Cerf, Marc Andreessen and many others — today’s internet would not be possible without such critical innovation. However, the original work was not just confined to labs in Silicon Valley and we believe that now the power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of companies it has contributed to the negative impact on today’s worldwide web.
The biggest problem is centralisation both from a business and technology perspective. The technical flaw with centralisation is the concentration of data on servers, which have become honeypots for hackers and massive points of failure — AWS’s inability to cope with demand for Amazon Prime Day shows why being overly reliant on one technology platform is a bad thing. This centralised server model has also encouraged the centralised business model of the worldwide web. It has allowed Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook to build huge pools of data about us, which no one can really compete with. It has allowed Google and Facebook to control nearly 95% of digital advertising, which is completely detrimental for customer choice. Therefore, we have to break away from centralisation.
Secondly, while Silicon Valley has been seen as the heart of technology innovation since at least the 1960s it is fair to say that it is going through an identity crisis. Coming in for huge criticism from regulators, activists and the general public for showing a complete disconnect with the social and economic impact of the internet there is a danger this will undermine our attempts to show how technology can be used for good.
The Decentralized Web Summit is one environment showing how technology can be used to increase the privacy of users, maintain freedom of speech and protect individuals from unwanted surveillance from authoritarian Governments. Our concern is that by hosting the event in Silicon Valley some could automatically leap to the conclusion that we are all part of the same sordid mess, which in turn could entangle the decentralised web in the current debates about how to regulate the existing worldwide web.
Of course anyone involved with the Summit knows this opposite is true, but there has been some telling commentary in the last couple of days from Rana Foroohar for the Financial Times highlighting the negative effects on innovation and productivity caused by concentrating power in the hands of small number of companies, as well as signalling that the era of self-regulation is coming to an end: “In a world where Big Tech has the power not only to fan the flames of hate speech and fake news, but also remove it when and where it likes, it is clear that the internet is a fundamentally different place than it was in 1996 — one that needs fundamentally different rules.”
While at MaidSafe we absolutely accept that the internet and technology in general has moved on dramatically since it was first invented, we disagree with many commentators that old world solutions (read “regulation”) are the answer. If we accept that the pace of technology is outstripping how we regulate the internet, then why are we not considering more radical solutions? Solutions that take account not of today’s technology infrastructure, but appreciate the impact that the technologies discussed at the Decentralized Web Summit will have on the future.
The challenge is that although decentralised web technologies are making dramatic progress they are not quite mainstream yet so it is understandably difficult for everyone to grasp how they will interact with them. This is a challenge for everyone at the Decentralized Web Summit and it is exactly why internet pioneers and innovators are gathering in San Francisco. It would be great if mainstream policy makers, key influencers among the mainstream media and activists were involved in this discussion. This, though, will mean suspending our current collective understanding how the worldwide web operates commercially and socially, because it will demand a complete overhaul of the concept of “freemium.”
Users should have a “kill switch” for their data
The decentralised web will hand control of data back to individuals. In the first instance it will mean users can decide who to grant access to their data and they will be able to cut off that access whenever they want. Of course, the online giants will argue that they are doing more and more to give users control of their personally identifiable information, but ultimately there is no simple “kill switch” to ensure consumer data is not used without permission. The same online giants will also say that the “unspoken” bargain with users is the delivery of free services, which users do not want to pay for; our response to that is if users do not want to pay for services then are they are actually even valuable services?
At MaidSafe we believe the technology behind the decentralised web will force the internet oligarchy to reset its relationship with users. Perhaps this sounds idealistic today, because mainstream audiences do not understand how it will work in practice, but the decentralised model will demand more from online vendors. Surely, this is a good thing!
If we are not reliant on this exchange of personal data for “free” services it will force radical change on the business models of the incumbent vendors. Frankly, this is no different to the impact that every technology inflection point has had on society and economics, so we should see the decentralised web as no more impactful or innovative. The “Amazon effect” has been felt by many large businesses, who thought they were immune to disruption. Perhaps it might be difficult envisage a world where Google, Amazon and Facebook are subject to massive disruption, but we believe that time is coming. In the near term it will give users greater control of their identity, which will minimise the potential for a Cambridge Analytica to exploit our data. In the longer-term the visionary companies will understand the impact of the decentralised web on economic models.
We are developing the SAFE Network to be autonomous, because we do not want any level of human interference in how the value of the network is set and rewards are distributed among farmers and app developers. This approach will be fairer, because it will set the lowest possible price, so that those paying for the service are not penalised and those providing the service will receive fair value for their service or application. The exciting opportunity will be building a model where individual users are rewarded in crypto-currencies for sharing their data in return for services. This is not idealistic it is feasible, because the SAFE Network will work in conjunction with blockchain immutable ledger technologies that can validate transactions.
And this brings me back to the central point of this article. We do not believe that the future of the internet will be decided by one company. It will be companies working together. We see huge value in blockchain technologies for validating transactions, but we believe the SAFE Network will be better for protecting data, because it will make it untraceable to everyone except its owner. We need to ensure we stick to the “Global Visions” that the Decentralized Web Summit wishes to promote. It is why we have decided to fully open source the source code for the SAFE Network and are releasing a string of key technologies, including our new approach to consensus PARSEC.
This is the opposite of the business model that the worldwide web has created. If the decentralised web is to succeed we have to break up the Silicon Valley oligarchy and its approach to dominating online commerce. The technology to make this possible is rapidly maturing and will soon be ready to disrupt the status quo. What we need now is radically different thinking about the implications for society and the economy. We must step away from using existing approaches, such as regulation, to what will be an entirely different way of interacting with the internet. This will bring challenges, such as the anonymity it will offer to both good and bad actors, but we have always found solutions. What we cannot do is assume all the answers will or should come from Silicon Valley.
