What a difference 30 years make. To mark three decades since he submitted his Internet proposal, Sir Tim Berners-Lee says that global action is required to tackle the web’s ‘downward plunge to a dysfunctional future’.
Sir Tim has identified three main areas of dysfunction today: ‘Deliberate, malicious intent’ (such as State-sponsored hacking and online harassment), ‘System design that creates perverse incentives’ (such as clickbait), and ‘Unintended negative consequences’ (such as polarised online discussions). Who of us could really disagree with such a diagnosis? These flaws are all too commonly felt by ordinary users.
Regulation remedy?
Sir Tim’s cure for these three diseases is to create new laws based on a ‘contract for the web’ with governments, then translating this contract into laws and regulations for our digital age. What is very striking about these proposals is how different they are to the ‘open web’ ideology that underpinned the web’s conception. At the time, the early web community that birthed the Internet was driven by revolutionary ideas like decentralisation, universality, bottom-up design, and consensus. The Homebrew Computer Club – a group of digital inventors in the US, that included Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Wozniak (Apple) – was deeply influenced by the West Coast radical student movement which eschewed control and laws. The narrative from the early days was clear: liberate the computer from control and regulation and it will thrive.
It is more than a little strange then to see the web’s inventor advocating greater regulation. But then again we shouldn’t be surprised because it is a common theme. In 2010 when Steve Jobs was alive he cut hard against the grain of the web community’s ideals by banning any app that was deemed pornographic in nature.
Theological roots
Anyone who has a robust understanding of doctrine of sin won’t be surprised by this. But in his piece Sir Tim says that blaming ‘the human spirit’ is simplistic and doesn’t get to the root cause. So will his notion of greater regulation fix the problem? This is where the conversation becomes profoundly theological. Does imposing a greater or better law on a situation ever fix the problem?
On one hand regulation is important as a restraining hand on human sin (Romans 13:3-5). In our globalised world it has been a huge problem that there is no global body or coalition able to regulate the web or call multinational companies such as Facebook to account. The idea that they will self-regulate was always tragically naive. On the other hand no laws, no matter how well implemented, will go far enough because they do not get to the heart of the problem. What is needed is a reorientation of desires. Only when we love rightly can we ‘fulfil the law’ (Romans 13:8).
What can we do?
All this means that Christians should be passionate about engaging in the ideological webspace with the gospel. Surely the idea that this is a ‘niche’ area must be so laughable now that it can no longer justify our lack of prayerful reflection and witness in this domain. We also need to cultivate digital virtues that flow out of a heart of love in Christ as we seek to be salt and light online. Why not start a conversation with friends and family about the fruit of the Spirit and what its nine different aspects would look like online? Here’s a start on the first three:
• Love. What motivates what you view or share online? What does a love for God and others, rather than a self-love, look like in what and how you share?
• Joy. How can your online conversation promote joy rather than negativity?
• Peace. Does your online engagement cause you peace or anxiety? What specific things online rob you of your peace? (e.g. are you anxious because you are addicted to your device or to a particular forum like Instagram?) How might this period of Lent be used to relocate your peace in Christ by ‘fasting’ from this?
