Sir Tim (as opposed to Al Gore) invented the world wide web,* and he’s not entirely pleased with how his baby has been treated.

I had hoped that 30 years from its creation, we would be using the web foremost for the purpose of serving humanity. Projects like Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap and the world of open source software are the kinds of constructive tools that I hoped would flow from the web.

It was supposed to provide us with the entirety of human knowledge at our fingertips, plus the ability to hang around with our new friends from distant places, where we could hug and share and become one.

However, the reality is much more complex. Communities are being ripped apart as prejudice, hate and disinformation are peddled online. Scammers use the web to steal identities, stalkers use it to harass and intimidate their victims, and bad actors subvert democracy using clever digital tactics. The use of targeted political ads in the United States’ 2020 presidential campaign and in elections elsewhere threatens once again to undermine voters’ understanding and choices.

Tim Berners-Lee was far better at math than he was at understanding people or human history. Whether one prefers the cynical view that people are inherently awful and self-serving, or the more skeptical view that your claim of morality, justice and righteousness might not be nearly as universal a truth as you want it to be, people just keep doing what people do, making a mess of things.

The web needs radical intervention from all those who have power over its future: governments that can legislate and regulate; companies that design products; civil society groups and activists who hold the powerful to account; and every single web user who interacts with others online.

Does the web need “intervention”? Should the intervention be “radical”? Sir Tim says so, and since he invented the web, shouldn’t we pay special attention to him? Clearly, he’s an exceptionally smart person, and that certainly bodes well for his views. Then again, once he let the web out into the wild, his ownership interest abated and, well, being brilliant about one thing doesn’t make him brilliant about everything. Yet, he’s earned the authority to speak and the right to expect others to listen.

I’m introducing a new approach to overcome that stalemate — the Contract for the Web.

The Contract for the Web is a global plan of action created over the past year by activists, academics, companies, governments and citizens from across the world to make sure our online world is safe, empowering and genuinely for everyone.

Sir Tim’s “goals” are curious: safe, empowering and genuinely for everyone. They sound swell, and it’s hard to take issue with any of them individually, but they are inherently contradictory. The problem is that “everyone” comes at a price because people disagree, people have different ideals, people who are empowered to express or act upon their view of morality, justice and lulz are invariably in conflict with other people doing the same.

Who wins?

Principle 8

Build strong communities that respect civil discourse and human dignity

So that everyone feels safe and welcome online

Easier said than done, but there are some guidelines in the Contract.

1. By working towards a more inclusive Web:

1. Adopting best practices on civil discourse online and educating the next generation on these matters.
2. Committing to amplify the messages of systematically excluded groups, and standing up for them when they are being targeted or abused.
3. Taking steps to protect their privacy and security, and that of others, by choosing products and services thoughtfully, and articulating privacy preferences accordingly.
4. Refraining from participating in the non-consensual dissemination of intimate information that breach privacy and trust.

What those “best practices” are isn’t exactly clear, although the guidelines that follow seem to suggest that a “more inclusive web,” as the word “inclusive” suggests, embraces social justice ideology so that minority views are given precedence.

It’s unclear why they would be called “excluded groups,” since anyone with an internet connection has as much ability to be online as anyone else, and as much capacity to say any darn thing they want to say as anyone else. But I suspect that’s neither Sir Tim’s, nor the activists’ who complain bitterly that they aren’t being received with only love and adoration, as they believe themselves to be entitled for the sake of their safety and empowerment, interpretation.

It would certainly be great if everyone on the internet was kinder and gentler to each other, although some would argue that doesn’t apply to Nazis, fascists, racists and sexists, xenophobes, homophobes and transphobes, all of whom deserve to get punched, if not milk-shaked.

Is there a “best practices” that might improve what most of us recognize as the massive failing of the web to be less awful and destructive? Dan Solove and Woodrow Hartoz provided what might be the answer in “The Ultimate Unifying Approach to Complying With All Law and Regulations,” 19 Greenbag 2d 223. Or it would just be as much a cause for war as anything else mankind has ever come up with to fix what ails us.

*This originally said “World Wide Web,” but a certain ol’ man whose name shall not be mentioned started to whine because of my bastardization of the meme, and it broke my cold, hard heart.