Home Data-Driven Thinking We Can’t Let The Open Web Become A ‘Tragedy Of The Commons’

We Can’t Let The Open Web Become A ‘Tragedy Of The Commons’

SHARE:
James Rosewell headshot

Data-Driven Thinking” is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Today’s column is written by James Rosewell, founder and CEO at 51Degrees

The web was built on the vision that it would be free to the world as a public good and basic right for all.

While in many ways, the web has lived up to this vision, it has become a challenge to keep it open.

But this challenge we face – driven largely by trillion-dollar market cap oligopolies looking to enclose the “open web” to advance their own commercial objectives – is nothing new.

In a 1968 paper “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Garrett Hardin described the fate of a common pasture that was poorly managed and overconsumed from people acting in their own self interests. He portrayed the collective action that spoiled this shared resource as a tragedy, but the real tragedy is the notion that shared resources must be privatized to be sustainable. 

But, as Nobel Prize-winner Elinor Ostrom has found, common regimes can be successful when resource cultivators are involved in the rule-making process and conflict-resolution mechanisms are easy to access.

Open web

“The Tragedy of the Commons” is a powerful metaphor for the web, a resource now used by more than 4.5 billion people globally.

We are at a point in history where if we don’t protect the open web from overzealous corporate control and take the time to find an enduring solution, future historians could be writing about “The Tragedy of the Open Web.”

What can you do about it?

To prevent this fate, all corners of the ecosystem must make their voices heard. 51Degrees and other members of the W3C’s Improving Web Advertising Business Group have put forward a draft charter to the W3C to form the Decentralized Web Interest Group. Its mission is simple: to identify and mitigate unintended consequences of new web proposals before they are adopted as standards. Underrepresented groups will be considered, and the current “browser knows best” approach will be thoroughly challenged.

We need more disciplines to be involved, a view shared by Mark Nottingham, co-chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and QUIC Working Groups and a member of the Internet Architecture Board. In a recent blog post exploring why IETF decisions should favor internet end users in conflicts between the interests of end users and other parties, Nottingham says that the internet’s challenges require input from policymakers, civil society, citizens, businesses and technologists.

“Without good communication, policymakers are prone to making rules that don’t work with the technology, and technologists are prone to creating technology naive to its policy implications,” he writes.

I agree. We need those affected by the changes proposed by the trillion-dollar oligopolies to speak out. Apple’s threat to kill off mobile advertising IDs will jeopardize the revenues for all iOS apps or perpetuate the monopoly of Apple’s payment solutions. Google’s Privacy Sandbox will similarly impact the decentralized, diverse and open web and could drive even more people toward its own dominant services. It is a blatant abuse of dominant market position to bundle consent with the use of essential services as currently practiced by vertically integrated platforms.

Magical solutions such as contextualbrowser APIs or authentication solutions won’t solve these problems. We need to talk about how we can design a better web.

Unlike humanity’s other challenges, which require immediate attention and action, we can take the time needed to properly address the existential threat facing the world’s primary information and communication technology. We have the opportunity to produce a phenomenal open, competitive, enduring and decentralized web, without enclosing it in a series of walled gardens.

In the words of George Santayana, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” History will judge us; I want to be proud of what they write.

Follow James Rosewell (@jwrosewell), 51Degrees (@51Degreesmobi) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Tagged in:

Must Read

Don’t Worry About Netflix – It’s Doing Fine Without Warner Bros. Discovery

Paramount might have outlasted and outbid Netflix in the competition to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, but Netflix is not overly fussed about the loss.

Paramount’s Upfront Pitch Is About Three Things

Paramount is merging the ad tech stacks behind Paramount+ and Pluto TV, releasing a new performance product, offering more control over ad placements and introducing dynamic ad insertion in live sports.

Hard Truths For Retail Media At The IAB Connected Commerce Summit

The IAB’s Connected Commerce event in New York City this week felt to me like the retail media industry’s first sit-down explanation to a child who is now a “big kid” and must act accordingly.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

Meta Is Launching An Easy Button For CAPI

Meta is simplifying its CAPI setup and teaching its pixel new tricks, including adding an AI-powered feature that automatically pulls in data from an advertiser’s website.

TelevisaUnivision Joins The Streaming Self-Service Bandwagon

TelevisaUnivision is the latest TV publisher to join the self-serve trend that’s rising in popularity across connected TV advertising. Its streaming inventory is now available to buy through fullthrottle.ai’s self-serve platform. The collaboration includes an ad bidder designed to improve both targeting and measurement.

Comic: Gamechanger (Google lost the DOJ's search antitrust case)

For Google Advertisers Who Overpaid The Monopoly – Don’t Hate, Arbitrate

Law firm Keller Postman is leading mass arbitration suits against Google, seeking advertiser damages for alleged monopoly overpricing. The total available pot is a quarter-trillion dollars.