On February 26, 2025, in Oxford, United Kingdom, the creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, once again asserted that a new WWW is possible.
About a year ago, Berners-Lee published an open letter explaining his reasons for wanting to change the current state of the WWW, as well as the direction he believes should be taken to alter the current situation.
In that document, he stated that the web was intended to be a tool to empower humanity, which it achieved in its early years through a great diversity of content and the facilitation of small community creation. However, in recent times, he argues, the web has done the opposite due to excessive centralization, control over the information people receive, and the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, demonstrating that the web’s problems are not isolated but deeply intertwined with emerging technologies.
For Berners-Lee, the web has ceased to serve the public good, instead succumbing to the forces of capitalism, leading to monopolies. Furthermore, its “governance” has failed, partly because regulatory measures have not kept pace with technological development, widening the gap with effective oversight.
He believes that good governance and institutional responsibility are as necessary as the work of scientists and developers. The essential idea is that the core of the web should be “the intentions of individuals” rather than the exploitation of people’s “attention,” which is the focus of the current business model.
In this vein, he announced the development of the so-called Solid Protocol, which adds two additional layers to the web, allowing users to control their personal information rather than being dominated by the companies that currently govern the web. This tool is already being implemented in some areas, such as through the local authority in Flanders, Belgium.
But there is something else that also matters: public reaction against the current state of affairs, a factor that did not exist when the web was promoted as an open and decentralized space.
Along these lines, the well-known philosopher Eric Sadin, author of works including The Era of the Tyrant Individual, which analyzes current liberalism in the age of cybernetics, proposes moving from criticism to action by creating what he calls a “counter-summit on artificial intelligence” in opposition to the official summit held in mid-February in Paris.
In recent interviews, Sadin has argued that AI should be viewed as being at the nodal point of two antagonistic worldviews: on one side, a terminal stage of capitalism that, from its inception, has treated humanity as an adjustable variable; on the other side, the aspiration to express the best of humanity without harming people or the biosphere.
In the current stage, Sadin argues, it is crucial to give voice to the people so they can share the concrete impacts of AI in areas such as education, linguistics, and politics, while paying less attention to the technicians and business leaders whose vested interests are evident and who, among other things, conceal the disastrous environmental impacts of these new technologies.
Denunciation and advocacy activities are essential and urgent, without waiting for initiatives from the political sphere, where lobbying forces are too strong to expect profound changes to originate from authorities or legislators.
Sadin’s assertion is clearly supported by the images from Donald Trump’s inauguration, where the front rows were filled with the leading figures of major tech companies who, by paying homage to the new president, also sought and continue to seek support for their ventures. Not to mention, of course, the owner of Platform X, who plays a prominent role in the U.S. government that began in January 2025.
Although neither Sadin nor Berners-Lee elaborates on the idea, it seems evident that in this effort to change the current trend of control and content on the internet, the role of the state appears to be essential. This role extends not only to regulation (a path already pursued by the European Union at least up to the recent Paris summit) but also to developing platforms and alternatives to the sector’s mega-corporations.
Among other options, it is the state (a different kind of state than those we generally see today) that could help revive the idea of the common good and collective benefits in contrast to the extreme individualism so widely promoted today.
Sadin invokes a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville that is well worth recalling here:
“There is nothing less independent than a free citizen. A free citizen is not independent precisely because they are always involved in some collaboration with other citizens. And from this collaboration, collective well-being can be born.”