Sir Tim Berners-Lee, computer expert, creator of the internet and an all-around decent individual, penned some thoughts in The Evening Standard<\/a> earlier this week, contending that division, conspiracies, and mental health dilemmas online arise from design shortcomings that must be addressed \u2014 even if that necessitates regulation<\/em>. <\/p>\n The article is directly based on chapter 13, \u201cDesign Issues,\u201d from his newly published book \u201cThis Is for Everyone: The Unfinished Story of the World Wide Web<\/a>,\u201d which I recommend everyone read.<\/p>\n I concur with Berners-Lee\u2019s assessment. Yet regulation is not the remedy. The web\u2019s deterioration is not simply a design mishap; it is equally an economic issue. Design decisions are influenced by incentives, and those incentives have been skewed by fiat currency and the advertising model it supports. Inexpensive capital from the fiat-driven venture capital landscape diverted Silicon Valley from hacker-centric engineering towards surveillance-based profit generation.<\/p>\n To remedy the internet, we require open-source protocols and open-source currency.<\/p>\n The internet can be rectified without regulation. However, we cannot devise a solution while disregarding the monetary challenges that influence design. The economic environment \u2014 quarterly shareholder dominance and fiat inflation \u2014 pressures businesses to emphasize engagement, outrage, and surveillance advertising. Bitcoin alters this equation. It alleviates inflationary pressures and potentially disrupts the advertising model by facilitating new monetization methods<\/a> that align with user interests rather than exploit them. When paired with open protocols, Bitcoin serves as a catalyst for a more liberated, ethical web.<\/p>\n Berners-Lee identifies two primary symptoms: division and mental health deterioration. He is correct.<\/p>\n Berners-Lee states: <\/strong> Division is tangible. Yet amplification goes in both directions. The very algorithms that bring conspiracy theories to the forefront also elevate truths that mainstream media may overlook. In a climate of censorship and propaganda, this amplification has occasionally served as the sole means for truth to emerge.<\/p>\n The deeper problem is that individuals no longer inhabit the same reality. A breaking news story splinters into conflicting narratives based on whether it disseminates via Twitter, TikTok, Bluesky, or Reddit; whether shaped by left-leaning fact-checkers or right-leaning commentators; whether summarized by Grok or ChatGPT. Each group delegates \u201ctruth formation\u201d to its own authorities, who are incentivized to provide emotionally favorable facts. LLMs can also fabricate synthetic personas to disrupt dialogue at scale. Regulation will not restore trust here \u2014 as the issue is not solely what circulates, but how trust is cultivated in the first place.<\/p>\n However, algorithms are tailored for outrage since outrage is lucrative. Regulation will not alter this, as it\u2019s as much an economic concern as it is a technical one.<\/p>\n As Neal Howe and William Strauss elucidate in \u201cThe Fourth Turning<\/a>,\u201d we find ourselves in a crisis period: Consensus deteriorates, power shifts, and old structures disintegrate. Practically, this translates to increased friction online \u2014 tribal feeds, narrative conflicts, and escalating coordination costs. In other words, we should anticipate the wreckage visible today, and there are steps we can take to address it.<\/p>\n Berners-Lee remarks:<\/strong> <\/em> I concur, social media is both liberating and damaging. Search inquiries related to anxiety surge alongside usage, and the list of harms is extensive: depression, feelings of inadequacy, body image struggles, isolation. This is certainly an issue that warrants repair.<\/p>\n Berners-Lee asserts: <\/strong> This is not by chance. Over twenty years ago, executives and engineers in Silicon Valley learned how to design addictive systems at BJ Fogg\u2019s Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford (his book, for those interested, is titled \u201cPersuasive Technology<\/a>\u201d), with some even attending retreats at his residence to delve deeper into these concepts. The *Like* button, infinite scroll, and red notification alerts were all derived from his teachings and were crafted to hijack dopamine pathways.<\/p>\n Jack Dorsey, addressing the Oslo Freedom Forum in 2024<\/a>, discussed the harm inflicted by the algorithms developed by these companies:<\/p>\n \u201cThe genuine discussion should revolve around free will. We are being programmed based on our expressed interests, and through these discovery mechanisms, we are instructed on what is engaging \u2014 and as we engage with this content, the algorithm increasingly develops this bias.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Dorsey has previously mentioned how Twitter began as a protocol<\/a> vision before venture capital diverted it towards growth, control, and ad monetization. Having witnessed the corruption of that vision, it\u2019s no mere coincidence that Dorsey now supports open-source protocols like Nostr<\/a>, Bitchat<\/a>, and previously Bluesky<\/a>. His investments confirm that platforms cannot be reformed internally. Only protocols, inherently open, can safeguard free will from algorithmic capture.<\/p>\n Berners-Lee has proposed that algorithms could be redesigned to maximize joy rather than outrage. It\u2019s a commendable vision, one I wish were achievable \u2014 but under current incentives, it is not. Research indicates that high-arousal emotions, especially anger, disseminate more rapidly<\/a> than calmness or positive sentiments.<\/p>\n Past attempts to pivot have proven costly. For example, when Facebook modified its News Feed in 2018 to mitigate harmful content, users… spent 50 million fewer hours daily on the site<\/a> and publishers experienced a traffic downturn. Recent assessments verify the identical trend: Platforms that demote contentious content observe significant declines in engagement and revenue. (Related research can be found here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here.<\/a>)<\/p>\n As long as corporations are obligated by their fiduciary responsibility to enhance shareholder profits, regulators cannot compel them to intentionally earn less as long as outrage is more lucrative than happiness.<\/p>\n Berners-Lee has consistently been one of the internet\u2019s staunch supporters<\/a>. He advocated for net neutrality, encryption, and decentralization. He cautioned against surveillance long before it became trendy. He has been a proponent of open participation and user empowerment.<\/p>\n Therefore, it is somewhat unexpected for Berners-Lee to acknowledge that oversight may be essential. He even cites bad-faith figure Yuval Noah Harari to bolster this argument:\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf a social media algorithm suggests a hate-fueled conspiracy theory to individuals, the blame lies not with the creator of the conspiracy theory, but with those who engineered and unleashed the algorithm.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n While I reluctantly agree with Harari in this context, let\u2019s not forget who we\u2019re engaging with. He is a World Economic Forum<\/a> favorite, a steadfast proponent of technocratic solutions and someone who has referred to bitcoin as a currency of mistrust<\/a>. His perspective tends toward centralization, surveillance, and governmental power. His reasoning is cloaked in logic but promotes less autonomy and increased control.<\/p>\n Berners-Lee acknowledges: \u201cWhile I typically resist regulating the web, in this case, I concur.\u201d<\/em> I regret to say that regulation is a precarious slope we should strive to avoid.<\/p>\n It\u2019s due to<\/em> Berners-Lee’s status as a defender of the internet that his acceptance of regulation seems somewhat defeatist. Has the unrelenting rise of algorithmic manipulation, misinformation, and addictive design worn him down? Possibly. However, regulation is not the solution.<\/p>\n Another note on regulation\u2026 When governments intervene, they solidify incumbents and employ \u201csafety\u201d as a pretext for censorship. They are also profoundly inept \u2014 the EU\u2019s cookie regulation<\/a> is an exemplary case: It benefited no one, accomplished nothing, and left users grappling with irritating pop-ups.<\/p>\n True democracy online should be crowdsourced and constructed with open protocols \u2014 guidelines without rulers.<\/p>\n Now let\u2019s address the core issue. The principal concern is fiat currency. Its complete implementation in 1971 represented a pivotal moment: productivity continued to rise, but real wages stagnated. WTF Happened in 1971?<\/a> illustrates the divergence starkly \u2014 inequality, debt, housing expenses, and social decline all surged after Nixon severed the last tie to gold.<\/p>\n Prior to 1971, prices and wages were relatively consistent. For centuries, under sound money, there was balance. During the brief classical gold standard, the Belle \u00c9poque<\/a> ushered in a golden era of innovation and relative abundance. Prices remained stable, and by most indicators, life thrived. That stability evaporated once fiat money became prevalent.<\/p>\n Since that time, and at an accelerating rate, individuals have had to exert more effort for diminishing returns. Companies have been compelled to extract more productivity while becoming less ethical. Recall Google\u2019s \u201cDon\u2019t be evil\u201d<\/a> slogan? This is likely the malignant force that led Sergey, Larry, and Eric to lose their innocence.<\/p>\n Speaking of Google, its advertising model dismantled the traditional media business model, rendering it reliant on state funding and corporate sponsorships. Governments now utilize media as PR tools, which is a significant contributor to the polarization problem we are witnessing online.<\/p>\n The venture capital model, driven by low-cost fiat credit, distorted Silicon Valley motivations from hacker-led innovation to surveillance-driven profit extraction. Centralization and monopolization are characteristics of easy credit and the Cantillon effect.<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Jeff Booth estimates technology exerts a natural deflationary influence of approximately 5% annually<\/a>, while Saifedean Ammous contends that actual inflation \u2014 not CPI, but monetary expansion \u2014 hovers around 15-16%. Governments counter deflation with currency creation; companies respond by demanding more from users in an ever-accelerating race to the bottom.<\/p>\n The result is apparent in equity markets: the Mediocre 493<\/a> enterprises on the S&P 500 are fundamentally deteriorating, and the S&P, propelled by the Magnificent 7<\/a>, essentially reflects the money supply.<\/p>\n “““html<\/p>\n And resting upon fiat, fiduciary obligations and quarterly disclosures entrapped organizations in a direct confrontation with inflation. Fiduciary obligations, entrenched in 19th-century U.S. legislation, merely mandated directors to operate in shareholders\u2019 best interests. However, the SEC\u2019s 1970 directive for quarterly 10-Q disclosures \u2014 coupled with Milton Friedman\u2019s 1970 article in the New York Times<\/a> asserting that the singular duty of business is to enhance profits \u2014 solidified the ethos of \u201cquarterly capitalism.\u201d<\/em> <\/p>\nWhat Went Awry with World Wide Web<\/h2>\n
1. Division and Deterioration of Collective Reality<\/h3>\n
\u201cThe most alarming symptom is polarization. Social media, as it currently functions, drives users to adopt extreme political stances and vilify the opposing side. This complicates constructive interaction, permits bizarre conspiracy theories to thrive, and favors demagoguery over reasoned discussion.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n2. Mental Well-being and Addictive Algorithms<\/h3>\n
\u201cMany social media participants report experiencing mental health challenges following extended usage. The list of ailments associated with social media is concerning: anxiety, depression, envy, feelings of inadequacy, isolation, and body image issues.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\u201cSocial media firms are utilizing machine-learning techniques to render users addicted to their platforms. These systems are intentionally addictive, inundating people with increasingly extreme content, leading to alternating feelings of anger and sadness.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n
\n“““html<\/p>\nOversight of the Internet<\/h2>\n
\n
The Economic Challenges of a Free and Thriving Internet<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn-ileamcn.nitrocdn.com\/BngESKHdyFjXuZbvyAhEMmtQtwLKSKkU\/assets\/images\/optimized\/rev-c3df002\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/image-60.png\" "\\"A")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn-ileamcn.nitrocdn.com\/BngESKHdyFjXuZbvyAhEMmtQtwLKSKkU\/assets\/images\/optimized\/rev-c3df002\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/image-61-1024x791.png\" "\\"A")
<\/figure>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn-ileamcn.nitrocdn.com\/BngESKHdyFjXuZbvyAhEMmtQtwLKSKkU\/assets\/images\/optimized\/rev-c3df002\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/image-62-1024x594.png\" "\\"A")
<\/figure>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn-ileamcn.nitrocdn.com\/BngESKHdyFjXuZbvyAhEMmtQtwLKSKkU\/assets\/images\/optimized\/rev-c3df002\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/image-63.png\" "\\"A")
<\/figure>\n