Back

MIT clearly appears to be negotiating with the expectation that they can get away with whatever, and with no care for the consequences.

On November 17 we saw terms that were unfair in that they made W3C carry the cost of MIT’s questionable accounting practices and failed to honour prior agreements, but that came with sufficient funds to support the continuation of W3C Inc.

Right before the Board's December 10-12 meeting, we received a draft contract from MIT with a worse offer.

It transferred liabilities much higher than the assets that came with and significantly decreased the funds that W3C would receive.

This jeopardised the Consortium’s viability but we sought to continue negotiating in good faith and looked for options to accelerate revenue to avoid cash flow issues.

Yesterday, the Board learnt that the financial balance that MIT is offering is actually much worse than previously stated due to additional liabilities that MIT has only just informed us of.

Except with a drastic reduction in staff, W3C would not have enough money to make it to the end of January based on the proposed agreement. And even then it would be unlikely to make it through Q1.

At this point it looks like we will not have an operational W3C nonprofit on Jan 1. Every Director will vote their conscience, but it seems likely that the asset transfer will be rejected, leaving MIT responsible for its contracts with W3C Members (for which they have paid).

No one knows what happens then.

We are actively figuring out how to re-hire the W3C/MIT staff so that we can continue operating in the new year.

I think the fact that MIT is holding people's jobs hostage over the holidays isn't lost on anyone.

If the nonprofit doesn't get the funds MIT owes us, we will progressively have to start transferring Members in the Americas to the other hosts in the EU, Japan, and China.

I'd be curious to see the face of US officials when they find out that American companies now have to participate in Web governance abroad. The geopolitics of standards are… interesting.

At any rate, creative ideas to fix this situation are welcome. The Board is continuing to work towards a solution.

I just thought that the Web community should know where things stand. I'll keep you posted.

@robin my *personal* opinion as a former AC member - this is the culmination of Google's plan to stop anyone who isn't a browser from having any say in the future of the web.
The only way I see forward (and I've only watched from the sidelines for a few years) is to start a new org and forge a new consensus. Which would have to acknowledge that some participants are hostile to the mission.

@Edent So, I 100% agree with you that both Google and browser-centricity are serious problems that we need to solve; however that doesn't mean that everything that goes wrong is Google's fault :)

In this case, having been on the inside, I don't think it is. It took a lot of mistakes to get us to this point. Happy to colour in details, but I'd need to start drinking…

@robin @Edent And it's not very heartening to hear a Director say "Google is a serious problem that we need to solve". Perhaps you could tell me in what way we've not been supportive?

@cdub @Edent Chris, as I said (several times now) I don't at all hold Google responsible for W3C's current woes. I'll add that I am thankful for the work you personally have done.

I do however believe that Google is a very serious problem for the Web and one that we need to solve. I don't think that I've been particularly discreet about this opinion or that it would surprise any Member who voted for me.

@robin @Edent The fact that centralization is a very serious problem we actually agree on. I would encourage you to dig back in the W3C Vision document effort to see who put "do not favor centralization" as core principle. (Spoiler alert, it was me: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/commit/0aeea69d280bcbdba903fa453184b1a3b403df6e)

@cdub @Edent I don't at all doubt that you wrote that there, but (and I know that I'm a broken record on this) centralisation isn't a magical thing that just happens like some kind of officer-involved centralisation — someone has to be doing the centralising. And while G has done some good work in some areas over the years, it's not like dominance today is the natural consequence of product quality. G is intentionally playing the market structure dynamics.

@robin @cdub

I'm not a fan of Google, but let's face it, their dominance of the web platform is because they invest more in it than everyone else put together. And they invest in browsers because their business model requires a high-quality web platform to keep people engaged and driving traffic to their search engine. And their search engine dominates because of "product quality" (and the fact that the decentralized web architecture requires search engines in order to be useable).

@robin @cdub

So: Centralization happens when decentralized networks aren't useable without a small number well-known entry points, amplified by Metcalfe's law and economies of scale. I have no clue how to fix that, other than balance of power politics among competing centralizers, accountability to governments, and judicious regulation.

@michaelchampion @cdub
So, I'd like to tease your point apart a little bit more Mike because I think a lot of folks (notably Googlers) agree with it, but I think that framing stopped being true some number of years ago.

I'd like to do so in keeping with @danbri's invitation to be "subtle" (https://mastodon.social/@danbri/109537452357129876). Hence preamble:

• This isn't at all an indictment of @cdub or @danbri or a whole bunch of other folks whose work I appreciate, including in occasional disagreement.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
• I am also not saying anything about G's W3C participation. Overall I think that it's pretty positive. I would have different priorities but it's reasonable for people to have different takes there.
• I would VERY much prefer to solve the problems we have WITH the G folks. I also don't want to get anyone in legal trouble. If that means the occasional closed doors/Chatham/safe harbour discussion, I'd be supportive.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
So — part 1, quality.

I'm not convinced that G search dominates due to "product quality" but for the sake of argument let's say it's true. Either of two things is possible:

1. Its market share more or less matches that which would result from superior quality under ideal market conditions, or
2. it doesn't.

If (1), then G should be *insisting* that browsers protect search competition because anything else would be a threat.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
Some rando like Musk could buy a browser and drive traffic away, or Apple could decide to pick a fight. Under dominance-from-quality assumptions, these are real strategic threats worth mitigating. In that case, let's all fix the browser/search model together.

If (2), then given the centrality of search & browsers, we have a *serious* problem. Even just 5% of that income redistributed would be *huge* for Web vitality and innovation. So same fix!

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
Part 2, governance.

At this kind of scale, what G does isn't just about quality but also governance. A nice property of governance systems is accountability. Again, sticking mostly to search since that was the example, I think that we have enough evidence of misgovernance (note that I'm not at all saying malicious, just bad) to expect accountability — but the browser/search feedback loop guarantees dominance so it just isn't possible.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
Part 3, societal impact.

Search is an editorial ranking of content — in fact the editorial decisions are the whole point, it's supposed to be opinionated, not random. Having an excessively dominant source of editorial decision-making is unhealthy for a society. A dynamic like the browser/search feedback loop that mechanically leads to search concentration is a problem for society. Browser UX that favours generalist search over verticals makes this even worse.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
Note that I think that there are ways in which we could address that issue while retaining a dominant indexer (see also next part). It would require some form of opening up control over ranking to users.

At any rate, worth solving for.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
Part 4, concentration.

Mike makes the point that the structure of search and network effects necessarily lead to what we have. I am less convinced but let's admit it. This takes us straight into a theory that search might be a natural monopoly (these aren't generally illegal, so this isn't an accusation).

I'd want some solid evidence, but it's a theory that I think it worth considering.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
If it is indeed the case, then that doesn't mean that it has to be nationalised. It could remain privately operated (and Google would still print a fuckload of money) but it would have to be governed differently, notably with a form of "infrastructure neutrality" in mind (that also helps with pt.3) and likely as an API to build on and not a site with a UI.

Again, looking at it this way there is still a major issue (here of governance) to address.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
So, to conclude: looking at only one G thing (I could repeat this for a couple of other aspects) and taking the most G-friendly assumptions (no malice, product quality, natural monopoly) I still find issues with G behaviour/market structuring that are (IMHO) significant harms to the Web and society.

I think it should be W3C's job to solve the Web's most pressing structural problems, and this is one of them.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
That does NOT mean that Googlers are evil, that G needs to be eliminated, that there is some evil plan, that G is controlling W3C, etc. Again, I'd *much* rather solve this with than to.

It's not the first time that we have a runaway giant that needs to be kept in check. I don't think it's outrageous, unsubtle, radical, or disrespectful to point that out as one of the biggest and hardest problems that we need to solve.

@robin @cdub @danbri

I was encouraged to see several people elected to the W3C Board who WANT W3C to become organizationally capable of solving real structural problems ... so I have a tiny bit of hope this will change. But it will require subtle diplomacy more than dynamite to work around the obstacles.

@robin @cdub @danbri

2. Wu argues (quoting from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Leonhardt-t.html)

'History shows a typical progression of information technologies,” he writes, “from somebody’s hobby to somebody’s industry; from jury-rigged contraption to slick production marvel; from a freely accessible channel to one strictly controlled by a single corporation or cartel — from open to closed system.” Eventually, entrepreneurs or regulators smash apart the closed system, and the cycle begins anew.'

@robin @cdub @danbri

3. That's been my experience in the tech industy -- In the 70's we bemoaned the dominance of IBM and ATT and dreamed of a world free of their self-preserving obstruction. In the '80s-90s they had been displaced and now Microsoft was the evil dominant power holding back progress. Then in the 2000's (ahem, I sold my soul and was assimilated into Microsoft) but Google became the oppressive central power on whom we blame everything

@robin @cdub @danbri

4.I don't know where that leaves us. AMP is a good case study / thought experiment. Sure, no elected governing body would have accepted it. Trouble is, it solved an actual user problem that the web architecture created and never found a consensus fix for. As far as I can tell, Google didn't so much exploit their power to force AMP on the world as create a palatable solution for users that leveraged and enhanced their own power as well.

@michaelchampion @robin @cdub @danbri

It leaves us to the insight that the more networking effects we have, the faster the economic concentration (and disaster, see Elon)

Economic concentration is known to obstruct the "controlled" capitalistic system. This is why we have competition authorities. But those are not fit for purpose, have rules from the sixties and are defunct for geopolitical reasons.

The issue is systemic and IMHO can't be solved by tech design.

@michaelchampion @robin @cdub @danbri

the latest trick of the EU Commission is to have rules (DMA, DSA, AI-Act etc) and to outsource the enforcement to certification. To do so, they mandate standardisation in the European Standardisation organizations.

This is is far away from our dreams of interoperability. Mandating interoperability would make a BIG deal preventing tech monopolies. Rules would have been simple. But no!

@robin You continue to double down on the statement "Google is a problem we need to solve", while claiming this doesn't mean anything like "Google needs to be eliminated." I DO actually recognize lots of systemic problems, and want to solve them - and as I pointed out, I HAVE BEEN engaging on those problems - but, as @michaelchampion said, all you are doing with this positioning is making it harder for ethical Googlers to engage.

@robin @michaelchampion When you want to turn the dialog from "Google needs to be fixed" to "How can we rebuild and change infrastructure to prevent these negative behaviors while making the best platform for users", let me know.

@cdub @michaelchampion
Ok, I'm willing to hear that. We can agree on the problems and disagree on how to label them. Let me try this differently.

Shipping browsers with a default search engine, often paid for, has a number of effects that are detrimental to people. It's a serious problem which we need to fix, including considering its impact on browser diversity. Is there someone on your end who'd be interested in working on that?

@robin @cdub

Well, the first casualty of ending browser search engine defaults would surely be Mozilla, and then probably a non-Chromium Safari. Is enhancing the Chromium monopoly an acceptable price to pay to fix the damage default search engine cause? I don't know. But it's not like the rest of the ecosystem will go on -- for better and worse -- if you "fix" the pollution-spewing engine driving the browser business model.

@michaelchampion @cdub
Right, that would be a pretty naive fix, if it could be called a fix at all. I think we can do significantly better than that, but I wasn't writing up solutions in this thread, just explaining the issues.

There's a group of people interested in solving this, I think it'll be a lot easier to discuss with some degree of a concrete proposal.

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri
Agreed — I don't think that G is a supervillain and I have no interest in casting them as one. I was only trying to carefully explain why I thought that if you have

1. a serious structural problem,
2. that can be solved, and
3. that is exclusively or predominantly exploited by company X

then I reckon you can call it "an X problem" without it being a vow to obliterate X in any way. Y'all made the case that's unhelpful either way; I'll stop.