Jon von Tetzchner has been working on the internet since the start. The Icelandic programmer created Opera, one of the very first web browsers, in 1996. Although Opera was able to retain a loyal following throughout the Noughties, thanks to features such as tabs, the vicious browser wars eventually took their toll, and in 2011, with Opera struggling, von Tetzchner left the company.
Today, von Tetzchner is working on a new browser, Vivaldi, aimed at heavy internet users – and at the same time worrying about the state of the web. We caught up with him at "Davos for dissidents" Oslo Freedom Forum, where he proposed a new solution to the problem of propaganda online.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
WIRED: What’s happened to the internet? Has something gone wrong?
Read more: Tim Berners-Lee: governments are 'trampling on our rights to privacy'
Jon von Tetzchner: In some ways, it's a case of Empire Strikes Back. The nice thing about the internet is it gives us all ways to communicate; you have equal possibility to get your voice heard. That's a wonderful thing. The problem is people have been finding out how to use those same channels to get propaganda through the channels we use to communicate.
Part of the problem is actually lack of privacy. The fact you can target people in the extent you can today is great for advertisers. They can get your ads as tailored as possible. At the same time it reduces the value of news sources because they compete for clicks: they become clickbait.
That's a problem if we want to make sure quality content continues to be freely available and that's crucial because when quality content is removed it can be replaced by content that is, in the worst case, simply propaganda.
The tools we made for the internet are being misused. Partly that’s because we have let privacy go out the window and I think we need to reverse that.
Read more: Google's ad-tracking just got more intrusive. Here's how to opt out
WIRED: Who’s responsible for that?
JvT: There are many people responsible. On the technical side, when you have a company it's so easy to say: “We're just doing what the customer wants and the paying customer wants more targeting.” And it's a slippery slope.
Then there are politicians who think privacy isn't important, that no-one cares about privacy. They're not seeing the bigger picture. This is not only about irritating ads – about things that you looked at or bought two weeks ago following you around on sites – it's about the potential of analysing who you are.
There's a number of startups combining psychology and big data to analyse what people are doing. This could be a good thing. But we are seeing targeting based on your beliefs, based on who you are, based on your way of being. We saw the result of that in the American elections with Cambridge Analytica. This is the way things are going.
Technologists have to be careful. They’re playing with power. The ability to influence people in this way is something they need to think about. What are you doing? Why are you doing it? Are you building a weapon for good or a weapon for bad?
WIRED: What can we do about this?
JvT: In some ways it's a question of will. A quick solution is just to ban it. We could say tomorrow: this kind of targeting, this kind of collection of data, is no longer allowed. We didn't have the ability to collect data at this level before so why, because it's possible, do we do it now?
With technology, it's always very tempting to do whatever you can, but you have to think about the consequences for society. And if we are collecting too much information and we are making that information usable for bad things then that's a problem. So the quick solution is to say, "okay, let's get rid of it".
WIRED: The companies would say they need this ability to provide their services
**JvT:**We don't need ads that are personal. You can just get ads that are based on location. That would change the equation back to where it was 10 years ago. Is that a bad thing? I'm not so sure. There are decisions to be made. Maybe there is a different solution, but banning targeting would actually do it.
This is also a way to do things without going too far into what is effectively censorship. The situation we have now is a situation where the solution may be even worse than the problem. We could enter into a world where censorship becomes more prevalent. In the US, for example, people are complaining that Facebook, Twitter and Google aren’t doing their job in stopping fake news. But that's a kind of censorship. Why do we need this tracking? What value does it give us as a user? I don't really see much value there.
WIRED: Who could tell the tech companies to stop tracking?
JvT: Most of the larger companies are US based so, in a lot of ways, the US has the say. I think you would see an effect if the EU was to put laws in place that would put stricter privacy rules and targeting rules. That would change the situation.
The trouble is, the US is heading in the wrong direction. Its saying: “So Facebook and Google can collect all this information and target you with ads. Shouldn't ComCast and AT&T be able to do the same?" That's just making the problem bigger. It's not their equal right to our private information. It's wrong.
A few years back I remember having discussions on what we could collect and how we could use it. What is happening today is way beyond what we would think as being prudent or right at any one time.
WIRED: What do you think of the proposed change to net neutrality?
JvT: It's terrible. Net neutrality is a term that people don't necessarily understand, but it just means equal access to information and equal access to services that provide information. That continues to be really important. Any reversal there is terrible, just like the reversal to say that Comcast and AT&T and similar companies can also get into the game of collecting our data and monitoring us and showing us tailored ads. It's a step in the wrong direction and I think it's something we need to continue to fight for.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
