When Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web in 1989, he imagined a shared space where anyone could publish, link and learn on equal terms. Today he warns that parts of that system have been “optimized for nastiness”, captured by platforms and business models that reward outrage and surveillance rather than openness. He now describes himself as locked in a battle for the web’s soul, but insists it is not too late to repair what has gone wrong and realign the network with its original promise.
His argument is not nostalgic. Berners-Lee is pairing a blunt diagnosis of the current Internet with a concrete technical and political agenda, from rethinking how personal data is stored to pushing governments and companies to sign up to basic principles of human rights online. The fight he sketches is less about saving a nostalgic past and more about deciding who will control the next decades of digital life.
The inventor who fears his creation is being weaponized
When Sir Tim Berners-Lee looks back at the World Wide Web he launched from Cern, where he created the web, HTML and HTTP on the outskirts of Geneva, he sees a forked path between the open infrastructure he designed and the commercial platforms that grew on top of it. In a recent interview timed at “Wed 28 Jan 2026 09.00 EST”, he recalled how his early vision was that it would be used by everyone, not dominated by a handful of gatekeepers, and he now warns that the struggle is over the “soul of the web” itself, not the underlying Internet infrastructure that still works largely as intended. That distinction matters, because it lets him argue that the core protocols remain sound while the layers of tracking, targeting and manipulation that have accreted above them are what need to be dismantled or rebuilt, a point underscored in detailed reporting on When Sir Tim.
He has been sounding this alarm for years, warning that the web is being “weaponized” through misinformation, opaque algorithms and data harvesting that erode trust and civic life. In one widely cited reflection, he argued that the threats are “real and many”, from disinformation campaigns to systems that undermine users’ rights, and called for coordinated action through initiatives such as the Web Foundation. That organization, which he helped establish, frames the problem as a mismatch between the speed of technological change and the slower evolution of laws and norms, a gap that has allowed what one analysis calls a growing “mismatch between technology and oversight” that becomes more skewed every day, as described in a detailed analysis.
From open dream to “optimized for nastiness”
Berners-Lee’s critique is sharpest when he contrasts the open, universal and free space he imagined with the reality of feeds tuned for outrage and engagement. When Sir Tim Berners-Lee first came up with the idea for the World Wide Web in 1989, he likened it to a library or a public square, but he now describes parts of social media and recommendation systems as “optimized for nastiness”, a phrase that captures how design choices can reward harassment, conspiracy and polarization. That shift from a web of links to a web of addictive timelines is at the heart of his concern that users have been lulled into complacent dependence on a few dominant platforms, a dynamic vividly illustrated in a profile that recounts how “They thought they were safe” until they realized how little control they had, a warning tied directly to the power of large Platforms.
He is not alone in that diagnosis. Commentators who “Rejoice all ye of fading faith in the internet” still echo his view that the original network of links has been overshadowed by closed ecosystems that monetize attention, a concern explored in coverage that credits Tim Berners-Lee as the architect of the original Internet “Links” and now a critic of its current trajectory, as seen in a detailed Rejoice feature. Another account notes that When Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web he saw it as a shared space for collaboration, but now warns that it is moving toward manipulation and control, a shift examined in depth in a report that traces how business incentives have reshaped the online environment.
Solid pods and a new architecture for personal data
To change that trajectory, Berners-Lee is not just issuing warnings, he is proposing a different technical architecture for how data is stored and shared. He argues that the Internet is in need of repair and conceived the project known as Solid as a first step to fix it, a way to give individuals control over their information rather than leaving it scattered across corporate servers, a goal spelled out in background material on Solid. In his description, Solid “pods” are like backpacks of data that are securely held by each individual, allowing them to choose what to share with apps and services, a metaphor he has repeated in interviews and that is elaborated in coverage explaining how Solid would let people move their data between services without being locked in.
In practical terms, that means users create their own “pods” where all their personal information lies, along with everything they publish online and data collected about them, instead of having that information siloed inside each app, a model described in detail in reporting on how Users would manage their digital lives. The official Solid project site describes this as a way to separate data from applications, while the company Inrupt, which Berners-Lee co-founded, is building commercial tools to make that model usable at scale, as outlined on the Inrupt site. One major milestone came when Inrupt turned overarching responsibility for Solid over to the Open Data Institute, a move described as a way to embed the technology in a broader ecosystem of data stewardship, a transition chronicled in a One profile.
Personal data privacy and the “backpack” web
At the heart of this redesign is a simple claim: Personal Data Privacy should not be an afterthought bolted onto ad-driven platforms, but the foundation of how the web works. Berners-Lee has argued that to get a start on fixing the problem he sees with the web, he wants to change the way data is held into what he calls a new version of the Internet that prioritizes personal sovereignty, a vision laid out in coverage explaining how Berners and Lee want to re-architect storage. That reporting notes that this new version would return control to those who generate the data, and even suggests that if it succeeds, much of today’s web could become obsolete, a stark prediction explored further in analysis of how today’s web might be displaced by pod-based services.
He often frames this as a response to users who assumed they were safe because they trusted big brands, only to discover how much data had been extracted and how little recourse they had. One profile recounts him saying “They thought they were safe” as a boat startled a flock of geese, using the scene to illustrate how platforms had lulled people into dependence where they need to ask for permission even to move their own information, a critique captured in the same They anecdote. In his more programmatic writing, he argues that on both points, we need stronger rules and better tools, and he has used the Web Foundation to push for a Contract for the Web that sets out commitments for governments, companies and citizens, a framework detailed on the Contract site and in a letter hosted by the Jul commentary.
