Add a principle of "Origin Sovereignty"

[darobin]

Dear AB friends,

this PR seeks to do two things: 1) to experiment with a longer format, and 2) to propose a new principle.

Regarding the longer format, as discussed previously, I feel that the vision's principles need to be defined in somewhat greater detail than they currently are if they are to do some work and not just remain a list of nice thoughts that people working to build Web technology soon forget about. Ideas that are expressed too briefly, no matter how good they may be, are often difficult to put into practice. I believe fleshing things out more is more helpful when it comes to support discussions that happen in the trenches. I am eager to hear what your take on this is.

As to the specific property itself, my thinking is as follows. The AB has (IMHO rightly) worked on properties that support of "truth" on the Web in order to support stemming issues with fake news and radicalisation. I agree with that objective, but I don't think that we can usefully just posit support for truth — we need a way to make it work. (I also harbour doubts that truth-seeking of the kind we wish to see ever happens by anyone's leave.)

Rather than trying to specify the outcome, this property seeks to enable the production of truth-seeking content particularly in news media. High-quality journalism is very expensive to produce; this property operates on the assumption that it would be in a better position to survive on the Web if it had access to a fairer and more sustainable business environment.

To offer a simplified view, there are two valuable things that media can develop: content, which draws readers, and knowledge of its audience, which draws advertisers. The way in which this works — or rather doesn't — on today's Web is that these media companies attempt to develop these and then platforms just help themselves to the content (through aggregation you can't refuse) and audience knowledge (through pervasive tracking, including at the UA level). It's a situation very similar to trying to run a bodega and having Walmart restock by helping themselves from your shelves.

This principle works on the premise that we will see better outcomes in the ecology of online information if we ensure that the Web can offer economic conditions healthy enough for quality content to set itself apart from the rest. However, it seems sound on broader principles as well, notably those that underlie the CPNI or that are covered in Lina Khan's The Separation of Platforms and Commerce.

I look forward to your feedback!

[cwilso]

This is a new concept introduced as a long-standing principle. Off the cuff, I would say your definition ends up as being at odds with the indexability of the web; I would also state that "The Web is built on the expectation that..." then defining a principle that HASN'T been previously defined as a core tenet of the Web is... questionable. It has certainly not been true of the Web for many years that "information about the online behaviour of users as it takes place on a given Web property... [remains]under the exclusive control of that property's operator". I (as always) think transparency in the user's interest is a requirement. At best, this could be an aspirational goal; even then, I would welcome a large number of opinionated parties to weigh in before adding such a controversial restriction.

[darobin]

Thanks for your feedback, @cwilso! You say quite a few things at once and I think it would be helpful to unpack them so they can be addressed individually.

I don't think that "don't come on my property to steal my work" is a particularly novel concept. We have failed (collectively, I'm not pointing any fingers) to define it for the Web and this has developed into a problem. I do believe that it's a fixable problem and that this principle reflects that direction of travel.

You say that "defining a principle that HASN'T been previously defined as a core tenet of the Web is... questionable" and this takes me by surprise. My understanding — which may be wrong since you're on the AB and I'm not — is that the purpose of this project is to develop a principled vision for a Web that works and that does not have the deleterious effects we are all noticing. This principle, even though it is grounded in pretty straightforward notions of property, seeks to do just that. If, however, the idea is that the AB vision should only define principles that entrench the status quo then indeed principles that are intended to make the Web a better place won't work. But I don't think that the status quo particularly needs the AB's blessing.

You say it's an aspirational goal — are we not aspiring to a better Web?

Users' expectations that the browser would not share data with parties other than the one they explicitly intended to interact with are well known. I don't believe that that's particularly contentious. The idea that transparency somehow helps here dates from the 70s and its limits are also well known. (But we should cover that in the forthcoming privacy document.)

Your point on indexability is well made and I don't believe that this principle sits in the least at odds with it and I think that may be worth a clarification. Indexing helps everyone; and it doesn't republish or aggregate content (in this sense). It's when you get portals that republish content and link mostly to themselves that problems begin.

[dwsinger]

I think we're going to have enormous fun taking grand statements of high principles, in a Vision document, and working out what they mean in detail and practice. At one point I did have a general statement of establishing the value about professionally developed and curated content, but it was too vague. I'd be happy to try to get it back. At the moment the Vision has high-level grand principles expressed in a few words, and I wouldn't be happy with a long paragraph on one with only short phrases on the rest.

We need a discussion about this; how can carefully curated content be differentiated from junk? How can content creators ensure that they are presented properly, in sufficient context? This is far from a new debate; I found a paper from 2002 and I very much doubt it's the earliest.

As a question to raise, and principles to debate: yes. As a short statement about recognizing, or making evident, the value of carefully curated content and attribution, sure, let's try to craft something.