網路的邊界II：大型網站的現況(World wild Web)

前篇
網路像是自己國度，Facebook、Instagram等服務有自己的國民，國民受到"保障"。有些原則(法律上等等)就是要遵守的，那是一種尊重。兩年前討論過一則小新聞：當時Apple不願為手機直接解鎖，要司法部門依循正常程序。

先前看到一篇文章宣稱「網路已死(The Web Began Dying in 2014, Here's How)」，作者André Staltz認為現今這種大者恆大的局面已經扼殺了網路的開放，各家大型網站已不為開放格式背書，改採用自己的格式在編寫應用服務。當各個平臺成為封閉平臺(wiki)，自己的「圍牆花園」，它們控制的就不只是人們的隱私資料，還試圖讓人無法逃脫。可參考：〈Line 不僅是高牆花園， 也是國安要害〉。

網路概念的發明者Tim Berners-Lee也認為現今的網路世界並非他理想中的網路：我們失去對個人資料的控制權、錯誤資訊太容易在網路上散佈、線上的政治宣傳需要透明(Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding)。

人們紛紛懷念起2010年以前的網路，述說它的好：

From the 90s until the 2010s, the Web we have experienced has been, albeit somewhat imperfectly, faithful to its original purpose. The Web’s diversity has granted space for multiple businesses to innovate and thrive, independent hobbyist communities to grow, and personal sites to be hosted on whatever physical servers can host them. The internet’s infrastructural diversity is directly tied to the success of diverse Web businesses and communities. The Web’s openness is vital for its security, accessibility, innovation and competitiveness. -André Staltz

What was most frustrating about blogs was the distributed nature of the conversation, but moving to a centralized space destroyed the close sense of community. In the move from blogs to the centralized ecosystem, what we gained in the ease of connection and the quantity of connections we lost in quality of those connections. And maybe I’m just old and cranky now, but what I want are deeper connections and conversations with people. - "We are atomized. We are monetized. We are ephemera. Do we deserve more online?" by Meredith Farkas

「大型網站也都是名符其實的個人網站。他們用服務，如部落格、網路書籤，綁住我們的網路行為需求，創造出各式各樣規模不一的主題網站與網絡，轉化成他們現在所謂的巨量資料，完成最終他們能獲利的商業模式，進而符合商業網站的定義。」(Info Web:〈網站可以怎麼分類？〉)

當它們的作為越趨集中/封閉，…它們是否還代表著「未來的網路」？它們是否已經超過「網路的邊界」？有什麼方法可以重新檢視這段人與網路的關係？

或許要解答這個大哉問，可以從設計一個規模沒這麼大的系統來對照。(待續)