Author Archives: Vint Cerf

A Fair Code for an Open Internet

The debate over Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code is part of a bigger conversation about the nature and direction of the internet itself.  


The modern internet was designed to empower individuals — as a free, open and democratic system for the exchange of information. From its early origins in the 1960s and 70s to the massive expansion of the world wide web in the 1990s and 2000s, this design made it possible for anyone to improve the net with new ideas and applications.


At the same time, it opened up unprecedented access to information and services, with the number of websites globally growing from a few million two decades ago to more than 1.7 billion in 2019. As the internet expanded, these new websites — and the people and businesses that owned them — captured the growth in advertising revenues that came with the digital age. 


Google was founded to help users find information in this ocean of webpages. It helps to connect people to millions of businesses, service providers and knowledge sources, and enables website owners to earn money through online advertising. 


But while Google — and YouTube — open up a vast range of information, products and services, only a small portion of it relates to traditional news sources. The truth is that news content makes up a tiny proportion of the things people search for online (1 percent, in Australia). People’s searches reflect the priorities in their lives. Even if Google disappeared overnight, Australians would still need to use the internet to find a job, car, restaurant or plumber; to learn a language or get a red wine stain out of the carpet. 


The reason news businesses are making less revenue is not because Google exists. It is because in a much more open and diverse digital market, news businesses began to face competition from websites that have taken classified advertising online, including Australian platforms like Seek and Domain. In Australia, recent research from AlphaBeta makes clear that these companies have contributed to the vast majority of the recent decline in newspaper revenues. Google’s impact has been completely different: opening up an entirely new market, search advertising, helping small-to-medium businesses establish an online presence. 


It would be no more reasonable to try to return to an environment where publishers’ revenues were protected than it would be to expect Australians to go back to the Yellow Pages, Encyclopedia Britannica or Microfiche for their sources of information. The world has changed. Yet in advocating a code that serves their interests only, certain Australian news businesses are effectively arguing for the Australian Government to turn back time — to make the open internet significantly less open and its business models dramatically less diverse.  


One of the key arguments behind the code is the idea that Google should pay for news content that ‘is made available’ through Search results. But that’s not how search engines work, or should work, nor how people use them. When you search online, no matter what you’re looking for, you get links and in most cases one or two lines of text (called ‘snippets’). In the case of a news article, you only get the chance to read the full piece after clicking through to the publisher’s site. Links are the cornerstones of open access to information online; requiring a search engine (or anyone else) to pay for them undermines one of the fundamental principles of the internet as we know it today. 


The draft code would distort the open internet in other ways. Under a law forcing digital platforms to turn over information about algorithm changes, news businesses would gain access to privileged knowledge above every other business striving to compete for visibility and grow. Not only that, by imposing an arbitration model that considers only publishers’ costs and claims, it incorrectly supposes that news content always has a higher value to users than any other kind of online information or service. Raw data and human behaviour tell us this is a fallacy. 


As it is currently framed, both the premise of the code and the approach it sets out are deeply flawed. Digital platforms do not owe publishers compensation for the emergence of an internet-based economy. And undermining the foundations of a democratic internet is not a sustainable solution to one industry’s economic challenges.  


None of this is to deny that the news industry has a vital role in the working of democracy and the spread of knowledge. It does, and that role should be supported appropriately — as Google is seeking to do through commercial partnerships. 


Nor is this an argument about the merits of regulating technology at all. Around the world, as the internet expands and evolves for the better in areas like health and education, it also poses new challenges. Governments are rightly seeking to design sensible rules that can keep pace — and, where needed, keep people from harm.  


The draft news media bargaining code is not this kind of regulation. On the contrary, it is an intervention that would distort access to information and disadvantage Australians who rely on Google to share their voice and run their business. It would introduce bias into systems that were designed to be fair, and undercut a democratic internet where people compete not on their political influence, but on the value of their content. 


Google is working with the Australian Government to resolve the evident issues with the draft code and bring balance into the final version of the law. Anything else would represent a backward step towards a world that no longer exists—not just for Australia’s digital economy, but for the open internet globally. 


A Fair Code for an Open Internet

The debate over Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code is part of a bigger conversation about the nature and direction of the internet itself.  


The modern internet was designed to empower individuals — as a free, open and democratic system for the exchange of information. From its early origins in the 1960s and 70s to the massive expansion of the world wide web in the 1990s and 2000s, this design made it possible for anyone to improve the net with new ideas and applications.


At the same time, it opened up unprecedented access to information and services, with the number of websites globally growing from a few million two decades ago to more than 1.7 billion in 2019. As the internet expanded, these new websites — and the people and businesses that owned them — captured the growth in advertising revenues that came with the digital age. 


Google was founded to help users find information in this ocean of webpages. It helps to connect people to millions of businesses, service providers and knowledge sources, and enables website owners to earn money through online advertising. 


But while Google — and YouTube — open up a vast range of information, products and services, only a small portion of it relates to traditional news sources. The truth is that news content makes up a tiny proportion of the things people search for online (1 percent, in Australia). People’s searches reflect the priorities in their lives. Even if Google disappeared overnight, Australians would still need to use the internet to find a job, car, restaurant or plumber; to learn a language or get a red wine stain out of the carpet. 


The reason news businesses are making less revenue is not because Google exists. It is because in a much more open and diverse digital market, news businesses began to face competition from websites that have taken classified advertising online, including Australian platforms like Seek and Domain. In Australia, recent research from AlphaBeta makes clear that these companies have contributed to the vast majority of the recent decline in newspaper revenues. Google’s impact has been completely different: opening up an entirely new market, search advertising, helping small-to-medium businesses establish an online presence. 


It would be no more reasonable to try to return to an environment where publishers’ revenues were protected than it would be to expect Australians to go back to the Yellow Pages, Encyclopedia Britannica or Microfiche for their sources of information. The world has changed. Yet in advocating a code that serves their interests only, certain Australian news businesses are effectively arguing for the Australian Government to turn back time — to make the open internet significantly less open and its business models dramatically less diverse.  


One of the key arguments behind the code is the idea that Google should pay for news content that ‘is made available’ through Search results. But that’s not how search engines work, or should work, nor how people use them. When you search online, no matter what you’re looking for, you get links and in most cases one or two lines of text (called ‘snippets’). In the case of a news article, you only get the chance to read the full piece after clicking through to the publisher’s site. Links are the cornerstones of open access to information online; requiring a search engine (or anyone else) to pay for them undermines one of the fundamental principles of the internet as we know it today. 


The draft code would distort the open internet in other ways. Under a law forcing digital platforms to turn over information about algorithm changes, news businesses would gain access to privileged knowledge above every other business striving to compete for visibility and grow. Not only that, by imposing an arbitration model that considers only publishers’ costs and claims, it incorrectly supposes that news content always has a higher value to users than any other kind of online information or service. Raw data and human behaviour tell us this is a fallacy. 


As it is currently framed, both the premise of the code and the approach it sets out are deeply flawed. Digital platforms do not owe publishers compensation for the emergence of an internet-based economy. And undermining the foundations of a democratic internet is not a sustainable solution to one industry’s economic challenges.  


None of this is to deny that the news industry has a vital role in the working of democracy and the spread of knowledge. It does, and that role should be supported appropriately — as Google is seeking to do through commercial partnerships. 


Nor is this an argument about the merits of regulating technology at all. Around the world, as the internet expands and evolves for the better in areas like health and education, it also poses new challenges. Governments are rightly seeking to design sensible rules that can keep pace — and, where needed, keep people from harm.  


The draft news media bargaining code is not this kind of regulation. On the contrary, it is an intervention that would distort access to information and disadvantage Australians who rely on Google to share their voice and run their business. It would introduce bias into systems that were designed to be fair, and undercut a democratic internet where people compete not on their political influence, but on the value of their content. 


Google is working with the Australian Government to resolve the evident issues with the draft code and bring balance into the final version of the law. Anything else would represent a backward step towards a world that no longer exists—not just for Australia’s digital economy, but for the open internet globally. 


Spot the scam, stop the scammers

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), people reported $1.9 billion lost to scams in 2019. Every minute, more than $3,600 disappeared from wallets and bank accounts in response to made-up stories of urgently overdue tax payments, bogus contest winnings, or a smooth-talking online suitor who suddenly needs some gift cards. A high-pressure phone call or exciting message can overcome many people’s judgment, especially if they are caught  at a vulnerable moment.

As the record-high scam reports keep coming, we’re providing support to the Cybercrime Support Network to help people identify scams before they fall victim to them through a new program called Scam Spotter. It simplifies expert advice with three golden rules—remember to refer to these rules when you receive a suspicious phone call or message to figure out if it’s a scam:

  • Slow it down: Are they telling you it’s urgent? Take your time and ask questions to avoid being rushed into a bad situation.
  • Spot check: Are they claiming to be from a specific institution? Do your own research to double check the details you’re getting. 
  • Stop! Don’t send: Are they asking you to go to the store and get gift cards? If you think a payment feels fishy, it probably is.

Just because COVID-19 has disrupted everyone’s life, it doesn’t mean the scammers have taken a break. In fact, scammers have exploited the pandemic with alarming speed, taking advantage of fear and uncertainty. More than $40 million in fraud losses have been reported to the FTC related to a myriad of COVID-19 complaints. While the stories are new—invented stimulus packages, phoney charities, romantic interests who now have an uncle in the ICU—the same three golden rules apply equally well:

Scam Free Golden Rules.jpg

While people ages 25-40 are most likely to be scammed, research shows it’s seniors who stand to lose the most, with their median losses more than double the average. As one of the architects of the Internet and an executive sponsor of the “Greyglers,” an internal group that promotes awareness of age diversity and issues related to age, I feel obligated to try to help my fellow Americans stay safe.  It will take a cross-generational effort. Please consider sharing ScamSpotter.org the next time you talk to the seniors in your life. Maybe you can both take the quiz and compare your scores, too.

Scammer Quiz Device.png

If we learn how to spot the bad actors, we can spend our time focusing on those moments that matter. And to the seniors out there, remember: of course the Internet is for us, we invented it!

Spot the scam, stop the scammers

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), people reported $1.9 billion lost to scams in 2019. Every minute, more than $3,600 disappeared from wallets and bank accounts in response to made-up stories of urgently overdue tax payments, bogus contest winnings, or a smooth-talking online suitor who suddenly needs some gift cards. A high-pressure phone call or exciting message can overcome many people’s judgment, especially if they are caught  at a vulnerable moment.

As the record-high scam reports keep coming, we’re providing support to the Cybercrime Support Network to help people identify scams before they fall victim to them through a new program called Scam Spotter. It simplifies expert advice with three golden rules—remember to refer to these rules when you receive a suspicious phone call or message to figure out if it’s a scam:

  • Slow it down: Are they telling you it’s urgent? Take your time and ask questions to avoid being rushed into a bad situation.
  • Spot check: Are they claiming to be from a specific institution? Do your own research to double check the details you’re getting. 
  • Stop! Don’t send: Are they asking you to go to the store and get gift cards? If you think a payment feels fishy, it probably is.

Just because COVID-19 has disrupted everyone’s life, it doesn’t mean the scammers have taken a break. In fact, scammers have exploited the pandemic with alarming speed, taking advantage of fear and uncertainty. More than $40 million in fraud losses have been reported to the FTC related to a myriad of COVID-19 complaints. While the stories are new—invented stimulus packages, phoney charities, romantic interests who now have an uncle in the ICU—the same three golden rules apply equally well:

Scam Free Golden Rules.jpg

While people ages 25-40 are most likely to be scammed, research shows it’s seniors who stand to lose the most, with their median losses more than double the average. As one of the architects of the Internet and an executive sponsor of the “Greyglers,” an internal group that promotes awareness of age diversity and issues related to age, I feel obligated to try to help my fellow Americans stay safe.  It will take a cross-generational effort. Please consider sharing ScamSpotter.org the next time you talk to the seniors in your life. Maybe you can both take the quiz and compare your scores, too.

Scammer Quiz Device.png

If we learn how to spot the bad actors, we can spend our time focusing on those moments that matter. And to the seniors out there, remember: of course the Internet is for us, we invented it!

Vint Cerf’s top moments from 50 years of the Internet

Editor’s note: On the 50th anniversary of the Internet, this post comes from one of the most knowledgeable sources out there. Though it’s not included in his official title, Vint Cerf is, in fact, one of the architects of the modern Internet. 

Before there was the Internet, there was a packet. The “sending of the packet” was actually the first step toward the invention of the Internet as we know it, and it happened 50 years ago today. On that day, we established the first connection between two computers—from UCLA to the Stanford Research Institute—on the ARPANET, the predecessor to the Internet. 

Connecting the planet in this way remains one of the most astounding technical and societal achievements of our lifetime. A lot has happened in the years since, and the rise of the Internet has come with its own set of challenges that will require new solutions. But over the years there have been many bright spots, including 17 moments that, for me, stand out the most. 

1. October 29, 1969:The first packet was sent. This pioneered our understanding of operational packet switching technology, which prepared us for the subsequent development of the Internet. 

2. 1971: Networked electronic mail was created using file transfers as a mechanism to distribute messages to users on the Arpanet.  

3. 1974:The design of the Internet was released. Robert Kahn and I published “A protocol for packet network intercommunication.” In this paper we presented not only a protocol, but an architecture and philosophy that supported an open design for the sharing of resources that existed on different packet-switching networks. 

4. November 22, 1977:A major demonstration of the Internet took place, linking three networks: Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and ARPANET. 

5. January 1, 1983:The Internet was operationally born, and I’ve used an “electronic postcard” analogy to explain how it works.

6. 1983:The operational mobile phone arrived, which is crucial because, although the Internet and mobile phones were developed in parallel, they eventually proved to be complementary technologies.

7. 1984: Cisco Systems was founded, and with it came the arrival of commercial routers, which allowed the connection of disparate networks to share data between computers.  

8. 1988:I realized the Internet was going to be really big when I attended an INTEROP show and exhibition, and there was a two-story exhibit from Cisco Systems. Turns out they spent $250,000 on that exhibit—you don’t do that unless you think it’s worth the expense and will drive business. That’s what triggered my interest in making the Internet accessible to the public. 

9. December 1991:The invention of the World Wide Web introduced a new way of sharing information that had a profound impact on accessibility and utility. Its arrival illustrated how powerful the Internet could be for information discovery, access and sharing.

10. 1993:The release of the Mosaic browser to the general public was a stepping stone to the web that we know today. It was the first time there was an interface that was visually appealing to a general audience. Also that year, the word “meme” was used to describe a viral idea—although it would take another decade or two to become mainstream. 

11. 1995: The IPO of Netscape Communications triggered a new era in technology and in business: the “Dot Com Boom.”

12. 1996: The arrival of voice over IP (Vocaltech), and the development of IPv6 allowed a superior cost benefit experience. 

13. 1998:The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was created, which is still one of the most important institutions responsible for the technical aspects of Internet governance. That same year, Sergey Brin and Larry Page founded Google. 

14. April 23, 2005:The first YouTube video was uploaded, which meant that ordinary people—not just television studios and broadcasters—could create and upload shareable videos. Today I turn to YouTube for “how to” videos like cooking and fixing problems with software, and watching TED talks or science explanations.

15. 2007:The first smartphone marked a collision of two revolutionary technologies: the mobile phone, which made the Internet more accessible, and the Internet, which made the mobile phone more useful.

16. June 5, 2012:Google, as well as many other websites, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and network hardware manufacturers permanently switched on Internet Protocol v6 (IPv6) as part of the World IPv6 Launch. At the time, the Internet was running out of IP addresses, but IPv6 allowed for unlimited growth of IP addresses in the future. This was also the subject of my first tweet!

17. 2019-2069 (the next 50 years): In the next five decades I believe that computer communications will become completely natural. Like using electricity, you won’t think about it anymore. Access will be totally improved—think thousands of low Earth orbit satellites—and speeds will be higher, with 5G and optical fiber, and billions of networked devices with increased interactive capabilities in voice, gesture, and artificially intelligent systems. I also imagine an expansion of the Interplanetary Internet. But who knows, after everything that has been accomplished in the past 50 years, the only thing we can be certain about is that the possibilities are endless.  

Preserving digital art: How will it survive?

For millennia, people have created art—in media ranging from paint on cave walls to metal or stone sculpture to computer-generated images, sound and motion. In recent years, many have made an effort to digitize physical art in an effort to preserve it for future generations and make it accessible to a wider audience. And many contemporary artists have produced creative works using digital media, to be experienced completely online. Yet while the cave paintings in Lascaux are an incredible 20,000 years old, it isn’t clear whether digitized images of that art—or any digital art created today—will last 20 years, let alone 20,000.

That’s because digital art requires readers and, often, software in order to to be viewed, heard or experienced. And as software, browsers, and files either update versions or become obsolete, both digital art—art produced by means of computers and software—and digitized art—reproduced or copied art, rendered in digital form from original physical media—are at risk of disappearing.

Contrary to common belief that “bits don’t die,” obsolescence is a real threat to digital art—and a major challenge as its use continues to increase. Just as preservationists have identified ways to extend the life of pigment, canvas and stone, solutions must be found to assure the longevity of digital works or they may prove to be even less resilient than their physical counterparts.


It’s with this in mind that Google Arts & Culture has partnered with Rhizome to help in the preservation of digital art. Rhizome grew out of the blossoming web-artist community of the mid-1990s, and is now a thriving nonprofit in New York City. They’ve developed unique tools which preserve digital artworks and allow them to viewed long after their complex, software foundations have become obsolete.

Rhizome’s tools are already preserving a growing number of digital-born artworks, and together we’re making them accessible online for free. You can explore these works starting today on Google Arts & Culture, including exhibits on 20-year-old landmark computer games for girls, how the design of early Internet browsers organized user interaction, and the “first Instagram masterpiece?”

Last month, Google Arts & Culture brought together key researchers in preservation, curation and computer science along with digital artists for an event in London to examine the current state of digital art preservation. Starting with a keynote conversation between me and Dragan Espenschied, Rhizome’s preservation specialist, panelists spoke on topics ranging from distribution and preservation of artistic software to community-based preservation.

Vint Cerf Digital Art

As we witness physical works of art destroyed by war and the passage of time around the world, we know how important preservation is. The same is true for creative expressions online—and we must look for new solutions together.

Preserving digital art: How will it survive?

For millennia, people have created art—in media ranging from paint on cave walls to metal or stone sculpture to computer-generated images, sound and motion. In recent years, many have made an effort to digitize physical art in an effort to preserve it for future generations and make it accessible to a wider audience. And many contemporary artists have produced creative works using digital media, to be experienced completely online. Yet while the cave paintings in Lascaux are an incredible 20,000 years old, it isn’t clear whether digitized images of that art—or any digital art created today—will last 20 years, let alone 20,000.

That’s because digital art requires readers and, often, software in order to to be viewed, heard or experienced. And as software, browsers, and files either update versions or become obsolete, both digital art—art produced by means of computers and software—and digitized art—reproduced or copied art, rendered in digital form from original physical media—are at risk of disappearing.

Contrary to common belief that “bits don’t die,” obsolescence is a real threat to digital art—and a major challenge as its use continues to increase. Just as preservationists have identified ways to extend the life of pigment, canvas and stone, solutions must be found to assure the longevity of digital works or they may prove to be even less resilient than their physical counterparts.

It’s with this in mind that Google Arts & Culture has partnered with Rhizome to help in the preservation of digital art. Rhizome grew out of the blossoming web-artist community of the mid-1990s, and is now a thriving nonprofit in New York City. They’ve developed unique tools which preserve digital artworks and allow them to viewed long after their complex, software foundations have become obsolete.

Rhizome’s tools are already preserving a growing number of digital-born artworks, and together we’re making them accessible online for free. You can explore these works starting today on Google Arts & Culture, including exhibits on 20-year-old landmark computer games for girls, how the design of early Internet browsers organized user interaction, and the “first Instagram masterpiece?”

Last month, Google Arts & Culture and Rhizome brought together key researchers in preservation, curation and computer science along with digital artists for an event in London to examine the current state of digital art preservation. Starting with a keynote conversation between me and Dragan Espenschied, Rhizome’s preservation specialist, panelists spoke on topics ranging from distribution and preservation of artistic software to community-based preservation.

Vint Cerf Digital Art

As we witness physical works of art destroyed by war and the passage of time around the world, we know how important preservation is. The same is true for creative expressions online—and we must look for new solutions together.

Preserving digital art: How will it survive?

For millennia, people have created art—in media ranging from paint on cave walls to metal or stone sculpture to computer-generated images, sound and motion. In recent years, many have made an effort to digitize physical art in an effort to preserve it for future generations and make it accessible to a wider audience. And many contemporary artists have produced creative works using digital media, to be experienced completely online. Yet while the cave paintings in Lascaux are an incredible 20,000 years old, it isn’t clear whether digitized images of that art—or any digital art created today—will last 20 years, let alone 20,000.

That’s because digital art requires readers and, often, software in order to to be viewed, heard or experienced. And as software, browsers, and files either update versions or become obsolete, both digital art—art produced by means of computers and software—and digitized art—reproduced or copied art, rendered in digital form from original physical media—are at risk of disappearing.

Contrary to common belief that “bits don’t die,” obsolescence is a real threat to digital art—and a major challenge as its use continues to increase. Just as preservationists have identified ways to extend the life of pigment, canvas and stone, solutions must be found to assure the longevity of digital works or they may prove to be even less resilient than their physical counterparts.

It’s with this in mind that Google Arts & Culture has partnered with Rhizome to help in the preservation of digital art. Rhizome grew out of the blossoming web-artist community of the mid-1990s, and is now a thriving nonprofit in New York City. They’ve developed unique tools which preserve digital artworks and allow them to viewed long after their complex, software foundations have become obsolete.

Rhizome’s tools are already preserving a growing number of digital-born artworks, and together we’re making them accessible online for free. You can explore these works starting today on Google Arts & Culture, including exhibits on 20-year-old landmark computer games for girls, how the design of early Internet browsers organized user interaction, and the “first Instagram masterpiece?”

Last month, Google Arts & Culture and Rhizome brought together key researchers in preservation, curation and computer science along with digital artists for an event in London to examine the current state of digital art preservation. Starting with a keynote conversation between me and Dragan Espenschied, Rhizome’s preservation specialist, panelists spoke on topics ranging from distribution and preservation of artistic software to community-based preservation.

Vint Cerf Digital Art

As we witness physical works of art destroyed by war and the passage of time around the world, we know how important preservation is. The same is true for creative expressions online—and we must look for new solutions together.