>> The new Internet fix?

This week on "Firing Line."

>> Facebook chooses the growth of its products over the wellbeing of our children.

>> From concerns about who controls your data... >> Your user agreement sucks.

>> ...to misinformation... >> Q is a movement.

I follow the facts and I follow information.

>> ...to online bullying... >> The Internet is mean!

>> ...to censorship... >> You have used this power to silence conservatives.

>> ...people love to hate their Big Tech social media platforms, but is there a way out?

Enter real estate mogul, sports team owner, and civil entrepreneur Frank McCourt.

>> We have this incredible opportunity for a reset, and we can get it right this time if we move quickly.

>> He's using his vast personal fortune and blockchain, the technology that powers cryptocurrencies, to transform how the Internet works.

>> Let's return the ownership and control of the data to individuals.

>> Can his vision become a movement?

What does Frank McCourt say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Frank McCourt, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Yeah, it's a pleasure to be with you, Margaret.

>> You are a businessman who made a name for yourself in real estate and sports franchises, including the LA Dodgers, which you had formally owned.

You founded an eponymous public policy school at Georgetown University, and now you're focusing your efforts on technology, specifically the architecture of the Internet.

Why the shift?

>> Well, it's been a bit of a journey for me, and I feel that I'm, like most people, growing and learning as life goes on.

And, yeah, deeply concerned about the state of our democracy and capitalism, for that matter, from a selfish point of view, but also from a societal point of view.

We need these systems that have served us so well to continue to function in the future.

>> There are a lot of billionaires who are interested in trying to do good.

But what actually inspires you inclination to try to fix this problem?

>> Well, I grew up in a big Irish Catholic family in Boston, seven kids.

And, you know, picture our dinner table with nine, minimum, at the table, and maybe I'd describe it as an unruly board meeting every evening.

But, you know, I can hear my mom's voice towards the end of those conversations when she would say, "Yeah, okay, that's fine.

I understand the problem, but now what are you gonna do about it?"

And I carry that question with me every day.

>> Why was it technology that became the center of your focus?

>> Yeah, it's a really interesting question.

We came to the conclusion that technology and so-called Big Tech was a big part of the problem and maybe even the primary problem.

And, you know, what I mean by Big Tech is really social media and its use and misuse and a surveillance form of capitalism.

So I think the Internet is not the problem.

It's the way the Internet is being used that's the problem, and some might say even being abused.

>> Now, there are a lot of politicians who also see problems with the tech giants.

Listen to this.

>> Big Tech...I believe poses the single greatest threat to free speech in our country today.

>> Today's Big Tech companies have grown so giant and so powerful that they threaten our economy, our society, and our very democracy.

>> They know what we buy, who our friends are, where we live, work, and travel, and more.

In fact, their very business models, their very business models were set up around getting that information and then using it to profit.

>> The business model of these companies is addiction.

It's an attention treadmill.

>> They determine who we can communicate with.

They have incredible power over the economy, over the political life of this country in a very dangerous sense.

>> Free speech, monopoly power, privacy, unhealthy monetization models.

Which of these are you most concerned about?

>> All of the above.

The -- Regardless of your perspective politically, there is something fundamentally wrong about the current Internet architecture.

The current model is broken, and we need to get to the root cause of the problem.

>> Frank, you've just launched Project Liberty, which is an initiative to create a, quote... >> There is a solution, and Project Liberty is about a solution, and that's transforming the way the Internet works.

There are very few -- a few, but very few core Internet protocols that we've all adopted, and they become universal protocols.

There's no reason whatsoever why we can't have another protocol, another core Internet protocol that we all agree that we're going to adopt and use as a universal standard, and then the Internet would work differently.

It should be a public utility.

This would be consistent with the thinking behind the Internet and those that invented it, that this was intended to be a public utility.

And by inference and by design, you and I would own our own data.

As would everyone else.

>> Let's define some terms.

When you say "protocols," what does that mean?

>> It dictates how the Internet operates.

What I'm referring to are core Internet protocols -- core operating protocols.

And the Internet 1.0 -- so-called 1.0 -- that was used early on, invented by researchers and scientists to exchange large data sets, it was just an efficient, easy way to transmit large data sets.

And then Web 2.0 came along with the so-called World Wide Web, and now we all were connected.

And I believe that the inventors of the World Wide Web believed that the goodness of people would dictate and govern and that this would be -- this would connect us all.

And, wow, what a wonderful thing it would be.

But that's not what happened.

What happened was a few powerful entities now collect and extract the data.

They monetize the data, and now we see the data being weaponized.

And we end up manipulating people in society and groups in society in a very, very unfair way.

We need to get back to the basics -- a new protocol that transforms the way the Internet works.

Now, rather than having an Internet that extracts value from society, we have an Internet that creates value for society.

At the core of the problem here is the data.

Who owns it?

Who controls it?

And right now, Big Tech -- without my permission -- is scraping by data and extracting my data not just on social media but also on search and also when I'm in my car, at home, or walking down a street or when I'm shopping.

It's ubiquitous, and it needs to change because we're not heading in a healthy direction.

>> The Wall Street Journal recently published a series of reports entitled "The Facebook Files," detailing Facebook's own failings to address widespread problems, problems like exempting high-profile users from its rules, downplaying what it knew to be harmful effects on young users, responding inadequately to reports that malicious actors like sex traffickers were using their platforms for business dealings.

Did any of these revelations that were reported about Facebook, Frank, surprise you?

>> No, honestly, they didn't.

I've never been on social media.

I think it's a...

It's just -- It's a bad deal for people when they're exposing all of their data and sharing all of their data without any governance model.

>> Wait, just to be clear, you're not on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, any kind of social media yourself?

>> I am not personally.

However, I am on search.

I do use the Internet for other conveniences that we all use it for -- for shopping and so on and so forth.

I have devices in my home.

I drive an automobile.

So I'm not -- I don't escape this problem just because I don't use social media.

It's interesting that you focus on social media, because I think it is -- we need to fix it first.

It's completely destroying trust.

With no trust, there's no democracy.

With no trust, there's no capitalism, there's no economy.

So we need to address that first.

This is a broken model that needs to be fixed.

>> So, more than 3.5 billion people use social media right now.

Why are so many people using something, Frank, that is broken?

>> Because there's -- First of all, I don't think people, until recently, understood how fundamentally broken it was and how much damage was being done because of this broken model and the abuse of the data.

And there hasn't been an alternative.

And now we live at a wonderful moment, actually, where technology is, as it generally does, evolving and advancing.

And we're about to enter the next generation of technology, so-called Web 3.0, which will give us an opportunity to reset, you know, to have a do over, and to get it right this time.

I mean, imagine now knowing what we do in terms of how powerful the Internet is, imagine now getting it right and actually embedding values and principles in the technology -- the same values and principles we want reflected in our society.

>> Alright, let's get to the solution.

Project Liberty is developing a DSNP, which stands for a Decentralized Social Networking Protocol.

And you have already released an early version of it last month in September.

What is a DSNP?

>> Think of it as a core Internet protocol, just like HTTP or HTTPS is a core protocol that we've all just agreed to adopt, to use.

So imagine DSNP sitting on top of that and we all agree to adopt it, to use it.

Well, that would transform the way the Internet works, because now we would own and control our own data.

Now, we would give permission to who got to see and use our data and for what purposes.

If in the next pandemic when we want to find out how the virus is spreading, we could share our data anonymously and be able to more quickly solve the problem or invent a new vaccine.

So, in other words, we could give our data for public purposes, or we could engage in the commercial activities, which will continue.

We're not saying the Internet is bad.

We're saying how it's used is bad.

We're not saying the connectivity is bad.

It's wonderful.

It can help us solve these problems at scale.

It's just being used the wrong way.

But now imagine we make the decision.

We have the power.

We have the agency.

We own and control the data.

Everything would change.

So the protocol, it's open source.

We've created it.

We've donated it to humanity.

It's -- Everybody can use it.

>> Okay, so your protocol uses blockchain technology as a way of storing all of the social connections that users make.

This audience may be more familiar with the term blockchain as it relates to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum.

So in layman's terms, Frank, how might blockchain technology transform online social networking?

>> That's a great question.

You'll have the ability to protect your privacy, to share your identity with who you want to, when you want to, or not, be anonymous otherwise.

You'll only be able to be one person.

Bots won't be able to continually contaminate the ecosystem or the social ecosystem.

Alternative egos, false IDs, you being me, me being you -- all that gets eliminated.

It doesn't solve all the bad behavior.

Still have bad people doing bad things.

But it will solve a great deal of it because we'll have now a trusted environment where at least we know we're dealing with another human being and that human being will share with the counterparty the information they want to share, and that information can be verified.

That's what blockchain enables.

>> Blockchain-enabled transactions are known to be slower than regular transactions because blockchain is known to be a slower processing system.

Is that something that you think about when you think about the scalability of this protocol?

>> I think of this as evolving in the same way the technology in the past has evolved.

We've heard about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and all this.

Those are just early adopters of blockchain.

They just think of them as use cases, not as the technology itself.

So blockchain will evolve as really smart people, much smarter than I, working on this will develop the technology, will develop the scalability, and the use cases will become more and more polished, easier for us all to use, and that's when adoption or migration will really kick in.

>> Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook CEO, said at one point that he does not think Facebook or Internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth.

But you and I both know that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube have all created policies and banned accounts in an effort to curb misinformation.

So, Frank, in Internet 3.0, who will be the arbiter of truth online?

>> For sure no individual, myself included, should have -- should be the arbiter of truth and all of the other related issues.

We need to bring in -- before it's too late, because Web 3.0 is here, and it's going to evolve and, like tech, all tech, it's going to move rapidly.

We need to bring in now the experts in governance, in ethics, in law, in policy, in history, in political science.

We now live in a digital world.

Our institutions have supported us ably in an analog world.

We need a new civic architecture for this digital world.

>> Just this week, YouTube announced that it would take down video channels that are associated with anti-vaccine activists, which broadens a ban they previously applied only to misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Now it includes misinformation about other approved vaccines.

So, where do you stand on this move by YouTube, which is owned by Google?

>> I -- Where I stand is that the model is totally broken.

It's not solving the problem.

It's just, you know, at the edges intervention.

But the problems are proliferating much faster than any interventions or any solutions if we approach it that way.

The same with regulation.

Regulation alone will not be enough, and Big Tech self-governing alone will not be enough.

We need an entirely different architecture, a new model that puts people first, not the platforms first.

>> In 1997, William F. Buckley Jr. hosted the CEO of NetScape, the tech giant of its day, to discuss the new moral and legal challenges of the Internet age.

Listen to this.

>> The Department of Justice is up against areas now perhaps where the laws that were written 50, 100 years ago and so forth are just no longer adequate in the world of cyberspace because of the differences and the speed and rapidity of change and the difficulty of understanding some of these technologies.

>> Right, so that gets to the point you just made, right?

A quarter of a century ago, they were discussing the same thing that you just mentioned, right, that we are still trying to keep up the pace -- keep up with the pace of change and that government regulators are never going to be able to do that.

So, how does your solution address that fact?

>> Well, Project Liberty has a tech component.

We need a tech solution to a problem caused by tech.

But it also has a governance component, which is bringing together those that understand the tech with those that understand governance.

We're capable of much better than this, and the technology can help us, but it needs this governance component.

It's as important as the tech.

This is a huge moment for this country, because not only are we resetting the technology.

We actually have a change here to create the democracy that our founding fathers wrote about.

So this is a -- I'm very optimistic, because if we can get people involved here and get the proper governance, the tech part is easy.

>> If you users migrated to this new technology en masse, would that lessen the calls that we hear to break up the Big Tech giants like Facebook and Amazon?

>> Oh, I believe so.

It's, as I said earlier, you know, regulation is only part of this.

Regulation, in one sense, buys time for the innovation to occur.

>> Is there a role for government in this project?

>> I think those in government, they see the problem, and they're doing their best to reign it in.

But I would bet if you ask most people in government honestly do they think that the regulation alone will solve the problem, I would bet that they would say no because they know how, at the speed at which regulation moves versus the speed at which tech moves.

They also have a lot of power, though, to remove constraints, remove friction to allow innovation to occur just like they did during the telecommunications revolution and the Telecommunications Act.

That act enabled a whole revolution to occur in the telecommunications industry, moving from a single monopolist to an oligarchy, now to multiple choice.

And this is a repeat, in my opinion.

And so government played an important role, but it wasn't government alone that solved the problem.

The private sector stepped forward and innovated.

And then there was a huge boom in the telecommunications industry that we've all benefited from.

>> It's been reported, Frank, by Bloomberg that you plan to create a consumer product -- that's a quote -- on top of DSNP.

It sounds like you're developing a direct competitor to one of the major platforms.

Is that right?

>> Well, you know, we'll have more to say about what we're -- what we'd like to see built and products that we may or may not come out with in the future when we're ready to have that conversation.

>> So, when can we expect your product?

>> Well, we'll be -- we're working hard, and we'll be getting back to you and others, you know, when we're in a position to share something.

But, you know, we're interested -- >> 6 months, a year, 18 months?

>> Shorter than that.

>> Shorter than 18 months.

I mean, isn't the best way to encourage migration to just have a competitive -- like a direct competitor with the social media tech giants, but one that's better, right?

Isn't the idea to just out-compete them so that people want to use your platform instead of theirs?

>> You sound like an entrepreneur.

It's exactly.

But this -- these evolutions in means and modes of delivering products, this is what this country is best at.

This country is best at innovating and inventing new things that are easy to use and theoretically improve people's lives.

I believe with what's happened with tech we've lost sight of that.

We're now building something that is massively disruptive, that's -- Sure, it's helping people's lives in certain ways, but the damage far, far outweighs that.

And I think we need to recognize that, and we need to fix that.

And I would call on the big platforms to address it, because they're in the best position to address this, and they could change this immediately.

If you zoom out and look at history and look at the development of this country, innovation waves happen over and over and over again.

And we're now at the beginning of a next wave of technology, and thankfully we have the moment to get it right this time.

>> The Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is also working on a blockchain-based Internet infrastructure.

He announced his initiative, which he calls Bluesky, in December of 2018, and he noted that it is aiming to develop a, quote... You call on the tech giants and the tech leaders to change the way the Internet works and help be part of that process, so what's the difference between what Jack Dorsey's talking about and what you're doing?

>> I haven't seen Jack's protocol, so I don't know.

But the spirit of what he's saying I completely endorse and completely agree with.

And I'm glad he's working on it, and I'm glad he has a team working on it, because this isn't about who -- who changes things.

We all need to contribute to that.

It's about changing things.

And the -- If Jack Dorsey has a better product or a better idea, I'll be the first to support it.

There are many, many smart people out there that are passionate about this issue that have something to offer.

We welcome that involvement.

We need to get this right.

To me, we're at a foundational moment.

This -- We should be thinking about this as the foundation of this very country, where people got together -- hopefully this time around there will be a diverse group getting together representing all facets of our society -- but getting together and talking about what do we want the ideals to be, what do we want the values to be, the principles to be in this new community we're founding.

>> You have said several times that this protocol will be, "gifted to humanity."

So, is this effort entirely driven by altruism and your desire to fix a problem?

Or are there profit motives involved, and if so, is that necessarily bad?

>> Well, it's definitely both in our case.

Our entire premise as an enterprise is to integrate financial results and social impact.

We've never, as a family, looked at those two as at odds with one another.

We have a responsibility to society and to do things that have positive impact on society.

That's how we run our business, that's how we operate, that's how we make decisions, and that's how we think about things.

So, from my perspective, this is a wonderful project to have both impact and generate financial results.

And I think the financial results not only are not a bad thing.

Without them, I don't think Project Liberty will work.

I don't think it's sustainable.

And there's no change of catching up with Big Tech.

>> You're investing $250 million into this effort, but ultimately you need to get perhaps billions of people to depart from something that is so deeply entrenched in their daily lives, that some even compare it to an addiction.

How confident are you that you can do this?

>> Well, I'm very confident or I wouldn't be doing it.

But anybody that knows me knows I'm an optimist and I'm not always right.

Project Liberty is a solution to a big problem, and if there's a better solution out there, we will support that solution.

And I'm very hopeful.

I'm very optimistic that we can have a positive impact here, but it's gonna take many, many others as well.

>> Frank McCourt, thank you very much for sharing your perspective, your ideas, your project, and your solution for how to fix the Internet.

It's been a pleasure to have you on "Firing Line."

>> My pleasure, Margaret.

Thanks for your interest in Project Liberty.

I really appreciate it.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.