After reading Andrew Moore's July editorial,^[1^] which deals with issues close to my heart, I ruminated on one of his statements, which seemed to me more essential than one might at first glance think. Let me explain. He posits that the current pandemic might be a good point at which to rethink our habit of organizing scientific meetings at far‐flung locations. That way, we could get rid of two highly unwanted effects: significant carbon dioxide emissions, which exacerbate the current climate crisis, as well as significant costs, which are a hindrance to conference attendance for the “scientific have‐nots”, that is, for scientists not employed in the so‐called “developed nations.”

Personally, I have always tried to minimize these kind of trips (especially those involving travel by airplane). Many years have gone by without my visiting a far‐flung scientific conference. But I have to admit that practically all of the workshops/conferences I did visit came with important scientific payoffs. Thus, I am glad that virtual conferencing might indeed replace a large part of these kinds of gatherings, which were not only terrible for the environment, but, as Andrew Moore correctly pointed out, rather exclusive (travel grants not withstanding).

This brings me to his observation that we must do everything possible to make attendance of virtual conferences available to all. It is here that deeper issues come to the fore. In this context he worries that companies will soon monopolize virtual conference services, charging sums that again might force disadvantaged scientists out of the (virtual) room. I would propose that “merely” bringing in adequate local internet/computer equipment (which of course would require some financial aid in the beginning) would already do the trick. The organization should then be (just as in days of old) in the hands of rotating panels of organizing experts in the field. As long as wholesale “commercialization”— that is, simply opening the doors to profit‐making companies—is resisted, things will be just fine. We can thus protect the scientific community against Moore's dystopian prediction: "…companies are charging princely sums for their virtual conference services – sums that arguably have little relationship to the true cost of the “product”: whilst airlines lose billions, another business sector will earn billions.”

It is this last observation into which I want to delve further. Why do I almost instinctively agree with his idea that restricting the contributions of corporations here would be a good idea? The editorial was written to introduce a description of a post‐COVID‐19 world characterized by fundamental fragility as well as a challenging hyperconnectivity giving rise to severe socioeconomic difficulties lying ahead.^[2^] Some dangers of (internet) hyperconnectivity are painfully exemplified by Facebook and Whatsapp. Though fundamentally different (e.g., Facebook being notoriously lax about user privacy, Whatsapp using end‐to‐end encryption), they both have been shown to be dangerously efficient conduits of conspiracy theories, racism, and misinformation.^[3, 4^] Not surprisingly, these internet giants have combined expressions of concern with almost complete inaction (of note, they belong to the same company). As always, the bottom line is their only consideration, which means that targeting their revenues is our only hope. The terrible consequences for a functioning democracy have been, and are being, abundantly demonstrated. How corrosive they have been is amply demonstrated by the internet harassment of the courageous Julia Carrie Wong, who had the temerity to point out some of the real‐life effects of Facebook's cavalier attitude.^[3^] Quite evidently, Facebook did not set out to undermine western democracies or instigate genocide in Myanmar, but rather enabled them. Worse, they still decline to impose real restrictions on misuse (and, no, this is not a freedom of speech issue). How come Wikipedia still embodies all the early promise of the internet, while Facebook and its subsidiary have so many undesirable effects?

Could it be because Wikipedia is a non‐profit organization, while Facebook is (to quote Frank Zappa) “only in it for the money”? The many current upheavals across the globe show us that unfettered free market capitalism is not the way to organize education (Trump University, anyone?), healthcare, law enforcement, prison, public transport… or the internet, for that matter. To confront the almost overwhelming challenges with regard to health, sustainability, climate, and equality our species currently faces, we must redistribute our common wealth, and not only from one business sector to another. Thus, the question regarding the future of the World Wide Web: “Wikipedia or Whatsapp?” turns out be an incarnation of a more general choice that we have to make regarding the future of the world community: Citizens or Corporations?

在阅读了安德鲁·摩尔（Andrew Moore）7月份的社论^[ 1 ^]，该社论处理了我内心深处的问题后，我对他的其中一项陈述进行了反思，在我看来，这似乎比乍一看想的要重要。让我解释。他认为，当前的流行病可能是重新思考我们在遥远地点组织科学会议的习惯的好时机。这样，我们就可以消除两个非常有害的影响：大量的二氧化碳排放量（这加剧了当前的气候危机）以及巨大的成本，这阻碍了“科学界人士”参加会议，即适用于未在所谓的“发达国家”工作的科学家。

就我个人而言，我一直试图尽量减少此类旅行（尤其是那些乘坐飞机旅行的旅行）。多年以来，我没有参加过一次遥远的科学会议。但是我必须承认，我访问过的几乎所有研讨会/会议都带有重要的科学成果。因此，令我感到高兴的是，虚拟会议确实可以取代这类聚会的很大一部分，这些聚会不仅对环境造成不利影响，而且正如安德鲁·摩尔所正确指出的那样，是排他性的（旅行赠款不予受理）。

这使我了解到他的看法，即我们必须尽一切可能使所有人都可以参加虚拟会议。在这里，更深层次的问题浮出水面。在这种情况下，他担心公司将很快垄断虚拟会议服务，收取一定的费用，这又可能迫使处于不利地位的科学家离开（虚拟）房间。我建议“仅仅”引进足够的本地互联网/计算机设备（当然，一开始它需要一些财政援助）已经可以解决问题。然后，该组织应该（像过去一样）掌握在该领域的组织专家的轮换小组手中。只要抵制批发的“商业化”，即只是向获利公司敞开大门，一切都会好起来的。

这是我要进一步研究的最后一个观察结果。为什么我几乎本能地同意他的观点，即在这里限制公司的贡献是个好主意？社论是为了介绍对COVID-19之后的世界的描述，该世界的特征是基本脆弱性以及具有挑战性的超连通性，从而导致摆在面前的严重社会经济困难。^[ 2 ^] Facebook和Whatsapp痛苦地证明了（互联网）超连接的一些危险。尽管本质上有所不同（例如，众所周知，Facebook对用户隐私松懈，使用端到端加密的Whatsapp），但它们都被证明是阴谋论，种族主义和错误信息的有效危险渠道。^[ 3、4^]毫不奇怪，这些互联网巨头将关切表达与几乎完全无所作为结合在一起（值得注意的是，它们属于同一家公司）。一如既往，底线是他们唯一的考虑因素，这意味着瞄准他们的收入是我们唯一的希望。运转民主制度的可怕后果已经并且正在得到充分证明。互联网对勇敢的朱莉娅·卡里·黄（Julia Carrie Wong）的骚扰充分表明了它们的腐蚀性，后者曾指出Facebook的勇气态度对现实生活的影响。^[ 3 ^]很显然，Facebook并没有打算破坏西方民主国家或煽动缅甸的种族灭绝，而是使他们得以实现。更糟糕的是，他们仍然拒绝对滥用进行真正的限制（不，这不是言论自由问题）。Wikipedia为何还体现了互联网的所有早期承诺，而Facebook及其子公司却产生了许多不良影响？

难道是因为Wikipedia是一个非营利组织，而Facebook（引用Frank Zappa的话）“只是为了钱”？全球目前发生的许多动荡表明，不受限制的自由市场资本主义并不是组织教育的方法（特朗普大学，有人吗？），医疗保健，执法，监狱，公共交通……或互联网。为了应对我们物种当前在健康，可持续性，气候和平等方面面临的压倒性挑战，我们必须重新分配我们的共同财富，而不仅仅是从一个商业领域转移到另一个商业领域。因此，有关万维网未来的问题是：“维基百科还是Whatsapp？” 事实证明，对于世界社会的未来，我们必须做出更一般的选择：公民还是企业？