A Proposal for Public AI and Public Platforms

A proposal, not a critique, with cadence, spacing, and a clear invitation rather than an accusation.

We are approaching a moment that deserves pause — not panic, not outrage — but re-classification.

Some technologies have quietly crossed from product into infrastructure.

AI is one of them.

So are the platforms we now use simply to remain in touch with family, friends, memory, and shared life.

When that happens, the funding model stops being a neutral detail.
It becomes the architecture of behaviour.

This is not a critique of innovation.
It is a proposal for alignment.

Advertising-funded systems behave exactly as they are designed to behave:

• they optimise for attention

• they reward speed and scale

• they treat restraint as a cost

That tension shows up repeatedly — whether in weak moderation, distorted incentives, or the inability of large platforms to say “no” without commercial penalty.

The issue is not that control is impossible.
It is that control competes with growth.

A different model already exists

We already trust one of the world’s most ambitious knowledge projects under a radically different structure.

Wikipedia is:

• open

• subscription-supported

• non-advertising

• governed for trust, not engagement

It is not perfect — but it is allowed to slow down, to self-correct, and to refuse commercial capture.

That matters.

A proposal worth testing

What if certain AI systems were treated similarly?

• Open or auditable by design

• Funded by voluntary subscription

• Governed transparently

• Free from advertising pressure

Not all AI.
Not every company.

But at least one civic-grade AI, whose primary obligation is public trust rather than quarterly growth.

The incentive would change:

• from capturing attention

• to retaining confidence

That single shift alters everything downstream.

Public broadcasters and the digital public square

Public broadcasters already carry this responsibility — but increasingly on platforms they do not control.

What if organisations like the BBC hosted:

• their own non-commercial digital platforms

• community spaces without adverts

• interaction ordered by time or editorial judgment, not algorithmic amplification

A digital public square, not a shopping mall.

We already accept that:

• libraries do not sell to visitors

• parks do not display billboards

• public radio does not interrupt thought every few minutes

Why should basic digital connection be different?

If you change the funding model, you change the behaviour.
If you change the behaviour, you change the culture.

This is not nostalgia.
It is systems thinking.

The real question

The question is no longer “Can this be built?”
It is “What are we willing to classify as a public good?”

Once AI and digital connection mediate:

• knowledge

• memory

• social trust

• collective understanding

their governance becomes an ethical choice, not a technical one.

This is an invitation to explore that choice — calmly, openly, and without assuming that advertising is the only way the future can pay for itself.

We are approaching a moment that deserves pause — not panic, not outrage — but re-classification.

Some technologies have quietly crossed from product into infrastructure.

AI is one of them.

So are the platforms we now use simply to remain in touch with family, friends, memory, and shared life.

When that happens, the funding model stops being a neutral detail.
It becomes the architecture of behaviour.

This is not a critique of innovation.
It is a proposal for alignment.

Advertising-funded systems behave exactly as they are designed to behave:

• they optimise for attention

• they reward speed and scale

• they treat restraint as a cost

That tension shows up repeatedly — whether in weak moderation, distorted incentives, or the inability of large platforms to say “no” without commercial penalty.

The issue is not that control is impossible.
It is that control competes with growth.

A different model already exists

We already trust one of the world’s most ambitious knowledge projects under a radically different structure.

Wikipedia is:

• open

• subscription-supported

• non-advertising

• governed for trust, not engagement

It is not perfect — but it is allowed to slow down, to self-correct, and to refuse commercial capture.

That matters.

A proposal worth testing

What if certain AI systems were treated similarly?

• Open or auditable by design

• Funded by voluntary subscription

• Governed transparently

• Free from advertising pressure

Not all AI.
Not every company.

But at least one civic-grade AI, whose primary obligation is public trust rather than quarterly growth.

The incentive would change:

• from capturing attention

• to retaining confidence

That single shift alters everything downstream.

Public broadcasters and the digital public square

Public broadcasters already carry this responsibility — but increasingly on platforms they do not control.

What if organisations like the BBC hosted:

• their own non-commercial digital platforms

• community spaces without adverts

• interaction ordered by time or editorial judgment, not algorithmic amplification

A digital public square, not a shopping mall.

We already accept that:

• libraries do not sell to visitors

• parks do not display billboards

• public radio does not interrupt thought every few minutes

Why should basic digital connection be different?

If you change the funding model, you change the behaviour.
If you change the behaviour, you change the culture.

This is not nostalgia.
It is systems thinking.

The real question

The question is no longer “Can this be built?”
It is “What are we willing to classify as a public good?”

Once AI and digital connection mediate:

• knowledge

• memory

• social trust

• collective understanding

their governance becomes an ethical choice, not a technical one.

This is an invitation to explore that choice — calmly, openly, and without assuming that advertising is the only way the future can pay for itself.