������Ƶ

Is it even possible to regulate the internet?

As human expression moves more online, governments around the world are increasingly grappling with how to regulate content and privacy on social media websites like Facebook and Twitter. Yet the reactive and siloed nature of the current political climate makes it nearly impossible to keep up with the myriad of freedom of expression and privacy issues that plague millions of users faster than tech companies can—or choose to—react.

Indeed, events over the last few years—from to the —have exposed how powerful a handful of tech companies have become, and how dangerous it can be when they fail to act on behalf of their users (whether intentionally or not). The wealth concentration of just the top few richest Americans, including the likes of , , and these fortunate few titans control what we read, see, and express.

This distinction is impossible to ignore, and at a recent ������Ƶ event called “Speech Police,” Anne-Marie Slaughter noted how the scale of that influence might require a rethinking of current governance surrounding big tech companies. She said that discussions of internet regulation should revolve around “the protection of speech, the protection of privacy, and the maintenance, preservation and revitalization of democracy.” The question is how to apply those norms to global companies that work in scores of countries, each of whom might have different appreciation for those norms or different levels of democracy to enforce them.

Despite the fact that most of the world’s leading companies are based in the United States, the U.S. government has largely become a spectator when it comes to managing the internet. David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion & expression and author of , noted at the event how the majority of discussions surrounding maintaining freedom of expression come from Europe and, sparingly, the United Nations.

This broader lack of attention to the internet’s relationship with society contributes to less accountability online when it comes to human rights issues—think of the perniciousness of things like , , and . And according to Kaye, tech companies left unaccounted for by governments “are always going to be in the position to have the first response” to issues that already affect billions.

Rebecca MacKinnon, Director of the Ranking Digital Rights program at ������Ƶ, mentioned the recently released when discussing the inadequate and reactionary responses of tech companies. The Index, which “evaluates 22 of the world’s most powerful internet, mobile, and telecommunications companies on their disclosed commitments and policies affecting freedom of expression and privacy,” found that every tech company falls far short in privacy, security, expression, or governance (sometimes all or multiple). Most companies are improving, but it isn’t fast enough.

How can we fix this?

MacKinnon argued that governments ought to be sure that companies include UN frameworks—based on human-rights assessments—in their terms of service, behavior, and policies. They also must “prove that they are implementing” what is asked of them—.

But is this enough? Despite a clear desire or at least interest in tech governance—evidenced by the large attendance at “Speech Police” and massive media coverage of the topic—it’s unclear if it’s possible at the speed we need. The event’s participants pointed to a few reasons why this is the case.

First, current methods of governing tech companies are siloed and internationally disconnected. Every country has their own idea about social media as it pertains to human rights, and, according to MacKinnon, “we have these globally interconnected systems, and our approach to constraining power doesn’t really fit the purpose across global networks.” Given the current political climate both nationally and abroad, it seems unlikely that this frustrating fact will change.

Second, company bureaucracy is a major hurdle. According to Kaye, “we don’t have a good sense of who is making the rules, and ultimately who is accountable for different kinds of decisions.” Gigantic companies like Google and, especially, Facebook are nearly impossible to manage because they’re private and dictate their policies before governments have a chance to react.

Which leads to a third issue: that tech advances at a clip faster than what governments can reasonably keep up with. Slaughter noted the subtle change in title from Kaye’s 2019 book to —they were on similar topics but switched their main focuses from “freedom” to “governance”—and said that “the internet has evolved in ways we might not have predicted.” Indeed, the tech CEOs likely didn’t envision the human-rights issues created by their platforms. So it will be difficult for policymakers to proactively address human rights concerns caused by tech effectively—especially in today’s state of political division.

Of course, internet governance, like any other sort of governance, isn’t perfect. But right now, it falls woefully short, and private companies have too much power over public speech, information, and democracy—this despite the fact that, according to MacKinnon, “the internet is supposed to be good for the people.”

Looking ahead, it might be useful to recall that, after Theodore Roosevelt broke up the industrial monopolies of the Gilded Age, power shifted back to workers. How might democracy improve if the same were to happen to today’s tech companies?