|
Law in the Internet Society
|
|
|
The Internet’s Freedom Borders
-- By DeborahLuengoSchreck - 24 Oct 2024
Introduction
Since its start, the Internet has been one of the most transformative technological advancements of the modern era. It has revolutionized communication, commerce, education, entertainment, and activism, providing a platform for individuals and organizations to connect and express ideas without geographic or temporal limitations, giving us more freedom than ever.
However, with this unprecedented freedom comes an important ethical dilemma. If the internet is to remain “real” as an open space, it must also be able to host all content, no matter how dangerous. This notion conflicts with the regulatory frameworks that many governments and international organizations have attempted to implement to safeguard the public from harmful content. The question arises whether regulation of the internet—even when well-intentioned—contradicts the nature of what it is supposed to be.
The Power of Neutrality
At the center of the Internet’s power is its neutrality. Therefore, in theory, the internet does not differentiate between the content it hosts. Every individual or corporation is granted the same access to publish their opinions or share information. The idea of net neutrality, which ensures that Internet service providers treat all data equally regardless of its kind, source, or destination, reflects the foundation of the Internet’s openness and freedom. This principle is crucial to the Internet’s democratization, allowing users to access the web without restrictions or gatekeepers.
However, this neutrality, which empowers people to push boundaries, positively makes human behavior’s darker aspects visible. Human trafficking rings, child pornography networks, and illegal organ sales are some of the activities that thrive on the other side of the web, particularly on the so-called “dark web”. These activities highlight the paradox of the internet: to be completely free, it must be accessible to its wrongfulness.
Total Freedom?
The argument for maintaining the Internet’s total freedom, even in front of these dangers, lies in the belief that any form of regulation inherently undermines its nature. Proponents of this view argue that the power of the Internet comes from its ability to function as an unrestricted medium for everyone to use and enjoy. While governments may seek to avoid illegal activities, such interventions could open the doors to other forms of censorship. When authorities begin to regulate one form of content, it could become easier for them to justify the control of other types of content that may be controversial but are not necessarily illegal.
This domino effect argument has been frequently used in discussions around internet censorship, particularly in countries with authoritarian regimes. In places like China or Iran, governments have used the pretext of national security, social peace, or morality to justify censorship that restricts political dissent and information that contradicts official news outlets. Even in democratic nations, the push for regulation—whether to combat disinformation, cyberbullying, or extremist content—raises concerns about who gets to define what is harmful and what speech is permissible. If the internet’s role is to provide an open forum for all, we risk distorting its nature by regulating it and turning it into a tool for control rather than liberation.
The Ethical Dilemma of Neutrality
Despite these concerns, it is impossible to ignore the ethical dilemma created by complete neutrality. When we speak of internet freedom, it is often in the context of positive actions. However, complete freedom also includes the freedom to harm. The Internet does not differentiate between good and evil; it is only a vehicle for transmitting information, and thus, its neutrality becomes a double-edged sword.
For example, the implications of platforms to host child pornography or human trafficking networks could have. These are not mere expressions of political views or manifestations of freedom of speech; they are human rights violations that inflict actual, tangible harm. When analyzing this, it feels troubling that such content should be allowed to exist on the Internet only because of its neutrality. However, considering that the Internet’s power lies in its ability to host anything, it must, by definition, include the capacity to host the most horrible content imaginable.
The Role of Regulation
Given the ethical concerns around allowing harmful content to increase online, it can be argued that regulation is necessary. For example, the United Nations has been discussing the aproval of a treaty to combat cybercrime for a long time. Also, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation has now imposed rules on using and sharing personal data. Similarly, the Digital Services Act seeks to hold platforms accountable for illegal content. Finally, it is important to note that the United States has enacted laws such as the Communications Decency Act, whereby Section 230 mandates responsibility to address illegal activity online.
However, these regulations can come at the cost of individual freedom. The aforementioned are examples of how, when authorities attempt to make the Internet safer, they risk transforming it into an overly regulated entity where free speech is compromised. Therefore, the power given to governments and organizations to regulate online content raises concerns about surveillance, privacy, and the erosion of liberties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while often well-intentioned and aimed at protecting society from harm, Internet regulation contradicts the Internet’s nature as a neutral and free space. The Internet’s power lies in its capacity to host all content without discrimination, but this power also enables the worst forms of exploitation and abuse. To regulate the internet is to impose boundaries on what is otherwise boundless.
While we might believe regulation can protect us from the Internet’s dangers without holding back its freedoms, the reality is more complicated. No matter how well-intentioned, any regulation opens the door to further censorship and control. As such, for the Internet to be “real” in the truest sense, it must remain free—even if that freedom comes with uncomfortable consequences.
There are far too many words for too little learning in this draft. The reader knows nothing about technology or politics that she didn't know when she started out: the references to European and US legislation are essentially non-substantive, and the conclusion that "reality is more complicated" than a simple dichotomy between "freedom" and "censorship," shows the limitations of everything that goes before. "The Internet" doesn't have "a nature" any more than "the human nervous system" has a nature. Trying to prescribe human society as a deduction from the hypothetical "human nature" is a long-indulged fixation of 'Western' thought. (I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion of my late friend David Graeber and his co-author David Wengrow in The Dawn of Everything that an important root of this "natural law" theorizing was the discovery by previously-ignorant Europeans after the 15th century of the enormous global diversity of human societies, including those of the western hemisphere that had no prolonged previous contact with European social forms. The current draft's technological essentialism (that "the Internet" is a thing with a "nature") could be usefully qualified by treating "the Internet" instead as the name of a social condition, that of constant multiform interconnection among people mediated by software, rather than reifying it. Once we are no longer seeking top find out what it is, we can approach in a less inflexible, dichotomized fashion what you rightly consider an "ethical" question: how should we treat one another under that condition of enhanced interconnection, given the importance of the substance "software," which we generally and pretty comprehensively do not understand?
|
|
