The Internet is Headed for Change

In recent times, there are more and more attempts to “muzzle” the Internet. Rahul Matthan writes that the main driver for this is, unsurprisingly, social media and messaging apps.

 

As always, history is relevant. When the Internet got started, the US (which was where most of the Internet existed) wanted to protect and nurture it. So they came up with a “provision that shielded network operators from being punished for what their users posted”. As the Internet spread across the world, most countries adopted a similar policy.

 

But progressively, it became clear that crimes were being planned and committed on the Internet. So governments wanted access to content, who was posting it, where they were located etc. The West felt its own processes had checks and balances to protect abuse of such demands.

 

Increasingly though, the rest of the world doesn’t buy that argument. Why should the rest trust that Microsoft (Windows) or Google or Apple (smartphone OS and app stores) or Facebook (and WhatsApp) don’t divulge information of their users to the US government preferentially? For spying on other countries?

 

As the fear of governments snooping around increased, apps that encrypted communication became more desirable. Governments, in turn, demanded backdoors to those encryptions – terrorism was the common reason. But people didn’t trust that governments wouldn’t abuse such backdoors, so apps which work on popularity, aligned with the general population, not governments. The US, since most popular apps are American, threatened companies by framing laws demanding access. Companies fought back saying the very nature of encryption prevented the creation of backdoors. Worse, they said, if they created a backdoor, then other malicious actors could hack into those backdoors too. An endless cat and mouse game was underway.

 

Recently, the CEO of the encrypted chat app named Telegram, Pavel Durov was arrested in France.

“He was arrested and charged with operating a platform that was being used to commit a litany of crimes. With that, he has joined a small but growing club of tech CEOs who have been held responsible for what others do on their platforms.”

See how the wheel has come full circle? The West, which started by framing laws to not hold Internet companies for content posted on their platforms, was now changing course.

 

The world was changing in other ways too. With the rise of Tik Tok, the US found for the first time a mega-popular app that was not American. Even worse, it was Chinese. Lo and behold! The US suddenly had concerns of what data was being shared by Tik Tok with the Chinese government. The shoe was now on the other foot and the West was squirming, its hypocrisy glaring.

 

You’d think that only countries that make the most popular apps would have power in this game, i.e., America, with the notable exception being Tik Tok. You’d be wrong if you thought that. Countries with large populations soon found a different lever to wield influence – threaten to deny access to the popular apps. Since social media needs the maximum users possible, denying user access is an existential threat to such companies. India and Brazil use that lever to demand social media companies meet local laws, including content moderation and details of users posting certain types of content. This then is what has culminated in Brazil banning X (known earlier as Twitter). The Brazilian authorities argued their notices to X to take down certain accounts were ignored. Which accounts? The ones being used to promote right-wing claims of election fraud and calls for outright mob violence to ransack parliament.

 

Notice something? The West does it, the rest of the world does it. The right demands access and compliance, so too does the left:

“If there is anything these incidents teach us, it is that countries around the world have finally reached the end of their tether when it comes to the manner in which content moderation is currently been carried out online. They are no longer willing to let tech companies determine what content their citizens get to consume. And an increasing number of them are willing to take stern action if required to ensure compliance.”

Are we heading to a new world where the rules of the online world are changed? Such changes are neither simple nor predictable in their impact, which is why Matthan ends with:

“I am not sure we are ready for it.”