The internet is the unsung hero of 2020, politicians need to step up and defend it

As governments across the world floundered, the network of networks was able to handle an astonishing and sustained spike in usage, as almost every aspect of the lives of millions of people moved online.

If the coronavirus pandemic had struck at any other moment in human history, the impact on the economy and our personal lives would have been much more severe.  

Without the internet, it is hard to see how the global economy could have pivoted – so why is it that politicians across the globe are not only taking the internet for granted, but apparently seeking ways to curb its spread and power?

This year, we’ve seen politicians talk of regulating the internet, based on the assumption that their intervention in how the internet works is a good thing.

From the highly contentious debate over the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, to the upcoming Online Harms Bill in the UK, as well as threats to upend Brazil’s Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil da Internet), across the globe politicians think it is time to impose their authority on the internet.

Yet, their self-confidence is foolhardy. The internet Society recently conducted a major global poll of internet users from 12 countries. The results revealed that the average internet user may be more attuned to the unique decentralised nature of the network than most politicians.  

More than two-thirds of respondents (67 per cent) told us they were not confident that politicians have the knowledge necessary to regulate the internet. In the UK, the figure is even higher with three in four (75 per cent) of internet users not confident.  

The pandemic has embedded the internet into the fabric of our everyday lives – it is now an essential utility for billions of people worldwide, like water or electricity.

Our survey showed that nearly half of those asked were only able to continue working and learning remotely because of the internet. In countries such as Lebanon, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa and India, where fewer people have access to the internet, the number of people accessing services such as healthcare, shopping or online banking has risen significantly by two-thirds (66 per cent) during the pandemic.  

The internet is also special for reasons sometimes misunderstood by politicians. The internet has no central authority. You don’t need to ask permission to join the internet or innovate using its building blocks. It is because of the internet’s openness that it has been able to foster a global community who collaborate to fix problems and keep the architecture of the internet open.  

All too often when politicians talk about “the internet”, they’re talking about the big tech companies, but the internet is far more than that – it is billions of connected computers delivering everything from music, to healthcare information, to academic papers, to shopping, for people in every country.  

It is the very openness of the internet that could make it vulnerable to the whims of politicians – because changes in the law in one country could make it harder for it to operate across borders. For example, no matter where you are in the world, a website domain name follows the same format. Some governments would like to change that, making it more difficult for users from one country to access sites from another – fragile access that we currently take for granted.

Attempts to regulate the internet on a national level are often presented in terms of security – the state seeks to protect us from harmful content and cyberattacks. Politicians are pushing a ban on end-to-end encryption, in order to make it easier to catch the bad guys.

But regardless of how well-intentioned these regulatory efforts may or may not be, countries are at risk of creating invisible network barriers over national borders and creating a Splinternet – a fragmented and divided network with consequences for users around the world. Users may still be able to access a network, but it won’t be the internet as we know it. 

Imagine if you had to have a “digital passport” to visit a website in another country and if you had to go through the digital equivalent of customs. It would definitely not be the internet.

Small changes could have a big impact. Take the debate in the US on Section 230, which a group of politicians is pushing. Once an article of faith, Section 230 protects internet companies from “intermediary liability”, meaning they are not legally responsible for the content they transmit over their networks. It’s been instrumental in the growth of some of the world’s biggest and most innovative tech companies and internet services (think Wikipedia), allowing them to develop without the constant fear of being liable for every single piece of user-contributed content they publish.

Removing intermediary liability would be like making the mail service legally liable for the content of the mail it delivers – or your mobile phone provider responsible for what you say on the phone calls you make.

The inartful or naive replacement of Section 230 could be a disaster for the internet. But regulation does not necessarily need to be the enemy of the internet. We believe it can be positive, but it must proceed on a solid and informed foundation – as laid out in the Internet Way of Networking, the Internet Society’s framework for analysing the potential effects of new proposals on the network as a whole.

The internet – the open, democratic, free network we now know – has proved its worth beyond all doubt in 2020. And yet it feels we are at a crossroads. 

Even now, half the world’s population does not have regular, secure access to the internet, with all the benefit that brings. We need to think collectively about how we can address that digital divide. And we must ensure everyone can equally experience the benefit of the network that has transformed the world.

Joseph Lorenzo Hall is senior vice president for a Strong Internet at the Internet Society