The World’s Gone Inter-Nuts!
10 reasons the internet needs a government
- Online security should be a human right.
- Websites should be held accountable for their actions.
- Dominant corporations should be better regulated.
- Ethical and sustainable practices should be the norm.
- Users have rights.
- Online advertising is increasingly disruptive.
- Communication is a human right.
- Content should be accessible and standardized.
- Art and cultural content should be preserved.
- Information should be protected and remain accessible long-term.
Establishing a fair, transparent, and democratic form of internet governance could help solve a wide range of pressing issues in the digital world. From misinformation and monopolies to online abuse and content inconsistency, the current system is clearly not ideal. A globally accountable structure could create a safer, more equitable, and more sustainable internet for all.
What could an internet government look like? It should not mean giving power to a single nation or corporation. Rather, it would be a global organization with clear charters, democratic process, accountability, and oversight mechanisms. Its mission would be to set fair digital policies, protect rights, enforce ethical standards, and preserve the commons.
Reason 1: Security
An internet governed by clear laws and enforcement mechanisms could drastically reduce cybercrime. Computer viruses, data breaches, identity theft, cyberbullying, and predatory behavior could be actively prevented or penalized. A centralized authority would be empowered to enforce strict digital hygiene standards and child protection measures, making the online world a safer place for everyone.
One of the worst problems is internet cybercrime, due to existing law enforcement’s lack of jurisdiction. Hence the need for a global body, rather than simply national regulation. For example, a ransomware attack launched from one country can devastate hospitals or utilities in another, which is a problem because existing laws cannot cross borders. Global cooperation and clear internet laws would make cyberspace less lawless.
Reason 2: Transparency
In the absence of accountability, misinformation spreads like wildfire. An internet governance framework could enforce fact-checking, require transparency in algorithm design, and help curtail bias and hate speech. News should be unbiased and consist only of actual information.
Currently, people can post misinformation without consequence. Other people will read that information, and perhaps believe it because it’s online. Lack of transparency and regulation around algorithms contributes to bias and discrimination. This combination of factors has inadvertently made the internet a stomping ground for hatemongers. Regulation would require companies to explain how content is filtered, recommended, or suppressed — ensuring fairness across all demographs.
Another problem in this field is the fact that platforms are using secretive moderation policies without transparency or recourse. This includes shadowbanning, i.e. using algorithms to make a user’s content less visible. There are some places where shadowbanning makes sense (spam, inappropriate content) but it’s overused on many sites.
Reason 3: Regulation of corporations
Oversight of dominant tech companies would promote competition, ensure fair market practices, and regulate emerging technologies like blockchain, cryptocurrency, and AI. Governing these sectors would prevent misuse, while also encouraging ethical innovation.
Restrictions around the online sale of goods could reduce retail death. Amazon accounts for over 40% of e-commerce transactions in Canada. This stranglehold hurts other retailers and limits consumer choice. Many popular brands have come and gone, and still most countries’ governments refuse to intervene. Furthermore, market distortion results in tax base erosion for governments and worker exploitation.
Ideally, Amazon would be straight-up ordered to scale back for fairness reasons. Regulation could impose diversity requirements, cap market share, and mandate fair competition. Megacorporations, online or otherwise, should not be allowed to shape global culture, policy, and economics without checks and balances.
The law should favour retail diversity, both on and off the internet. Market freedom must be balanced with market fairness. This is why eBay is greatly preferable to Amazon: because it consists mostly of small-scale sellers.
Reason 4: Ethics and sustainability
The tech industry’s environmental impact (energy consumption and e-waste production) can be mitigated through policies promoting sustainability. Online marketplaces, including Amazon, often operate in ways that exploit workers and evade fair taxation. It is increasingly clear that oversight is called for.
The digital world consumes enormous energy and generates substantial e-waste. A single Bitcoin transaction uses more electricity than the average Canadian household consumes in 9 days. Cloud computing and data centres are major sources of pollution. The ideal policies would require energy-efficient server practices, sustainable production of tech hardware, and ethical treatment of labour in supply chains.
Internet commerce often dodges taxes and labour laws. As well as closing loopholes, governance would ensure that both workers and governments benefit from the wealth generated online.
Reason 5: User rights
Upholding democratic rights online, including fair moderation, transparency, and user-driven policy decisions, ensures a fair online environment. A website’s users should have the right to be treated as citizens, not subjects.
Sites should not allow arbitrary banning or blocking without oversight. Many websites’ users have been known to block other users for no reason, or for weak reasons such as xenophobia. Worse yet, some sites ban users without warning, and/or over very minor infractions. Some moderation is necessary. Users deserve transparency, appeals, and due process.
Websites should never be allowed to discontinue helpful or popular features. When YouTube banned community-contributed subtitles in September 2020, it was a complete outrage. Worse yet, no country has yet ordered their division of YouTube to reinstate them. Captions are a need of the people rather than a mere want. Some YouTube users are deaf and/or watch content in languages other than their own. YouTube’s decision was not only blatantly dictatorial, but also ableist and discriminatory based on the user’s language.
Far too many websites unfairly ignore their users’ suggestions. Many perfectly reasonable ideas get locked with no discussion. Democratic process should apply in full to website restructuring; all reasonable user suggestions should be entitled to a fair hearing. Ideally, the future internet government would make this a retroactive requirement. For example, Duolingo should be forced to reinstate their volunteer program and forums, as well as resume granting all users unlimited chances for mistakes. These features’ discontinuations were never put to a vote, let alone approved by the majority of users.
Furthermore, once content is public, it should remain publicly accessible. Bait-and-switch tactics should be outright banned. Introducing paywalls or login requirements after the fact is unfair and exclusionary. Likewise, content advertised as free should not be allowed to demand credit card information. Free should mean free! Demanding a credit card is false advertising.
Reason 6: Online advertising
Online ads have become increasingly disruptive. Users are bombarded with popups, audio blasts, and deceptive redirects. Advertising regulations would promote a fairer and more accessible internet for all users.
The ideal system would limit ads to silent, non-intrusive banners. It would also outlaw unskippable, auto-playing, or misleading content. Tracking cookies should only be allowed on an opt-in basis, and never as the default. Above all, redirects must be eliminated! No one wants to be unexpectedly taken to a different website without intentionally clicking a link.
Ad-blocking software is not a catch-all solution; many websites circumvent them. Advertising regulations would protect users while still allowing sites to earn revenue. With fairer pricing, even banner ads could generate enough income to fund operations ethically.
Online advertising should be regulated to protect public attention and mental health. There are laws around television advertising; an internet government would allow standards to apply online. For example, surveillance advertising (which profiles users based on activity) should be banned.
Reason 7: Commenting and petition rights
Communication is a human right, and that includes online. Closure of comment sections on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, or news sites prevents marginalized voices from being heard. Comment sections should only ever be disabled on highly controversial topics. And even then, such decisions should be made by community vote, and subject to periodic review. Suppressing conversation silences perspectives and erodes digital democracy.
Similarly, petitions advocating for positive change should remain active unless proven harmful. Currently, platforms retire petitions for inactivity without asking their creators or supporters, often denying users a chance to organize for change. All beneficial petitions should be carried out on a “never give up” basis, attracting signatures for as long as it takes to achieve victory. Conversely, harmful petitions (e.g. in favour of racism) should be not only banned, but also deleted, even from the Wayback Machine.
The right to participate in public discussion — whether through comments, petitions, or forums — is a core part of online civic freedom. But freedom of speech and freedom of opinion should only mean free within reason. Hate speech has no place!
Reason 8: Accessibility and standardization
The internet should be globally accessible, logically organized, and free from arbitrary regional restrictions. Region-locked content, unavailable episodes on streaming platforms, and mismatched metadata (e.g. titles in English for content in another language) create confusion and inequality.
A standardized framework could ensure worldwide availability of media content and online sale of goods, unless legally restricted. As well as complete, accurate catalogues with language-consistent descriptions. No one should have to guess whether an episode is missing or mislabelled, or be misled about the language of a video.
Accessibility standards should include universal captioning, accessibility for the blind, and multilingual parity. The same standards and content should be offered in all the world’s major languages.
Ironically, the first reason I ever thought “the internet needs a government” was probably the weakest: to standardize video volume, so you don’t have to turn up the volume on one video only to have the next one blast at you. (A very specific subsection of standardization.)
Reason 9: Art and cultural content
Creative content should be respected and preserved, not deleted. When platforms remove artwork, videos, or writing, it amounts to cultural erasure. Fanworks, remixes, and independent media are often unfairly removed due to copyright bots, often without human review or any way for the creator to appeal the ban.
Creators deserve ownership and control over their work, and just as importantly, audiences deserve continued access to it. At the very least, platforms should be legally obligated to notify creators before removing their work. Exceptions exist (such as criminal content), but in general, adult material should be handled with age restrictions and content warnings, rather than blanket bans.
Reason 10: Access to information
The internet was meant to preserve knowledge. Copyright claims, broken links, paywalls, and removed pages make information vanish daily. Information sources, especially those cited by other websites, should be archived, redirected, or at least mirrored in order to ensure long-term accessibility of information.
News sites and scientific papers should be accessible to all, free of charge and without time limits. Knowledge, including journalism, is a public good, and should not be treated as a luxury item. Governance would ensure that content remains reachable indefinitely, fulfilling the internet’s original promise as a global information commons. Governance would ensure that valuable content remains reachable indefinitely, fulfilling the internet’s original promise as a global information commons.