Democracy Needs Gatekeepers

When the Internet arrived and then computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee unleashed the world wide web, a paradise of communication loomed. Now everyone could have access to all the world's knowledge. We would all know everything we wanted or needed to know to make us ideal citizens. We would make wise decisions and choose the best of leaders. And of course we could say anything we wanted, when we wanted, and broadcast it around the world. What freedom! The idea of having a public statement you wanted to make screened by editors at a newspaper or magazine seemed undemocratic and antiquated.

How naive we were. Yes, the Internet would make the truth available to all, but it has also made lies available to all, and unfortunately people often prefer the latter to the former. As for becoming wiser in our choice of leaders, that has obviously not happened.

The Internet is in fact a paradise for liars. They can tell any lie they choose, they can broadcast it to the ends of the Earth, and they can do it anonymously. They don't have to stand accountable for their mendacity. And they exploit their opportunity to the hilt, undermining democracy and promoting hate. And lies are not the only sin: anonymity has reduced much online dialogue to the level of the sewer. (American author Mike Godwin enunciated a law saying that as a thread of posts grew longer, inevitably someone would call someone else a Nazi.) And online anonymity also leads to innocent people becoming the victims of bullying and abuse.

Furthermore, personal privacy has been egregiously violated, and dot.com companies parasitically rob mainstream media of advertising revenue, driving them into bankruptcy.

Democracy needs gatekeepers. The editors of newspapers and magazines had their faults but they attempted at least to ensure that public comments were literate, factual, reasonably logical and respectful. They were, in my experience, also fair. When I subscribed to The Globe and Mail, I had many letters published even though I often disagreed with the paper's editorial policy.

Understandably, although a sizable majority of online adults continue to believe the internet has been a good thing for society, the number saying this is declining. Fortunately, this has drawn attention. As a result of various scandals, some social media services are now screening posts to their sites. A number of countries are considering data protection legislation and regulation. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a good example, establishing a set of data protection rules for all companies operating in the EU, regardless of where they are based.

In the U.S., presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for anti-trust action against the big dot.coms, a call echoed by the justice department and the Federal Trade Commission. The latter voted to fine Facebook approximately $5-billion for mishandling personal information.

The World Wide Web Foundation has made a number of recommendations to counter the toxic uses of the Internet, including equipping every user with the right and ability to control their personal data, enacting comprehensive data protection laws, and enacting policies and enforcing regulations that protect the right to safety alongside the right to freedom of speech. The latter would require "public discussions regarding the boundaries between free speech and abusive speech; retraining judges, lawyers and police to make use of existing legal instruments to effectively protect people ... from online abuse; ... and ensuring online service providers offer easy-to-use mechanisms to report abuse."

The foundation's recommendations are a tall order but necessary if the Web is to be truly a public good. Its proposed principles are contained in a report entitled The Case #ForTheWeb, a recommended read for those who would like a healthy future for the Web. The World Wide Web Foundation (founded, incidentally, by Tim Berners-Lee) can be found here.