In 1996, John Perry Barlow wrote the influential "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace". It has been 30 years, but the fight to be naturally independent on the internet is still going on today. Evelyn wrote the following blog about this, that was also the introduction to our monthly newsletter.

Register for the newsletter

This blogpost appeared as an introduction in our monthly English newsletter. Want to receive the newsletter immediately in your inbox? Register via:

You weary giants of flesh and steel

Last month Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), was a guest at The Daily Show. The occasion for her appearance was her departure from the organization and recent rulings in two lawsuits against Meta and Google. Digital rights have never been so mainstream.

EFF is the oldest digital rights organization in the world. In 1990, John Perry Barlow was one of its founding members. You might also know him as the writer of the influential 1996 paper 'A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace'. It opens with the following words:

"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather."

The idea that the internet must be protected from the government has held its ground. What has held less ground is the notion that there is absolutely no need for government involvement with the internet.

During the interview with Cindy Cohn, a very familiar regulatory question came up: should online "intermediaries", such as Meta and Google, be held accountable for what users upload?

One the one hand, the argument goes that if you make hosting providers liable for what user upload, no 'hoster' will allow users to upload content anymore. After all, they won't be able to rule out whether something harmful or illegal is involved, so they'll play it safe. Censorship then looms on the horizon. On the other hand, the argument is that, just as newspapers can be held responsible for what they publish, platforms should be responsible for what appears on their feeds.

And what do we think? In 2017 we wrote that we think there is a 'middle ground' - namely, holding (some) platforms accountable for the effects of the design choices they make. In that case, a platform is not responsible for a hateful post that a user places somewhere in a corner of the platform. But the platform will be held accountable if it picks up that post, places an advertisement next to it, and brings it to the attention of all its users. To put it bluntly.

The focus on design decisions has become a key element of the Digital Services Act, and was also the focus of our lawsuit against Meta. Design choices were also central to the two lawsuits that concluded in the US this month. In those cases, Meta and Google were held accountable for the harm people suffered due to the design of their platforms.

Great news, right?

Yes, we agree, but not without danger either. One of those 'design decisions' that has come under scrutiny? Encryption. In one of the cases the public prosecutor (of the state of New Mexico) argued that the ability to communicate via encryption on Instagram had endangered children. Perhaps anticipating the ruling, Meta announced earlier this month that encrypted messaging on Instagram will no longer be possible starting May 8th. Ouch.

Also from John Perry Barlow's "Declaration": "I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us." If we have learned anything in the past thirty years, it is that nowhere are we "naturally" free from the possibility of tyranny. If we do not remain critical of government intervention, we run the risk of simply swapping one tyrant for another.