The Internet is Approaching a New Hinge of History
By Colin Crowell, August 2023
During the 1990s, the U.S. government did something extraordinary for the Internet. It required unique foresight and political will—and it was fraught with risk and a high chance of failure.
Rather than having the U.S. government continue to essentially own and directly manage this nascent network, the U.S. decided to cede control and embraced a decentralized, multi-stakeholder approach to governance of the Internet.
Are we about to revisit some of the principles that informed the Internet’s policy origin story?
The origins of the Open Internet
In the middle of the 1990s, leaders in the Clinton Administration, such as White House advisor Ira Magaziner and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Irving, pushed forward ideas that would eventually lead to the creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) and the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. Since the Internet was uniquely global and open source in its design, corporate entities, civil society, and other governments around the world were welcomed into deliberations for key decisions affecting the core functions of the Internet and its ongoing development. For its part, the U.S. adopted a national Internet policy framework emphasizing the importance of the private sector’s leadership in the deployment of the growing Internet’s infrastructure, minimal government intervention in its use, and open, democratic discourse across the global platform. And many other countries around the world replicated these policies in their own national approaches.
These policy decisions were made at a critical time in the evolution of the Internet. They reflected the popular belief in Washington, D.C.–and in many international capitals–that the advent of the Internet marked a major and positive shift in the history of human communication, and the worldwide exchange of information and ideas.
Admittedly, some politicians during that era pursued policies contrary to open Internet principles, such as attempts to regulate online speech in the Communications Decency Act, or to regulate encryption with built-in “back doors.” Thankfully these proposals were beaten back in Congress and in the courts. Overall, and despite not knowing what we know now about the Internet’s seismic trajectory and societal impacts, the decisions made on the early Internet policy framework were remarkable. They successfully drove ongoing innovation, investment, and the rapid growth of a technology that is now embedded into the foundations of our professional and personal lives.
Hinges of Internet history
Today, however, we find ourselves standing at another crucial juncture—one of the hinges of Internet history. The transition from the earliest phase of the Internet, Web 1.0, during the so-called “dot com era,” to the highly interactive and socially-focused era of Web 2.0, has now set the stage for yet another transformation.
Web 1.0 and the dot-com era launched the first phase of the public Internet's presence in our lives. This initial period was characterized by static web pages and the first forays into digital commerce, as companies and individuals rushed to stake their claim in the then-uncharted electronic frontier. Early competition was heated in e-commerce and in the search market, with companies like Zappos, Buy.com, Altavista, Lycos, Excite, and others vying for users. Google and Amazon were not yet dominant. While the passage of major tech legislation unleashed billions in broadband investment and deployment, the subsequent bursting of the dot-com bubble provided a sobering reality check for the early exuberance in the sector.
The second phase, Web 2.0, marked a shift towards interactivity and user-generated content, fueled by the rise of social media companies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, Snap, TikTok, and many others. This phase is almost entirely characterized by the rise of the user-focused algorithm as the Internet became a major vehicle for engagement, participation, and targeted advertisements. With the explosion of mobile usage, this era of information volume, speed, and access is without any historical precedent. And we’re still dealing with its ramifications—the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The Web 2.0 environment is now looked upon by many as a time when the Internet was heavily influenced by unchecked commercialism and significant corporate consolidation and centralization. We have seen a coarsening of the earlier Internet culture, including the rise of abuse, harassment, and disinformation. We have seen state-sponsored election interference and massive hacks and data breaches. The Web 2.0 era also precipitated the consolidation of power among a small handful of tech giants, raising concerns over privacy, data security, and the stifling of competition and consumer choice. Many companies, often content with laying low and earning advertising dollars, were thrust into the epicenter of geopolitics. This was certainly my experience leading global public policy for eight years at Twitter.
Today, there is a palpable and growing unease in policymaking circles about excessive corporate power being exerted over the public Internet, and whether people using Internet services are able to control their data and decisions about their online experiences. Indeed, policymakers increasingly question the efficacy and benefits of the data-fueled, algorithmically-driven advertising business models prevalent in Web 2.0. As a result, today there is a remarkable opportunity for a reset; a potential rejuvenation of Internet policymaking that harkens back to the values and tech policy principles of an earlier era.
We get the Internet we deserve
Sometimes to look forward we have to look back: The past has a lot of the fundamentals we need to inform sound policymaking for this next era of Internet governance. It also allows us to reinstate decentralization and multi-stakeholder governance as key attributes of the Internet ecosystem–the intention of that first groundbreaking framework in the 1990s. To succeed, civil society will need a stronger voice in policy debates, not only as a check on corporate abuse and excessive control, but also to ensure that governments aren’t bogged down addressing yesterday’s issues. Instead, we need them to adopt balanced, forward-looking policies for the next era. Even amidst the understandable angst about the rapid rise and real-world risks posed by new technologies, including blockchain and AI, we should be open to the possibility that they can offer important contributions to a more democratic and equitable online experience.
There is certainly no guarantee that these technologies in and of themselves will improve the current situation. As a duo, commerce and technology are a potent force with which to reckon. Moreover, the development of AI clearly poses significant challenges, including ethical dilemmas, privacy issues, and the risk of major job displacement. We will have to work to develop policies to ensure that their inexorable rise is animated with the shared human values we cherish. If developed in an ethical, human-centric way, these technologies could help restore the original vision of the Internet as a decentralized, people-centered, multi-stakeholder-guided public good. That’s really worth fighting for.
For instance, the rise of AI offers transformative potential across a wide range of sectors. From healthcare to education, AI can enhance many indicators of a prosperous and healthy society, and can help to personalize public services in a way that makes them more responsive to the needs of citizens. Thoughtful governance frameworks will be crucial in navigating these challenges, ensuring that the benefits of AI are broadly shared while potential harms are effectively mitigated. With AI, we have to get it right, so no time should be wasted in establishing the appropriate fora for open debates, discussions, and putting smart frameworks on the books.
Moreover, blockchain technology, which is often seen as the foundational architecture of Web 3.0, represents yet another opportunity. As a decentralized and secure method of recording transactions, blockchains can help to democratize the Internet, returning control of data to individuals and enhancing transparency. Bitcoin, in particular, holds considerable promise for people living under corrupt regimes because of its decentralized and transparent nature, reducing dependence on traditional banking systems and government-controlled financial infrastructure. Indeed, public policy can play a key role in supporting the extraordinary potential of blockchain networks for myriad applications, while also addressing valid concerns around illicit use and the energy consumption from certain mining infrastructure operations.
Finally, climate tech–often enriched by both AI and blockchain technologies–offers the potential for transformative solutions in the face of our escalating climate crisis. In order for these technologies to unleash sustainable practices at scale and effectively mitigate harmful environmental impacts, public policy has a responsibility to actively promote their adoption and use in ways that are harmonious with climate goals.
The Blue Owl Group
I was eager to join with a number of former Twitter Public Policy and Policy Communications colleagues to start the Blue Owl Group to meet this moment—we are going to operate right at the apex of this next hinge of Internet history. That’s what we are trained to do. Indeed, the decentralized nature of Blue Owl Group mirrors the goals we have for the Internet. One that is less hierarchical, more democratic, more open, and more principled.
We have the opportunity to work across industry, civil society, and policymakers to advance the Internet as a public domain and to shape a brighter, more hopeful future online. Ultimately, we get the Internet we deserve, so we must reclaim its potential.
Join the conversation on LinkedIn and X. Tell us what you think: info@blueowlgrp.com
