Written as a discussion paper for PUBPOL708 – Digital Democracy for the McMaster University Master of Public Policy in Digital Society
It has been difficult to conceptualize governance structures — or perhaps, lack thereof — of the Internet/digital cyberspace/informational capitalism. How do we understand the rules and regulations of the Internet and the power and influence exerted on actors — both state and non-state actors — in the digital sphere? The readings this week either explicitly or interrogates norms and governance regimes of the Internet. John Parry Barlow’s “Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace” decrees:
“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.” (emphasis added by author).
This anarcho-libertarian view of the early Internet that can be connected to Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” has been proven wrong, as “history” has roared back, the nation-state has exerted its power and sovereignty, and private corporations dominate cyberspace. “Code is law,” as Lawrence Lessig declares, and the readings discuss the role of non-state actors — particularly private corporations and the power of market capitalism — in the governance of the Internet. How then do we establish norms to govern the Internet? Joseph Nye and Mauro Santaniello explores the way existing international governance influences Internet governance norms through mostly theoretical frameworks adopted from international relations theory. I particularly identify as a constructivist and often think about how norms are constructed by social relations between actors. Through that lens, I identify with the Constitutionalism school of Internet governance that Santaniello conceptualizes, and that Nicolas Suzor and Lessig both subscribe to. There needs to be the construction of “rules that set our how our shared social spaces are constituted [sic] and how decisions that affect our lives are made.. A new way of thinking about the power that technology companies wield and the discretion they exercise over our lives… We should expect the technology companies that rule over us to take on the hard work, now, to develop their own constitutional protections that can help ensure that our [sic] rights are protected.” In a practical sense on the national level, that means re-thinking our governance and regulatory frameworks, as Julie Cohen argues, to match the new challenges that informational capitalism imposes. For example, reforming our understanding of antitrust governance regimes to address platform power.
Norms are powerful because they constrain actors’ relations and actions, but that they should also be flexible and responsive to change. Cyberspace, with its unique features that transcend national borders and the usage of vast amounts of information, should transform our ways of thinking about governance and regulation.