The State and Internet Governance
Can the state regulate the internet? What is the scope and shape of the arrangement?
This question has been raised since the mid-1990s. The problems surrounding this issue have only become more complex. Inevitably, the internet has become a global reality, driving revolutionary changes in various fields, giving a "new direction" to human civilization, but it has not yet been thoroughly institutionalized.
The one thing that is certain is the fact that the digital revolution has given birth to a crisis of nation-state sovereignty. Information technology continues to move with new discoveries, new networks and new complexities that are rapidly driving efforts to formulate forms of governance that transcend territorial and national boundaries. All countries stutter to follow it. All countries are concerned about national sovereignty in facing the penetration of information technology, global information flows and the forms of disruption being created.
As Milton Mueller explains in the book Will the Internet Fragment?: Sovereignty, Globalization, and Cyberspace (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2017), the main character of internet technology is distributing the control. Along with the liberalization of telecommunications, internet protocols have decentralized the role and authority in regulating transnational information-communication networks. New institutions have emerged that have helped set standards and mechanisms for managing internet resources. They are transnational actors who appear organically outside the formal structure of the nation-state.
Organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, Regional Internet Address Registries and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers facilitate the formulation of internet governance standards. In their hands, the discourse on internet governance reflects ongoing efforts to establish new governance outside the normal setting for other domains. The global information-communication ecosystem is considered to require a regulatory regime that is cross-country in nature, even completely outside the state\'s authority.
Digital libertarianism
The strongest objections to state interference in internet affairs are summarized in what is known as the perspective of digital libertarianism. This perspective definitely states that the foundation of the internet is freedom. Thus, all forms of regulation of the internet are considered to be shackles to freedom. It is deterministically stated that freedom of speech is something inherently attached in the internet protocol. The internet protocol is envisioned as an independent system that does not require special institutionalization or political processes to realize the emancipation power of digital technology.
The perspective of digital libertarianism emphasizes that the internet is a matter among individuals or among groups that interact virtually. They are capable of resolving in a self-management way informative-communicative issues through collective agreements outside the scope of state interference. In the eyes of digital-libertarianists, the state with its formal-territorial authority and mandatory-coercive power is no longer relevant. The state is seen as an outdated ancient creature.
Digital libertarianism is very popular among supporters of internet freedom. The cynicism they advocate is in line with the wave of millennial distrust of formal institutions. However, as Mueller explains, there are some disadvantages to the perspective of digital libertarianism. First, this perspective sees all countries as equally bad in regulating internet governance.
However, does the threat occur in the same gradation in Singapore, Malaysia and Turkey?
It is as if in this world there is only one type of government, namely an authoritarian or reactionary government on the issue of digital transformation. In reality there is a country that is very democratic, half-democratic, and authoritarian. They respond differently to roots of issues about digital transformation. It may be true that internet regulations in Germany, the United Kingdom, or the European Union threatens internet freedom. However, does the threat occur in the same gradation in Singapore, Malaysia and Turkey?
Second, digital libertarians do not take into account the fact that there is one country that has mastered global internet governance. What has happened in the digital ecosystem so far is more or less unilateral globalism. The internet is a matter that determines the "livelihoods" of many countries, but practically it is controlled unilaterally by just one country. Thus, internet governance is not just a matter of internet freedom, but also a political economic matter.
There is a conflict of interest among countries that have discovered and developed the internet so they feel entitled to profit maximally with many other countries that feel that their digital economy surplus is absorbed so much by foreign powers. The rejection of digital libertarians against state involvement in regulating the internet as well as their announcement of US domination of the same thing according to Mueller is a form of crypto-nationalism. They criticize intervention of their own states on internet management, but are permissive of US interventionist practices of global internet governance.
Digital conservatism
The US domination of the digital ecosystem is no less problematic than the efforts of countries to control it. Stanislav Budnitsky in a review of Mueller\'s book above (2019) explains that the giant Silicon Valley companies have a bad record of unfair business competition and privacy violations.
Although they are not illegal acts, the digital companies have spent large funds to sponsor free internet advocacy activities in a number of countries and support politicians in the regulatory process regarding communication and information.
They continue to be prosecuted in the case of monopolistic business practices, illegal surveillance of internet users, and closure in matters of taxation and algorithmic arrangements. They secretly utilize data from internet users around the world and treat internet users as free labor. The business model they have developed has caused economic imbalances among countries. Although they are not illegal acts, the digital companies have spent large funds to sponsor free internet advocacy activities in a number of countries and support politicians in the regulatory process regarding communication and information.
This issue provides a breath of fresh air for supporters of state intervention. This intervention is considered necessary to emphasize the country\'s sovereignty over national security, fiscal policy, the development of a national-oriented information industry, and efforts to combat hoaxes. On the issue of hoaxes that are dividing society today, the emphasis is placed on corporate social media platform responsibilities. The perspective of digital conservatism on this side starts from the concept of the bordered Internet. That like other things, the internet can be "domesticated" as the national affairs of a state. Digital information-communication management must be integrated in the national legal system with the state as the main actor. This perspective is supported by elements of government and politicians who are oriented to regulation and control. They want to regulate the national digital domain, but generally do not master the complexities there. The important thing is to arrange it first, and how to arrange it will be done later!
Internet management by state formal institutions is negatively synonymous with securitization of the digital sphere and territorial domain of public communication.
As a result, regulations that are issued are ineffective in resolving personal data protection, hoax epidemics, trends of disruption and economic inequality, and they even tend to reduce the positive side of digitalization: freedom of expression, scientific development, cross-sector efficiency, and the development of new economic models. Internet management by state formal institutions is negatively synonymous with securitization of the digital sphere and territorial domain of public communication.
Multiparty governance
In the middle way between digital libertarianism and digital conservatism, there appears the formula for internet governance that involves the state as a party, but not the only party. The state must accept the fact that the affairs of the digital ecosystem cannot be viewed from one-sided or closed nationalism. As in the affairs of international trade, climate change and human rights, there are international standards that must be accommodated in national internet governance. There are multilateral institutions that share roles with national authorities. There are non-state organizations that help set standards and oversee their implementation.
In this context, the concepts of net-nationalism, networked governance or multistakeholderism emerge. Digital ecosystems are problems that must be regulated across countries. Not only in the sense that it must be decided bilaterally or multilaterally, but pluralistically it must involve non-state organizations and digital businesspeople. Multistakeholder governance emphasizes collaboration between state and non-state elements in internet management. The actors are the states, development companies or digital service operators and civil society organizations. Internet governance is discussed in a pluralistic and non-hierarchical international forum.
These forums are also partly sponsored by digital giant companies.
Multiparty governance promises better internet governance but it is worth noting its weakness as with the libertarian perspective above: the difficulty of avoiding the biased interests of global digital giant companies. In his criticism of the idea of net-nationalism launched by Mueller, Budnitsky reminds that the discourse on multiparty internet governance only provides a place for cosmopolitan, liberal, pro-capitalist thinkers and activists. The international multistakeholder internet governance forum does not provide a suitable place for activists and thinkers who are critical of Sillicon Valey. Countries that object to multiparty internet governance also tend to be ignored. These forums are also partly sponsored by digital giant companies.
Avoiding the bias and influence of giant digital companies is a must for the promoters of multistakeholderism or multi-stakeholder governance. A critical and inquiring attitude should be applied to them as well as to the state. If not, referring to Budnitsky\'s warning, it is feared that we try to escape the grip of the conservative-authoritarian regime, but unconsciously surrender to the arms of the new Leviathan: giant digital companies.
Agus Sudibyo, Head of New Media Research Center ATVI Jakarta