Internet governance

The publicness of the internet is at the core of power disputes in the internet governance ecosystem. The problem is two fold: The rise and consolidation of global internet platforms and the trend of states controlling the digital space in authoritarian ways have led to erosion of the publicness of the internet and the global digital commons. 
 
The dominance of corporate control and influence in shaping the internet and digital technologies and spaces has eroded the publicness of the internet and human rights. The power of global technology corporations, based primarily in the global North, to control and exploit data and content platforms, exacerbates discrimination and inequalities.

Internet business models, private sector monopolies and the sophisticated ways in which the internet and digital technologies are being developed for profit are contrary to the public interest, equitable economic development and the exercise of human rights. The private power over the public domain by global internet companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter that rely on collecting and profiting from personal data have given rise to surveillance capitalism. 

Big technology platforms have become governance institutions often floundering in developing and implementing content policies and community standards that adhere to human rights norms and standards of transparency and accountability.

At the same time, states’ attempts to police digital spaces are leading to securitisation of internet policy. There is a need for continued engagement in internet governance processes to challenge corporate power and emphasise governments’ responsibility to hold private corporations accountable. The views, voices and interests of people confronting structural discrimination and oppression are needed to push back against corporate power and state control and challenge the securitisation of the internet.

However, effective engagement in internet governance and internet policy processes and spaces nationally, regionally and globally is becoming either too onerous or restricted for civil society actors, and at the same time, multistakeholder processes and forums are losing support and traction.