The net’s long decline into “five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of the other four” isn’t a mystery. Nor was it by any means a forgone conclusion. Instead, we got here through a series of conscious actions by big businesses and lawmakers that put antitrust law into a 40-year coma. Well, now antitrust is rising from its slumber and we have work for it to do.
As regulators and lawmakers think about making the internet a better place for human beings,their top priority should be restoring power to users. The internet’s promise was that it would remove the barriers that stood in all our way; distance, sure, but also the barriers thrown up by large corporations and oppressive states. But the companies gained a toehold in that environment of lowered barriers, turned right around, and put upfreshbarriers of their own. That trapped billions of us on platforms that many of us do not like but feel we can’t leave.
Platforms follow a predictable lifecycle: first, they offer their end-users a good deal. Early Facebook users got a feed consisting solely of updates from the people they cared about, and promises of privacy. Early Google searchers got result screens filled with Google’s best guess at what they were searching for, not ads. Amazon once made it easy to find the product you were looking for, without making you wade through five screens’ worth of “sponsored” results.
The good deal for users is only temporary. Platforms today use a combination of tools, including taking advantage ofcollective action problems,“Most Favored Nation” clauses,collusive back-room deals to block competitors,computer crime laws, andDigital Rights Management to lock their users in. Once those users are firmly in hand, the platforms degrade what made users choose the platform in the first place, making the deal worse for them in order to attract business customers. So instead of showing you the things you asked for, your time and attention is sold to businesses by platforms.
For example,Facebook broke its promise not to spy on users, created a massive commercial surveillance system, and sold cheap, reliable targeting to advertisers. Googlebroke its promise not to pollute its search engine with ads and offered great deals to advertisers. Amazon offered below-cost shipping and returns to platform sellers and later shifted the cost onto those sellers. YouTubeoffered reliable, lucrative income streams to performers and many responded by building their businesses on the platform.
The good deal for business customers is no more permanent than the good deal for end users; once business customers are likewise dependent on a platform, the platform’s generosity ends and it starts clawing back value for its shareholders. Facebookrigs its ad market to rip off publishers and advertisers, Applehikes the fees it charges app makers, and Amazon follows suit, untilmore than half the price of the third-party goods you buy on Amazon is consumed by junk fees; Googlefires 12,000 workers aftera stock buyback that would have paid all their salaries for the next 27 years, even as its search quality degrades and its results pages areoverrun by fraud. A platform where nearly all the value has been withdrawn from users and business customers lives in a state of fragile equilibrium, trapped in a cycle of degrading service, increased regulatory scrutiny after privacy violations, moderation scandals, and other highly public failings, and a widening gyre of scandals and bad press. Its value is only in its monopoly.
Amidst this bumper crop of tech scandals, lawmakers and regulators are seeking ways to protect internet users. That’s a good priority to have: platforms will rise and fall. Theyshould, in fact, if they fail to offer anything of actual value to their users. They don’t need our protection. It’susers we should be thinking of.
Protecting users from platform degradation starts with giving userscontrol: control over their digital lives. Users deserve to be protected from deceptive and abusive platform rules, users deserve to have alternatives to the platforms they use now. Finally, users deserve the right touse those alternatives, without having to pay a heavy price caused by artificial technical or legal barriers to switching.
We're in the midst of a long-overdue move toregulateandlegislate over platform abuses. Each platform has its own technical ins-and-outs, and so any policy to protect users of a given platform must employ a finely detailed analysis to make sure it does what it’s supposed to do. Experts like EFF live in these details, but ultimately even those details are determined by big picture concerns.
Below, we set out two of those big-picture principles that we think are both critical to protecting users and, compared to many other options, easier to implement.
How these principles are implemented could vary—they may be embodied directly in legislation if done carefully, enforced in specific settlements with regulators or in litigation, or, better yet, voluntarily adopted by platforms, technologists, or developers, or enforced by investors or other kinds of funders (nonprofit or municipal, for instance). They are intended as a framework for evaluating those fine-grained solutions, not to judge whether they are technically effective, but rather, whether they are effective ways to builda public interest internet.
TheEnd-to-End Principle is a bedrock idea underpinning the internet, the idea that the role of a network is to reliably deliver data from willing senders to willing receivers. This idea has taken on many guises over the decades since it was formalized in 1981. A familiar example is the idea ofnetwork neutrality, which states that your ISP should send you the data you ask for as quickly and reliably as it can. For example, a neutral ISP uses the same “best-effort” to deliver the videos you request, while a non-neutral ISP might only use best-effort to deliver the videos from its own affiliated streaming service, while slowing down the videos served by its rivals.
You signed up with your ISP to get the content and connectionsyou want, not the ones the ISP’s investorswish you’d asked for.
We think that a version of the end-to-end principle has a role to play in the “service layer” of the internet as well, whether that’s in social media, search, e-commerce, or email. Some examples include:
Plenty of people don’t like big platforms but feel they can’t leave.Social media users are locked in thanks to the “collective action problem” of convincing all their friends to leave and agreeing on where to go. Performers and creators are locked in because their audiences can’t follow them to new platforms without losing the media they’ve paid for (and audiences can’t leave because the creators they enjoy are stuck on the platforms).
Making it easier for platform users to go elsewhere has two important effects: it disciplines platform owners who are tempted to shift value from users to themselves, because they know that making their platforms worse, such as by allowing harassment and scams, or by increasing surveillance, raising prices or accepting invasive advertising, will precipitate a mass exodus of users who can leave without paying a high price.
Just as important: if platformsaren’t disciplined by this threat, then users canleave, treating the bad platform as damage and routing around it. That is the part of the free market that these companies always try to forget: consumers are supposed to be able tovote with their feet. But if you will lose contact with your friends and family if you leave a terrible service, you can't really choose the better option.
What’s more, a world where hopping platforms is easy is a world where tinkerers, co-ops, and startups have a reason to build alternatives that users can hopto.
Social media:“Interoperable” social media platforms connect to one another, allowing users to exchange messages and participate in communities from “federated” servers that each have their own management, business model, and policies. Services based onthe open ActivityPub service (like Mastodon) are designed to make switching easy:users need only export their list of followers and the accounts they follow and upload them to another server, and all those social connections are re-established with just a few clicks (Bluesky, a new service that boasts of its federation capabilities but is thus far limited to a single server, has a similar function). This ease of switching makes users less reliant on server operators. If your server operator fosters a hostile community, orsimply pulls the plug on their server, you can easily re-establish yourself on any other server without sacrificing your social connections. Existing data-protection laws like theCCPA andGDPR already require online service providers to turn over your data on demand; that data should include the files needed to switch from one server to another. Regulators seeking to improve the moderation practices of large social media platforms should also be securing the right of exit for platform users. Sure—let’s make the big platforms better, but let’s also make it easier to walk away from them.
DRM-locked media: Most of the media sold by online stores is encumbered with “Digital Rights Management” technology that prevents the people who buy it from playing it back using unauthorized tools. This locks audiences to platforms because breaking up with the platform means throwing away the media you’ve purchased. It also locks performers and creators to those platforms, unable to switch to rivals that treat them better and pay them more, because their audiences can’t follow them without forfeiting those earlier purchases. Applied to media, the “right of exit” would require platforms to facilitate communications between buyers and creators of media. A creator who switched to a rival platform could use this facility to provide all purchasers of their works with download codes for a new platform, which would be forwarded by the old platform to the creator’s customers. Likewise, customers who switched to another store could send messages via the platform to creators asking for download codes on the new service.
For decades, failures in tech regulation have been blamed on technology’s speed and regulation’s slowness—we’re told that regulators just can’t keep up with tech.
But tech regulation doesn’t have to be slow. Some proposed tech regulations—like rules requiring platforms to provide full explanations for content moderation and account suspension decisions, or to prevent bullying and harassment—will always be slow, because they are “fact-intensive.”
A rule requiring action on harassment needs: a definition of harassment, an assessment of whether a given action constitutes harassment, and an assessment of whether the action taken was sufficient under the rule. These are the kinds of things that people of good faith could argue about for years, and that people of bad faith could argue aboutforever.
Furthermore, even once definitions of these things are agreed on, it will take a long time to see the effects in practice and evaluate if they are working as intended.
By contrast, “end-to-end” and “right of exit” are easy to administer, because you will know instantly if the principles are being followed. If we tell social media platforms that they must deliver posts to your followers, we can tell whether that’s happening by making some test posts and checking whether they’re delivered. Same for a rule requiring search tools and e-commerce sites to prioritize exact matches—just do a search and see if the exact match is at the top of the screen.
Likewise for right-of-exit: if a Mastodon user claims they weren’t given the data needed to transfer to another server, the question can be easily settled by the old server owner handing over that data.
There are many important policy priorities thatare fact-intensive and hard to administer.. The more administrable our other policies are, the more capacity we’ll have to dive into those urgent, gnarly problems.
Rules that are expensive to comply with can be a gift to big companies.If we make copyright filters mandatory for online services, we are effectively saying that no one can create an online service unlessthey have $100 million lying around to stand up a filter. Or we are saying that startups should have to pay those companies rents to use their filter technology. If we make rules that assume that every online service is a Big Tech company, we make it impossible to shrink Big Tech.
End-to-end and right of exit are cheap policies, cheap enough to apply to small companies, individual hobbyists, and also very large, incumbent firms.
Services like Mastodon are already end-to-end: complying with an end-to-end rule would simply require Mastodon server operators not to rip out the existing end-to-end feature; rather, any recommendation/ranking system for Mastodon would have to exist alongside of the current system. For large services like Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, end-to-end would mean restoring the simplest form of feed: a feed just of the accounts you actively chose to follow.
Same for right of exit: this is already supported in modern, federated systems, so no new work would have to be done by people running these server tools; rather, their only burden would be to respond in a timely fashion to user requests for their data. These are handled automatically, but might require manual work if the operator decides to kick a user off the service or shut the service down.
For Big Tech incumbents, adding a right of exit means implementing an open standard that already has reference libraries and implementations.
We want a web where users are in control. That means a web where we freely choose our online services from a wide menu and stay with them because we like them, not because we can’t afford to leave. We want a web where you get the things you ask for, not the things that corporate shareholders would prefer that you’d asked for. We want a web where willing listeners and willing speakers, willing sellers and willing buyers, willing makers, and willing audiences are all able to transact and communicate without worrying about their relationships being held hostage or disrupted to cram “sponsored posts” into their eyeballs.
Platform decay is the result of firms undisciplined by either competition or regulation and thus free to abuse their users and business customers without the fear of defection or punishment. Creating policies to give platform users a fair shake and the ability to leave will require a lot of attention to detail—but all that detail needs to be guided by principles, north stars that help keep us on the path to a better internet.
Apple has released a scaremongering, self-serving warning aimed at the Australian government, claiming that Australians will be overrun by a parade of digital horribles if Australia follows the European Union’s lead and regulates Apple’s “walled garden.” TheEU’s Digital Markets Act is a big, complex, ambitious law that...
There’s a weird belief out there that tech critics hate technology. But do movie critics hate movies? Do food critics hate food? No! The most effective, insightful critics do what they do because they love something so deeply that they want to see it made even better. The most effective...
We’re in the midst of a long-overdue resurgence in antitrust litigation. In the past 12 months alone, there have been three landmark rulings againstGoogle/Alphabet (in search, advertising, and payments). Then there’s the long-running FTC v. Meta case, which went to trial last week. Plenty of people are cheering...
Epic Games, maker of the popular game Fortnite, sued Google under the antitrust laws, challenging the restrictions that Google placed on app developers who sell apps the Google Play Store. Epic’s suit challenged Google’s requirement that apps use Google’s payment processing service for in-app transactions and paying a 30% fee...
The steady rise of decentralized networks this year is transforming social media. Platforms like Mastodon, Bluesky, and Threads are still in their infancy but have already shown that when users are given options, innovation thrives and it results in better tools and protections for our rights online. By moving towards...
For a decade, the EU has served as the regulatory frontrunner for online services and new technology. Over the past two EU mandates (terms), the EU Commission brought downmanyregulations covering all sectors, but Big Tech has been the center of their focus. As the EU seeks to regulate...
