The Problem

Since 1996-97, U.S. Internet policies and technology designs have had one common purpose, an absence of government, the definition of anarchy and unaccountable disorder.

These U.S. ‘Wild West’ Internet policies ensure minimal government accountability for corporate, technology, and individual online conduct on the U.S. Internet that mirrors most everything conducted in the real world.

Practically, this means there are no government duties or market incentives to protect people from online harm.

A stark U.S. conduct double standard of government accountability offline but not online, logically and universally subverts much conduct in America.

Opposing U.S. accountability conduct standards are inherently counterproductive, bipolarizing, and a nation divided.

They also present to the public and bad actors a two-faced U.S. policy of what is right vs. wrong and legal vs. illegal.

Dueling sets of rules are the antithesis of Constitutional rule of law, rights, due process, and equal protection.

A legal double standard also inverts incentives for everyone’s conduct from bringing out the best, to the worst in us.

It is common sense that U.S. Government policy should oppose, deter, prevent, and resolve threats, wrongdoing and harmful acts against people and America, not empower, tolerate, incentivize, and reward them.

Since 1996, five Administrations thirteen Congresses and sixteen Supreme Court Justices together, have neglected to protect people from harms and crimes online.

Government minimizing government to maximize efficiency and profit de-prioritized protecting people and America.

Overall, RUI research shows Wild West Internet policies have yielded self-defeating, regressive, and winner-take-all, macro effects that weaken America and make us less safe, secure, stable, united, prosperous, free, equal, fair, honest, and good.

• U.S. Internet unaccountability is a classic ‘miss the forest for the trees’ problem.
  • The forest here is the American people — 300m Internet users harmed online.
  • The trees here are Government’s piecemeal scrutiny of select companies and issues.
  • The problem is Government is missing the forest cure for the trees’ symptoms & treatments.
• Extreme U.S. regulatory capture explains why U.S. policy prioritized innovation & profit over people for 26 years.
  • ’The shoemaker’s children go barefoot’ proverb tells us here Govt. treats firms as their client not the people.
• No one is publicly exposing the obvious uncomfortable truth, as ‘The emperor has no clothes’ fable teaches us.
  • Govt./people are afraid to criticize Wild West Internet policy for fear others don’t see its many problems.
  • The public does not yet know that a large mindful majority of Americans support Internet accountability.
• Granting tech unaccountability has cascaded to subvert Government, corporate, and public accountabilities.
  • Government made itself unaccountable for not protecting people from harm online.
  • Government made firms unaccountable for not protecting people from harm online.
  • Government made people rights-less, consent-less, and unprotected from harms and crimes online.

U.S. Constitutional authority both empowers, and depends upon, many accountabilities: elections, separation of powers, checks and balances, individual rights, Federal and State government, and rule of law among others. The framers clearly viewed accountability as an essential reciprocal safeguard against tyranny’s unaccountability.    

The original 1986-96 U.S. Internet was de facto subject to U.S. Constitutional authority and accountabilities. In 1996-97, U.S. Wild West Internet policies’ common purpose — an absence of government and its authority online — effectively questioned, confused, and subverted government’s role and authority over illegal conduct online.  

How is Internet unaccountability anti-Constitutional?  

The defining defense of Internet unaccountability is that it is good not bad to deliberately disrupt others. To disrupt means “to break apart” or “throw into disorder.” Only supporters of Internet unaccountability think anarchically disrupting people universally and constantly is OK, because most everyone does not want to be the disrupted because its harmful.

Consider here that the U.S. Constitution’s governing goals in the preamble are the antithesis of disruptive, i.e., “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Also consider that all the U.S. Constitution’s accountabilities exist to protect the people from things they don’t want done to them. They are implicitly based on the Ethic of reciprocity/The Golden rule. The Constitution’s checks, balances, rights, rule of law, etc. exist to foster people working together, not to empower impunity to harm others.   

Another anarchic defense of Internet unaccountability is that it is bad not good to have to ask others for permission.  Supporters of Internet unaccountability call it permissionless innovation & evasive entrepreneurialism and justify it because they self-calculate their interests’ economic gain exceeds others’ social pain.

Permission, meaningful consent, is an essential accountability supporting/safeguarding the Constitution and people.

The framers of the Constitution had to get the permission/consent of the states/people to be ratified. The legitimacy of government depends on the consent of the governed. Elections involve the consent/permission of the people. Constitutional property rights require permission and/or payments from owners. Executive treaties and appointments require the consent/permission of the Senate. Legislative bills can require Presidential consent to become law. Government licenses are permissions to become a citizen, legally drive, own a gun, be married, practice law and medicine, etc.

Consent/permission is one of the most critical accountabilities of the Ethic of Reciprocity/The Golden Rule. Permissions/consent make people reasonable and are essential to contracts, commerce, property, privacy, safety and security. Permissionless and disruptive actions are dehumanizing and also systemic tyrannies empowering treating others how they don’t want to be treated.   

Most Internet policies minimize government to maximize efficiency and profit. This technologic and economic absolutism has led to dehumanizing extremes.

It is telling that people online are not routinely treated as humans, citizens, or customers but dehumanized, rights-less and consent-less ‘users’ and ‘products’ to monetize.

Continuously not protecting people online can dehumanize, disenfranchise, and demoralize us. We’re no longer people but dehumanized virtual chattel, not citizens but disenfranchised, and data-indebted, indentured Americans. Worse, minors are defenseless prey for predators. Anarchic U.S. Internet policy is dehumanizing people and decivilizing America.

America’s 300 million Internet users are virtual data products, commercial chattel bought and sold with impunity by data brokers, without meaningful consent, rights, protections, privacy, or security. 

There also are 300 million virtually indentured Americans online abandoned by their government, to become disenfranchised commercial captives of one-sided legal terms and indentures. They do not control their own virtual value, dignity, security, privacy, reputation, or destiny, unlike American citizens who offline are protected by our Constitution, rights, rule of law, a duty of care, and morals/ethics.

America’s 70 million minors tragically are virtual defenseless prey fed to online predators, and minimally protected as lab rats to test, addict, and depress, and lambs to abuse and traffic with impunity.