Internet Control and Regulation

A Continuing Narrative and an Introduction to a Series of Articles

Introduction

In my article “Controlling the Narrative” I wrote about controlling access to online content, especially for children.

But the narrative about control of online spaces and online platforms is more than that isolated incident. It is a narrative that has been continuing since the early days of the Internet. And the narrative has a number of facets.

One is that the Internet and its platforms needs to be controlled and this should be done by some form of State regulation.

Another is associated with that and the narrative is about how dangerous, harmful and unsafe the Internet is; that users are not capable nor competent to manage the business of navigating the ocean of information presented by the Internet; that it is in the interests of the wider community that the State should assume responsibility for the communication activities of its citizens.

And that is something that needs to be remembered. The Internet is a means of communication. It allows a wider scope of communication activities than ever before. This is because digital technologies allow convergence of the various media into one system.

And because the Internet is a communications system, any restriction, any interference with it in such a way as to restrict or limit those communicative activities is an interference with freedom of expression – the right to impart and receive information.

In some systems – primarily totalitarian ones – restricting freedom of expression is the norm. Freedom of expression threatens the State and State control.

But even in more benign political systems there is a third way of controlling the narrative and that is to control the messaging that underpins the other facets of Internet control.

In other words, the State by its various official and unofficial agencies spreads the word that controlling the communications system that is the Internet is necessary. An egregious example in New Zealand can be found in the Public Interest Journalism Fund. The conditions attaching to that Fund gave a statement of State expectations of mainstream media.

Control of communications systems is not new. The history of the early Printing Press demonstrates that. And as new communications technologies have been invented and have come on stream, Governments have been swift to step in and take control.

The extent of control varies from taking over the radio network, as happened in New Zealand in the 1920’s to licensing spectrum and establishing “Content Standards” as per the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Press established the Press Council (now the New Zealand Media Council) in 1972 to stymie the possibility of the Labour Government establishing a State based Press Council.

So when I use the term “controlling the narrative” it has two themes attached. One is the control of the means of dissemination of the narrative of public and private communication.

The other is about controlling the narrative that surrounds the justification for the control of communications system.

What This Series is About

Just Security, Tech Policy Press, and the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights are presenting a new symposium, Regulating Social Media Platforms: Government, Speech, and the Law. The symposium page can be found here.

In one of the articles that is part of the symposium - Online Safety Regulations Around the World: The State of Play and The Way Forward – the following observation is made:

“There is a growing international consensus that governments should take a more active role in overseeing digital platforms. As 2025 began, this was no longer a theoretical discussion: the past few years brought a surge of legislative action across major economies. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) are now in full force, transforming how major tech platforms are allowed to operate in Europe. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and many other countries have passed robust online safety laws that are now entering the enforcement stage. The United States is also an active arena of digital regulation, at least at the state level. The federal government has yet to enact sweeping digital regulation. This is an opportune moment to analyze ongoing regulatory efforts and shape the future of digital governance.”

I shall return to the “Online Safety Regulations” paper in another article in this series. But at this stage I would say that unlike much of the hysterical rhetoric that surrounds this subject, the paper and its author Mariana Rosenblat present a measured and thoughtful approach to the issue together with providing access to research material and data supporting the arguments presented in the paper.

Ms. Rosenblat’s paper caused me to reflect upon the continuing narrative – which is clear from the above quotation - about Internet regulation and content control. The result has been to develop this series of articles on the subject.

This series of articles adopts an “historical” approach to the issue of narrative control and control of the means of disseminating the narrative.

In the first article (to be published on 28 May 2025) I will consider in the first part the issue of censorship and how it differs from the control of information that underpins the narrative about Internet Regulation. In the second part of the first article I will develop what I mean about narrative control and how it takes place in the context of the Internet.

Articles in the series will follow weekly thereafter.

In the second article in the series I shall look at some of this history of attempts to regulate and control the Internet and consider an early attempt in 1994 to introduce legislation to do just that.

In the third article I shall look at technological change, the development of Web 2.0 and the investigations by the New Zealand Law Commission that led to the enactment of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.

In the fourth and fifth articles I will consider international efforts to control the Internet. The fourth article will look at international efforts by Governments to control the Internet. The fifth article will consider the involvement of international organisations and NGOs to control the Internet.

In the sixth article I shall consider the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms and the way in which politicians and influencers wish to control or define the narrative. Social media is seen as the “big enemy” and in the manner of a form of “back to the future” this takes us back to the article “Controlling the Narrative”.

In the seventh and final article I shall turn to Ms. Rosenblat’s paper and consider some of the proposals that she has made.

A companion series of articles about controlling the narrative will address the issues of Internet Exceptionalism and also the unlearned lessons from attempts to regulate and control the Internet. This series will be published later.

Finally, some of the articles (not all of them) in this series will be “pay-per-view” and readers may like to take out a short-term paid subscription.