UN Internet Governance Forum contribution: Establishing news media independence and parity in the era of internet giants

This essay was published in the 2023 Annual Report: Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media.

Abstract

In our journey into the Information Age, internet giants have risen as potent wielders of information, operating in concert with, yet distinct from, traditional news media. Propelled by the force of the network effect, they have constructed a pervasive layer around news media, commanding not only the diffusion of content but also its revenue streams. Consumer attention, once monopolized by publishers, is now dispersed across the web, revealing a significant shift in the locus of power.

This discourse hinges on acknowledging the internet's inherent propensity toward centralization. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should assume that for any given utility, centralization is an inevitable outcome and can only be corrected to the detriment of our total internet capabilities. While centralization increases the utility of the internet to our benefit, it is also hard coupled to governance, which undermines and threatens societies.

Despite this seismic shift in the information landscape, the need for high-quality, relevant, and trustworthy content persists. The reordering of power has not eroded the worth of content; it has merely transformed the mechanisms of its distribution and control. The erosion of revenues and industry bankruptcies are pressing issues, yet they are merely symptoms of a deeper problem: the declining independence of global news media, due to the increasing control exerted by the network utilities to which they are tethered.

Addressing the problem demands also recognizing that breaking utilities apart will not change things. Consumers derive significant value from platforms, which tend towards centralization because, as utilities, they are just servers that users point to. History demonstrates that antitrust interventions typically result in the emergence of another dominant entity. The value gap is simply refilled by yet another browser application pulling content from a server—just with a new name. Thus, we must calibrate our approach in the light of this reality.

The critical task at hand is to reconsider the modalities of dissemination—the so called "wrappers" around content—to better align with broader societal needs. This does not entail revolutionizing the content itself, but reimagining content governance, steering toward an information environment that reflects reality rather than one distorted by algorithms that favor outrageous content.

Computer programmers codify rules into systems that constrain our possibilities. This is in stark contrast to law that simply communicates the limits of acceptable activity and then requires incentives and disincentives to ensure those laws are carried out. Many of the challenges to the internet governance of our epoch stem from the fact that the digital world now commands vast aspects of our lives. To regain focus on news media, it stands to reason that code, rather than law, dominates the flow of information. An obvious outcome is that propagandists and powerful actors want to influence the space. They do so either by leveraging the properties of algorithms designed to make money for the platforms’ owners, or by designing the algorithms to make more money. The welfare of our social systems figures last.

In a domain where legislation is rightly resisted to maintain the freedom of the press, it is incumbent on us to organize and secure our own information ecosystem. It is simply the historic lack of capability, due to dozens of factors—ranging from existential threats, to technical feasibility, to the news media industry's non-interactive nature—which has kept us from solving our contemporary crisis. Let's consider a promising, novel pathway forward. If news media organized to provide a strong signal of trustworthy content as a utility, governments might find it more difficult to enact "fake news" laws that threaten press freedoms because of pressure from society. Additionally, the most dominant platforms would be financially incentivized to provide advertisers with the safest advertising space possible and to do so at a negligible cost. More importantly, it would be difficult for platforms to refuse to use the signal due to their ineffective content governance and the fact that the industry would be organized to protect consumers in a way that is safe, liberal, and democratic.

After much research, we at Exonym, a civic technology project developing responses to rapidly evolving internet-governance challenges, created a transactional governance framework called Decentralized Rulebooks. The framework enables adaptive, bottom-up self-organization of governance, calling on leadership primarily to resolve disputes.

The Decentralized Rulebooks system is a collection of protocols built around a distributed identity system. One core principle is the separation between protocol and policy: protocol cannot interfere with or override any policy. This allows news media to democratically establish conditions for a trust signal that can be interpreted anywhere on the internet.

The framework supports diverse news-media standards, each tailored to specific languages and anchored in non-interactive cooperation. It challenges the prevailing idea that code is law, enabling top-down communication with bottom-up governance to produce an actionable, verifiable information environment.

Informational governance under Decentralized Rulebooks allows news media to self-regulate to produce a reliable trust signal. The closest comparison is to certificate authorities securing a browser’s connection to a server: the system is designed for ordinary use, through a browser or smartphone application, rather than as a complex technical process.

Rulebooks give publishers a way to advocate for global news-media standards under federated control that respects plurality and interpretation while remaining compatible with monolithic aggregators. Their integration would enable accountable yet anonymous transactions, helping protect journalists and spread trustworthy content while allowing the industry to actively shape power dynamics.

The Unitary Internet

An institution controlling global news-media standards presents serious problems. It conflicts with the internet’s decentralized design, creates security risks, can disturb balanced information flow, and may erect artificial barriers that favour particular content providers. A centralized standards body should therefore be avoided; internet governance should promote free and balanced information exchange.

Rulebooks address the tendency of utilities to centralize by introducing incentives to decentralize around a fixed, minimum acceptable standard. The Rulebook document defines that baseline only for a narrow context, making regulations more accessible and easier to formulate.

By setting a minimal threshold, Rulebooks counter the risk of being seen as exclusive or mainstream. Consumers can treat them as a useful shield: their filters sift out unwanted elements, while leaving the underlying freedom to publish intact.

Subjective language in a Rulebook—for example, “do not publish misinformation without timely, proportionate corrective action”—is deliberate. Terms such as “misinformation,” “timely,” and “proportionate” can be interpreted differently in context. Inclusive wording lets honest journalists identify with the standard while Leads and Moderators downstream retain room to interpret and enforce it.

The collective effect is a global cooperative for self-regulation. Autonomous members operate within the subjective Rulebook while its extensibility encourages participation and keeps it relevant. Users retain the ability to publish; the system does not remove the internet’s allowance for radical dissent.

The danger of utilities gaining dominance is reduced by requiring them to disclose Leads and Moderators they reject. This makes rejection transparent rather than an opaque practice of suppression. The recommended strategy is a dynamic polycentric governance that disperses power through thin distribution: a Lead delegates enforcement to autonomous publishers with common goals.

Rulebook for Countering Misinformation in News-like Content

A Rulebook communicates the boundary for permissible behaviour in a target context. Subscribers can prove current honesty, risking a loss of privileges if they contravene it. Moderators accredited by Leads enforce the baseline standard, forming a reputation system of identifiable legal entities and trust networks.

These trust networks can bind users to distinct jurisdictions or, in news media, support a variety of interpretations and higher standards. Moderators may raise a Rulebook’s standard for the benefit of journalists and consumers; journalists choose an interpretation that aligns with their values, and consumers can inspect the standard and verify a journalist’s proof.

The framework starts from the presumption of a journalist’s trustworthiness. Independent writers can affiliate with more than one publisher, while Moderators retain discretion over appeals and membership. Publication cannot be prevented, but platforms and users can verify active proofs; Moderators can revoke when content infringes a Rulebook.

Openly accessible, machine-readable Rulebooks are the core of the model. Interpretations will differ because online content is diverse. This supports all languages and allows marginalized groups to establish their own trust networks. Rather than denying a network, labeling it gives people the context they need to understand it.

The model is a systematic, democratic way to mitigate misinformation: it sets a clear but flexible standard, invites Moderators to interpret and enforce it, assures producer compliance, and gives users intentional control over their information choices. Rule and phrase modifiers provide interpretative guidance, adaptability, and protection against misuse.

It is a hybrid model: top-down communication of boundaries with responsive, bottom-up governance that controls for context. What distinguishes it is not only its capacity to ensure honesty, but the active response of varied networks and platforms to events—moving beyond the restrictive “code is law” mindset.

Championing Sovereignty and Journalist Safety

While the model honours local legislation, it also addresses situations in which Moderators protecting content creators from oppressive laws could face repercussions. It proposes “digital asylum”: a cyberspace sanctuary where countries upholding international law can offer a multitude of Moderators among whom journalists can hide.

Anonymous yet accountable transactions allow oppressed voices to blend into the crowd while operating within a Rulebook. They can meet journalistic standards verifiably and still publish anonymously. The approach seeks to reconcile respect for national jurisdiction with a commitment to digital human rights and the realities of journalists facing serious threats.

Echo Chambers

Digital echo chambers are often driven by profit-focused algorithms rather than a commitment to transparency, diversity, or truth. The model recognizes their existence but makes them visible and manageable, creating opportunities for strategic interventions through other channels and leadership.

Rather than ignoring echo chambers, the framework anticipates them and offers proactive ways to address bias and polarization in a more transparent and balanced information sphere.

Realignment of Influence

Unchecked misinformation erodes trust in journalism and shifts power toward entities that manipulate platforms for their advantage. The resulting sustainability challenge weakens financial viability, innovation, democratic discourse, and the role of a free press.

Rulebooks give journalistic entities a way to form trust networks and voluntarily adhere to rules. Journalists, publishers, and independent writers can align their work with verifiable standards, boosting credibility and consumer trust. The focus shifts toward accuracy, transparency, and accountability rather than the spread of false narratives.

They also create parity between the aggregator and the governance network. When journalists can produce verifiable certificates and aggregators can authenticate them, the trust utility can rise to the level of dominant aggregators and other network utilities. The wrapper remains, but industry cooperation and political will can direct it toward the public interest.

Conclusion

The landscape of global news media has undergone a seismic shift because of internet giants, demanding a proportionate response. Decentralized Rulebooks respect the plurality of the media environment, address misinformation, and put human agency at the heart of digital governance.

By creating an inclusive, adaptable system, Rulebooks would allow a globally cooperative media industry to maintain autonomy while adhering to shared standards of conduct. The transition is not simple, but it offers a path toward a balanced media landscape marked by journalistic integrity, transparency, accountability, and the freedom to serve as a reliable source of news.

← Back to Ideas