From addictive algorithms to exploitative apps, data mining to misinformation, the internet today can feel like a hazardous place. The digital landscape, once envisioned as a utopian realm of connection and information, has evolved into a complex ecosystem with its own set of profound challenges. Many wonder if the internet, as we know it, can truly be repaired. Fortunately, influential figures are stepping forward with radical proposals to address its fundamental flaws.
Books by three such luminaries—the intellect behind “net neutrality,” a former Meta executive, and the web’s own inventor—propose radical approaches to fixing it. But are these individuals the right people for the job, and will their solutions prove effective? Their ideas, while showing conviction, also reveal distinct perspectives and potential blind spots, sparking a vital debate about the future of our online world.
Dismantling Concentrated Power: Tim Wu’s Antitrust Vision
One prominent voice in this discussion is Tim Wu, a Columbia professor who popularized the principle of net neutrality. In his work, Wu argues that a few platform companies have accumulated “too much concentrated power” and must be dismantled. He contends that existing legal mechanisms, particularly anti-monopoly laws, offer the most effective path forward.
Wu illustrates how digital platforms have subtly shifted from providing valuable services to “extracting from” users. He highlights how our collective failure to grasp their expanding power has only fueled their growth, systematically displacing competitors. At the heart of this dominance, Wu suggests, lies the exploitation of convenience. He writes, “The human desire to avoid unnecessary pain and inconvenience may be the strongest force out there.”
He points to “ecosystems” like Google’s and Apple’s, where seamless integration can lead to user dependency. While acknowledging the obvious gains from the ease of services like Amazon, Wu argues that when these powerhouses win the battle of convenience universally, preventing competitors from gaining a foothold, it results in “industry dominance” that demands reexamination.
To address this, Wu advocates for practical measures drawing on existing legal and economic frameworks. These include federal anti-monopoly laws, utility caps to limit consumer charges, and “line of business” restrictions that prevent companies from operating in certain industries. He cites historical successes like the 1960s IBM antitrust case and the 1982 AT&T breakup, both of which spurred competition and choice in technology markets.
However, the question remains whether these historical precedents can effectively address the complexities of the platform age. Recent antitrust cases, such as the 2025 Google case and the 2001 Microsoft case, have shown the limits of pursuing tech breakups through the law, with neither leading to the broad divestment initially sought.
Regulation Over Breakup: Nick Clegg’s Approach to Big Tech
Offering a contrasting viewpoint is Nick Clegg, former Meta executive and UK deputy prime minister. Clegg argues that attempting to break up the largest tech companies is “misguided” and would ultimately “degrade the experience of internet users.” While acknowledging Big Tech’s monopoly, he believes that punitive legal measures are unproductive.
Instead, Clegg champions regulation as a more effective solution, advocating for rules governing content on social media. He also places significant emphasis on Silicon Valley taking the initiative to reform itself, suggesting that encouraging social media networks to “open up the books” and share decision-making with users could restore equilibrium.
Despite his proposals, some skepticism arises given Clegg’s former role at Meta and his inability to implement such radical changes while working closely with Mark Zuckerberg. His selective historical accounts, acknowledging some scandals like Cambridge Analytica but omitting others, further complicate his position. For example, he laments the “fractured” global internet without fully addressing Facebook’s own role in this splintering.
Clegg maintains that breaking up Big Tech would hinder innovation, claiming it “completely ignores the benefits users gain from large network effects.” Users, he argues, stick with these platforms because they find “most of what they’re looking for”—be it friends on social media or goods on Amazon.
He advocates for less sweeping regulation to mitigate dangers while enhancing user experience. Clegg, who has navigated both sides of regulatory policy, also bemoans the complexity faced by Silicon Valley in complying with diverse global rules. However, given the immense resources of these companies and Meta’s past interference in internet access, such complaints may seem questionable.
Ultimately, Clegg advocates for Big Tech to become “radically transparent,” either voluntarily or through federal legislation. He also seeks to integrate users into governance processes and give them more meaningful control over their data and its usage.
Empowering Users: Tim Berners-Lee’s Data Control Vision
Sharing common ground with Clegg on the issue of user data control is Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. In his memoir, Berners-Lee laments that the current web is a “far cry” from his initial vision of an “open-source, collaborative, and completely decentralized” technology. He considers Wikipedia “probably the best single example of what I wanted the web to be.”
Berners-Lee’s primary solution for shifting power from Silicon Valley back to users is through enhanced data control. He champions “Solid” (social linked data), a universal data “pod” he helped develop. This MIT-originated system would act as a central hub where individuals could manage all their digital information, from credit card details to health records and social media history.
He envisions a future where “rather than have all this stuff siloed off with different providers across the web, you’d be able to store your entire digital information trail in a single private repository.” This prospect of consolidating and controlling personal data is indeed tantalizing in an era rife with data harvesting and breaches.
However, the idea of merging sensitive information, such as confidential health records with data from personal devices, might raise privacy concerns for some users. While Berners-Lee promises user control and decentralization, recent data scandals involving period-tracking apps, for example, underscore public apprehension about how personal data is managed.
Berners-Lee believes such a system could streamline daily life, eliminating the need to repeatedly input the same information across different apps. He also sees a role for AI in helping users leverage this consolidated data, perhaps by linking meal plans to grocery bills. Yet, he remains somewhat vague on the specifics of ensuring chatbots handle such personal data with the necessary sensitivity and safety.
Charting the Course: Challenges, Progress, and Shared Aspirations
While each visionary offers a distinct blueprint, the path to repairing the internet is fraught with challenges and political complexities. Wu’s approach, leveraging anti-monopoly laws, has shown some effectiveness recently, with companies like Google facing requirements for data sharing and limits on system usage in new products. However, the current US political climate raises questions about the continued enforcement of such laws against Big Tech.
Conversely, Clegg’s call for limiting new nation-specific laws might gain traction, with international leaders expressing interest in global agreements. Yet, the US has not passed significant federal internet legislation since 1996, and the posture of recent administrations suggests that further regulation on Big Tech might not be a priority. Indeed, social networks have at times appeared emboldened, relaxing content moderation rules.
If direct anti-monopoly actions prove difficult, Clegg’s push for a US-led omnibus deal establishing consensual rules for data and human rights could offer a more immediate route to improvement. Berners-Lee’s Solid, while promising in theory, requires widespread adoption and trust to become a viable alternative to the current data ecosystem.
Conclusion: The Collaborative Path to a Healthier Internet
Ultimately, there is not likely to be any single fix for what currently ails the internet. The problems are too systemic, and the proposed solutions too varied and complex to be implemented in isolation. However, the discussions initiated by these influential figures are crucial for moving forward.
What is clear is that these three writers, despite their differing approaches, converge on several critical outcomes: greater user control, enhanced data privacy, and increased accountability from Silicon Valley. These shared aspirations—empowering individuals and holding powerful corporations responsible—are surely the goals we should all unite to fight for, shaping a more equitable and safer digital future for everyone.
