Big tech accountability? Read the backstory to today's policy debates here on Iptegrity.

The Closing of the Net (Polity Press 2016)

"takes the pulse of the open web" Journal of IP Law & Practice


If the open Internet is an essential precondition for democracy, should governments or corporations be allowed to restrict it? This is the question at the heart of my book 'The Closing of the Net' and it discusses the backdrop to the political controversies of today around such issues as fake news, terrorism content online, and mis-use of data - controversies that result in calls for 'responsibility' by online companies. The book argues that any regulation of these companies must enshrine public interest criteria, which must balance the competing rights at stake.

Why protect online content and people's rights to communicate online?

We live in an age when ordinary people live out their lives online. Messaging and social media platforms have replaced the phone as the primary means of communication. 'Hockey mums' message their children's match scores to family members in real time. They jostle with their daughters for access to the smartphone. I was personally just in a situation where a family funeral was co-ordinated over social media messaging. And let's not forget how social media has been able to re-unite old friends and family in ways that were simply impossible just two decades ago.

Freedom of expression, without interference from State, is the very foundation of our modern democracy. Social media has become the communications vehicle of choice for charity campaigners, and NGOs, who function in a democracy to raise opposition voices. Even academic exchanges now take place as much on Twitter as in conferences. Indeed, Twitter is the platform of choice for interaction between the world of politics and constituents.

Online is increasingly the preferred route for commerce. Freedom to innovate without permission from the network or platform has been the enabler for e-commerce, online banking and entertainment systems, without which millions of people today could not manage.

When online media has penetrated so deeply into the lives of individuals, it becomes imperative to safeguard free expression online. 'The Closing of the Net' argues that States have a legal duty to safeguard it. Yes there are problems - there is what one might loosely term 'bad' content. This could be illegal content, propaganda, or socially unacceptable content. There is a growing list of types of content that are perceived to fall into the 'bad' category. Illegal content includes certain types of pornography, or hate speech or incitement to terrorist acts as defined by law. But the other two categories are problematic because they are not defined by law, and are subject to individual interpretation. Moreover, there is much content that is harmless, that is legal and that informs, educates and entertains.

How to deal with 'bad' content?

The question is how do we protect the open and free Internet and deal with the 'bad' content? My book, 'The Closing of the Net' deals with the conflicts that arose over copyright, which created the precedent for today's political arguments over terrorist content, hate speech and other matters such as cyber-bullying and fake news.

The State's duty is to balance the competing interests in any conflict that arises. The government's answer to date has been 'self-regulation, where platforms are asked to deal with the 'bad' content themselves, and to do so under their own terms and conditions. Their Ts and Cs are not the law and this is a key differentiation that should be borne in mind. social media companies operate against privately determined criteria, which do not necessarily match what the law says. It should also be borne in mind this is content uploaded by their users not their own content, and therefore they are arguably regulating their users and not themselves, as the term self-regulation' would suggest.

Self-regulation typically means there is no transparency of criteria for content restriction, of action, of scope, and no redress for users. This is not about law but about corporate rules over a public space. It is highly problematic. I argue in 'The Closing of the Net' that such measures online serve to entrench the monopoly of the platforms, hence why they agree to do it.

The threat to democracy

In my book I argue that the threat to democracy subsists in the narrowing of the prism by which we access knowledge, culture, information and through which we exercise our right to free speech coupled with monopolistic control of access. I propose a notion of the fingertap of desire. We tap the screen and get knowledge, and it all comes via a tiny 6 x 5 inch format, smaller than the traditional postcard. The big technology companies , together with the network providers, control access to that tiny screen and they have the ability to allow or deny. I argue that this is the greatest source of their power. They can choose what we see or don't see, and it is all done through automated processes powered by algorithms. I suggest in the book that f we are not careful, we will have the greatest censorship machine ever invented, controlling the access to our tiny screens. It is important that whoever controls it can be made publicly accountable for any restrictions or manipulation of what people can see or do.

I explore in 'The Closing of the Net' how the companies that have that control have become political actors. In particular, I take the example of copyright enforcement and how entertainment and music companies have acted politically to protect their interests online.

My approach is based on Lawrence Lessig's "code is law" theory. Control of the code is about control of the system and its rules. Code also interacts with law, and can be regulated by law. Likewise, law can be influenced by code and can respond to changes in it. Two other forces that interact with code and law are markets and social norms. The four forces interact with each other to create the outcome we experience. This four-way model allows us to understand the different levers that exist to exercise control over the system and in order to protect democracy.

How do the Internet companies hold power?

In 'The Closing of the Net' I make the case that Internet platforms hold structural power. They can determine the way things should be done - the way information, culture, knowledge is accessed and the way that democratic speech is exercised. They have power to accede or deny access. Deny at the point of publication /upload ( which networks cannot do - networks can only render invisible). Power to deny is stronger. This is how they control the fingertap of desire. They can open and shut gates to this tiny screen. As such, they force political choices, such as how to handle the 'bad' content. They alone control the structures for deleting content or other policing actions. Access to user data for profiling and other analytics is also a form of structural power. They are being asked to use structural power to restrict content - take it down, stop the wrong people from advertising etc. We have to ensure this power itself is put under publicly accountable controls.

Could we have predicted the mis-use scandals around fake news and influencing election outcomes?

Could we have foreseen the scandals over fake news or online vote rigging? I would argue 'yes'. We did not know what form it would take but we have had several warnings and alarm bells about the possible harms contained within the technology if allowed to be mis-used. I discuss these in my book.

'The Closing of the Net' explores the back-story to today's debates that have blown up around for example, Cambridge Analytica and the allegedly illegitimate uses of people's data to skew both the election of President Trump and the Brexit referendum. Especially, I relate the back-story to the new European law on data protection, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which businesses are now being asked to implement. I also discuss the political impact of the Snowden revelations on mass surveillance. Both of these factors raised red flags about misuse of personal data that is collected by online companies.

If you want more - please buy 'The Closing of the Net' - available directly from the publisher Polity or from Amazon.

I am very proud of the amazing reviews - see below.




FROM £15.99

"In a book that looks deep into the dark side of law-making, one can expect a little drama." Society for Computers & the Law

Today's communications fabric relies on a layered connective space (the Internet). The corporate power that underwrites that space generates an unprecedented power problem for democracy. Monica Horten's sharply written book confronts that problem head-on, with striking case studies. Who really benefits from the "fingertap of desire" that drives our device use? Read this illuminating book to find out." Nick Couldry, London School of Economics and Political Science

"Monica Horten writes about human beings' greatest invention the Internet and the emerging political and social trends that may cloud its future. Few thinkers could paint such a compelling, unified picture of the political forces across net neutrality, privacy, and mass surveillance it is politics, not technology, that will most determine the Internet that our children inherit." Marvin Ammori, Affiliate Scholar at Stanford Law School, Center for Internet and Society

"The Closing of the Net describes how, as it grates against questions of public interest, the corporate aims of structural power are being negotiated
between monetisers and policy-makers in legislative chambers and courtrooms"
Engineering and Technology Magazine

Many readers will be familiar with some of these stories, but as Horten reveals, it is only when they are considered together that the full picture begins to become clear. This is what makes her book both original and valuable. Times higher Education

"The analysis of the cooperation between business players and public powers is both fascinating and alarming." Journal of Cyber Policy Top Ten Must Reads

"In a book that looks deep into the dark side of law-making, one can expect a little drama." Society for Computers & the Law

"an essential read for anyone interested in understanding the forces at play behind the web."

"a must-read for any lawyer studying the legislation that Internet politics produces" Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice

"an easy read and neatly avoids the trap of being too dry to hold the interest of one who doesn't specialise in a cyber-related field" LSE Review of Books

"reads like a very dark, thriller-esque struggle... How bad are things really?" Deutsche Welle online

"In her timely book, Monica Horten investigates the ways in which large companies and the state influence Internet policy, threatening the freedom and democracy of Internet use." European Journal of Communications

"What is at stake here for Horten is to begin unveiling the actual interests of the corporate giants" Information Communication and Society

The above article was originally published on If you cite it, please provide a link back.

Find me on LinkedIn

About Iptegrity is the website of Dr Monica Horten.

I am a tech policy specialist, published author, post-doctoral scholar. I hold a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Currently working on UK Online Safety Bill.

Recent media quotes: BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian, Politico.  Panelist: IAPP,  CybersecuritySummit. Parliament and Internet. June 2022-July 2023 w/ Open Rights Group. is made available free of charge for non-commercial use. Please link back and attribute Dr Monica Horten.  Contact me to use any of my content for commercial purposes.  

The politics of copyright

A Copyright Masquerade - How corporate lobbying threatens online freedoms

'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review