Nick Clegg takes on challenging positions. He served as the British Deputy Prime Minister from 2010 to 2015, navigating the complex dynamics between David Cameron’s Conservatives and his own Liberal Democrats. A few years later, he embraced another tough role as Vice President of Meta and President of Global Affairs from 2018 until January 2025. In this capacity, he managed the contrasting landscapes of Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C., as well as other governments. “How to Save the Internet” outlines Clegg’s approach to these demanding responsibilities and presents his vision for fostering a more collaborative and effective relationship between tech companies and regulators in the future.
The primary threats Clegg discusses in his book do not originate from the Internet; rather, they come in the form of regulatory actions against it. “The true aim of this book is not to safeguard myself, Meta, or major technologies. It is to enhance awareness about the future of the Internet and the potential benefits of these innovative technologies.”
However, much of the book focuses on defending Meta and large technology firms, beginning with a conflation of the widely beloved Internet with social media, which represents a more ambiguous aspect of online activity. In his exploration of “Techlash,” the swift public backlash against big tech occurring in the late 2010s, he poses the question:
That brings me to a recent survey I conducted through Harris Poll. I posed this question to a nationally representative sample of young American adults—the very generation that has been shaped by a plethora of social media platforms. We invited respondents to share their thoughts on the existence of various platforms and products. The regret for the existence of the Internet is low at 17%, while for smartphones, it’s only 21%. However, regret regarding major social media platforms is considerably higher, ranging from 34% for Instagram (owned by Meta) to 47% for TikTok and 50% for X. A parental investigation also found high levels of regret regarding social media. Similarly, other researchers have uncovered similar findings in their studies.
In other words, many of us would opt to disconnect from certain technologies if given the chance. Clegg presents this choice as binary: either fully embrace the Internet or shut it down. Yet, the real concern lies with social media, which can be regulated without dismantling the entire Internet and is consequently far more challenging to defend.
Nevertheless, Clegg attempts this defense. In the opening chapter, he addresses dual accusations that social media has harmed global democracy and adversely affected teenage mental health. While he acknowledges both have deteriorated since the 2010s, he contends that the decline merely coincides with the rise of social media and is not a direct cause. He refers to academic research, yet his interpretations echo standard narratives from Meta and overlook many critical counterarguments. For instance, consider this study contrasted with alternative perspectives. Ultimately, Clegg borrows many of his defensive phrases directly from a rebuttal published by Meta in response to criticisms, while my own work articulates a case for the detrimental impact of social media on democracy.
In this book, Clegg aligns himself with Meta’s narrative, despite previously holding different views on teenage mental health. Multiple state attorneys general in the U.S. have initiated lawsuits against Meta, revealing insights through obtained documents that show Clegg’s awareness of the issues. For instance, on August 27, 2021, Clegg sent an email to Mark Zuckerberg, prompted by an employee’s request for increased resources to address teenage mental health concerns. Clegg expressed that it was “increasingly urgent” to tackle “issues concerning the impact of products on the mental health of young people,” indicating that the company’s efforts were hampered by staffing shortages. Zuckerberg, however, did not respond to this email.
Clegg’s current stance—that harm is merely correlational and that such correlations lack significance—contradicts the experiences of numerous Meta employee, contractor, whistleblower, and leaked document evidence. One example comes from a 2019 Meta-offered study commissioned by the Tennessee Attorney General, where researchers informed Meta: “[teens] Despite Instagram’s addictive nature and detrimental effects on mental health, it’s still irresistible.”
Regarding his suggestions for preserving the Internet, Clegg proposes two key principles: radical transparency and collaboration. He advocates for tech companies to be more open about how their algorithms function and how decisions are made. He warns: “If the Silicon Valley Master refrains from opening up, external forces will intervene.”
In terms of collaboration, he advocates for a “digital democratic alliance,” emphasizing the importance of providing a counter to China’s technology, which supports its authoritarian regime. Clegg envisions that world democracies should unite to ensure the Internet upholds the democratic ideals prevalent in the 1990s.
Does Clegg’s vision hold merit? While transparency is commendable in theory, it may be too late to enforce these principles on the currently dominant companies of the Internet. As tech journalist Kara Swisher articulated, we built cities without infrastructure—no sanitation, no law enforcement, no guidance. Envision such a city. This lack of foundational design allows fraudsters, extremists, and others to thrive on these platforms, posing risks that even teenagers and large enterprises doubt can be addressed. A leap towards transparency by 2026 may prove insufficient to rectify the detrimental frameworks established two decades ago.
As for collaboration, envisioning a corporation like Meta relinquishing data and control seems implausible. The tech giant has garnered considerable support from the Trump administration, raising doubts about their willingness to pressure other nations. Thus, it remains unclear how “the choice will be taken out of their hands” should they resist cooperation. By whom?
The great biologist and ant expert, E.O. Wilson, once remarked that Marxism is “a good ideology for the wrong species.” After engaging with Clegg’s proposals, one might draw a parallel; his suggestions overlook the many critiques found in books addressing Meta’s unethical practices, numerous revelations from the 2021 leak known as the Facebook Files, and ongoing legal challenges.
Source: www.theguardian.com
