Why civil society must play a bigger role in internet policy
Civil society brings rights-based scrutiny, local expertise and accountability to internet policy making; governments and industry cannot set digital rules alone.
-Civil society protects human rights online, holding states and platforms to account and offering technical, legal and community expertise.
-Excluding civil society increases the risk of censorship, shutdowns and biased policy; inclusive multi-stakeholder governance produces more resilient, legitimate rules.
Introduction: a governance gap with real harms
Internet policy is no longer a niche technical concern — it shapes election integrity, public health messaging, economic opportunity and basic rights. Yet policy forums and lawmaking processes still tilt toward governments and large technology companies, while civil society organisations (CSOs) that represent affected communities, defend rights, and provide on-the-ground expertise are too often sidelined. The result is poorer policy outcomes and greater social harm.
What we mean by civil society in internet policy
In this context, “civil society” encompasses non-governmental organizations, digital rights groups, community networks, academic researchers, labor unions, consumer organizations, journalists, and grassroots movements. These actors translate their firsthand experience into policy recommendations, monitor policy implementation, file lawsuits when rights are violated, and operate user-facing services to test the effectiveness of rules in practice. Their legitimacy stems from their close connection with users and, typically, their extensive technical or human rights expertise.
Civil society defends human rights — and proves it empirically
Digital rights organizations have repeatedly documented often-overlooked harms: network outages, arbitrary takedowns, abuse of surveillance, and platforms amplifying the spread of misinformation. For example, Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalition tracked a record number of network outages and helped rescind some government orders, demonstrating that advocacy can deliver tangible results for users. “Telecommunications and internet service providers who shut down services under government orders are also complicit in human rights violations,” activists warn.
Technical knowledge and community grounding
CSOs are not only advocates; they often possess specialised technical knowledge — from measuring disruptions to designing privacy-preserving tools. Community networks and research groups surface evidence that counters narrow commercial narratives and show what policy choices mean on the ground, especially in regions and languages that industry models neglect. This technical-community bridge is vital for credible, implementable regulation.
Why inclusion matters: legitimacy, durability and quality
Policymaking lacking broad participation can be perceived as imposed and illegitimate. Inclusive, multi-stakeholder processes—such as the Internet Governance Forum model—can build consensus, reveal trade-offs, and reduce the likelihood of rules being dictated by narrow interest groups. The United Nations and other international forums consistently emphasize that multi-stakeholder participation is crucial for building a resilient digital future.
Examples where civil society shifted outcomes
From campaigning against blanket platform censorship to pressing for rules on shutdowns, civil society interventions have shaped both law and corporate practice. Civil society’s push for human-rights accountability helped shape European institutions’ approach to internet freedom and contributed to public debate around instruments like the Digital Services Act. These interventions show that when CSOs are present and resourced, they change outcomes.
Expert voices: why the argument matters
“It is time to stop arguing over whether the Internet empowers individuals and societies, and address the more fundamental and urgent question of how technology should be structured and governed to support the rights and liberties of all the world’s Internet users,” writes Rebecca MacKinnon, highlighting the urgency of rights-centred governance.
Renata Ávila, a long-standing advocate for digital commons and democratic digital infrastructure, put it bluntly: “The Internet of creation disappeared. Now we have the Internet of surveillance and control.” Her point — that policy choices created today determine whether the internet serves civic life or concentrates power — underscores why civil society actors must be empowered to contest those choices.
Barriers to meaningful participation
Despite their value, CSOs face structural obstacles: limited funding, closed consultation windows, opaque drafting processes, and in some countries intimidation or legal restrictions. Language barriers and technical complexity also exclude grassroots groups. Without deliberate reform — funding, capacity support, translation and protected participation spaces — the same powerful actors will keep writing the rules.
Practical steps to scale civil society influence
Fund participation, not just rhetoric. Governments and donors should finance sustained CSO engagement, not ad-hoc “consultation theatre”.
Mandate transparency in drafting. Timely publication of proposed texts and impact assessments allows scrutiny and constructive input.
Support technical and legal capacity building. Offer training and secondments so communities can translate local harms into policy proposals.
Protect civic space. International instruments and domestic safeguards must prevent reprisals against digital-rights defenders.
Embed multi-stakeholder governance across levels. From national regulators to intergovernmental talks, civil society should be a formal actor, not a last-minute invitee.
What governments and companies gain
Civil society participation can lead to better, more enforceable rules, thereby reducing the risk of litigation, political backlash, and regulatory failures. It also enhances public trust—crucial for compliance-dependent policies such as platform transparency requirements, content moderation standards, and data governance frameworks. In short: inclusivity equals good governance.
Risks if the gap persists
If civil society participation is low, policies will shift towards a passive, security-first model, eroding human rights and fragmenting the global internet. We will see more internet censorship, more discriminatory law enforcement, and rules that favor vested market interests. These consequences are already evident in the growing controversies surrounding internet censorship and content governance. Therefore, the absence of civil society is not only unfair but also strategically dangerous.
Conclusion: a pragmatic plea
Policymakers and industry leaders must move beyond symbolic consultations. They should treat civil society as an essential partner — fund it, listen to it, co-design mechanisms with it — because the alternative is brittle and unjust governance that will fail citizens. As MacKinnon and others have argued, the future of democratic life online depends on who gets to write the rules today.
FAQs
1. What counts as civil society in internet policy?
Civil society includes NGOs, digital-rights groups, community networks, academics, journalists, trade unions, and grassroots movements that represent users or provide independent technical and legal expertise.
2. Aren’t businesses and governments enough to make good internet policy?
No. Governments and businesses have competing incentives; civil society provides rights-based scrutiny, user perspectives and independent evidence — reducing capture and increasing legitimacy.
3. How does civil society change concrete outcomes?
Through research, litigation, public campaigning and participation in multi-stakeholder fora; examples include reversals of shutdown orders and shaping regional digital-rights safeguards.
4. What prevents civil society from being more influential?
Funding shortages, opaque processes, technical barriers, language and sometimes direct repression. Fixes include sustained funding, capacity building and mandated transparency.
5. How can readers support stronger civil-society roles?
Donate to reputable digital-rights organisations, participate in public consultations, and pressure elected representatives to fund independent oversight and protect civic spac
