This week a new CEO joined the Internet Society the global not-for-profit overseeing the development of the Internet since1992. In his first official statement Andrew Sullivan noted that its a challenging time for the Internet. I agree. Which is why this article, originally posted back in June, still resonates.

It’s time we did something about the ‘keyboard cowards’ who post false and/or defamatory comments on social media. To fail to do so will open the Internet up to criticism that could lead to moves by governments to interfere in ways that have been successfully opposed since its inception.

The Australian newspaper recently reportedKerry Stokes calling for laws preventing Facebook and other Internet media companies from publishing defamatory and false allegations with impunity.

The paper noted that Stokes recently mounted a four-year-long defamation case against an online blogger, quoting him saying: Everyone is vulnerable to nefarious material being published about them It is time for governments to act to protect their citizens, creating similar laws that traditional publishers and broadcasters comply with every day.

The Sydney Morning Herald has previously revealed a push for an overhaul of Australia’s defamation laws, noting that “Sydney now rivals London as the world’s defamation capital”. The New South Wales Attorney-General Mark Speakmanis quoted saying the laws need to be “more tech-savvy”.

This wont make me popular with the purists at Internet Australia, which I ran for three years up until late last year, or those at its global parent the Internet Society. But the fact is, its time we cleaned up the Internet.

For too long well-meaning geeks have protected their beloved invention arguing it should never be interfered with by governments or other third parties. While a fine principle, this is simply no longer a plausible or viable proposition given the state of things. Unless, of course, the Internet fixes itself. The incredibly clever people who invented the Internet could not have foreseen the myriad uses to which it would be put, both positive and negative. But surely the equally clever people who manage the Internet these days are capable of fixing its demonstrable flaws?

If someone with Stokes power and influence can be a victim of online sledging, what chance does anyone else have?

It’s hard enough seeking redress when the perpetrator is an identifiable individual owning the online publication. Much more difficult when comments are posted anonymously on someone else’s site.

A certain Australian online IT journal recently resorted to culling false and defamatory comments on an article that had clearly stirred up the emotions of several keyboard cowards who decided to vent on me and others with whom they disagreed.

Earlier in the year, another local online publication had to be forced to delete a reader comment in which the spouse of a prominent politician was falsely described as a convicted sex offender. At first the organisation tried to argue it wasnt responsible for comments others posted (anonymously) on its (unmonitored) website.

Winning a defamation case against a traditional print publisher can be a pyrrhic victory if the offending material stays posted and forever readily accessible online to any nut-job or malicious party dredging it up for whatever purpose.

Whats needed, in my opinion, is a level of technical intervention that totally and permanently erases false and defamatory material. That would be difficult, but possible. And it would be better if this came about as an initiative of groups like the Internet Society rather than risk overreach by politicians.

It’s costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the activities of law enforcement agencies trying to deal with the Dark Web a place where you can buy almost anything, including military grade weapons, drugs, even people, if you know how to use it.

People targeted by online sledging are suffering mental illness and some are even taking their own lives.

Australia’s courts are currently dealing with a steady flow of cases under quite pointless Internet site-blocking laws claimed to be designed to deal with so-called Internet piracy the unlawful downloading of copyrighted material, mostly films from the Hollywood studios. These laws would not be necessary if the Internet was better (self)managed.

Rather than play ‘whack-a-mole’ trying to cut access to these pirate sites at the ISP level the sensible approach would be to close down their operations at the source. However, this would require international cooperation and agreement to intervene in the Internets fundamental workings to an extent that has hitherto been strenuously resisted.

Perversely, the Internet is not actually ‘run’ by anybody. By general consensus various people and organisations around the world cooperate to make the thing work. Even the ultimate standards setting body the Internet Engineering Task Force has no power to enforce its voluntary codes and standards.

About two years ago, under what was called the IANA Stewardship Transition, the United States officially ceded control of the Internet to a so-called global multi-stakeholder group. However, there are now rumours it wants control back.

America was never officially given authority to run the Internet. It just took on that role and everyone else happily went along. But, of course, the US never really controlled the Internet in any case. It has always operated like a hydra-headed monster. Perhaps now is the time to tame the monster? However, we can only fix the problems infecting the Internet through unified global action.

And before anyone starts talking about ‘press freedom’ or the right to comment, defamation has never been acceptable and it shouldnt be allowed over the Internet

(Laurie Pattonwas CEO / Executive Director ofInternet Australia(a chapter of the globalInternet Society)from 2014-2017. On its behalf Laurie spearheaded a campaign for #BetterBroadbandandfrequently pointedto flaws in Internet site-blocking legislation.)