The Internet Doesn't Suck: Blame Big Tech

The modern digital experience is often defined by frustration, from endless scrolling to algorithmic feeds and privacy concerns. A growing consensus suggests that the root of these issues is not the internet itself, but the layer of services built on top of it. The fundamental infrastructure of the global network remains a marvel of engineering and connectivity.

This perspective shifts the blame from the technology to the business models that dominate it. While the internet provides the pipes and protocols, Big Tech companies control the interfaces and services that most people use daily. The distinction is critical: one is a public utility, the other is a commercial landscape.

The internet, at its core, is a decentralized network of networks. It was designed to be resilient, open, and permissionless. This architecture allows data to travel across the globe through multiple pathways, making it incredibly difficult to shut down entirely. The protocols that govern this system, like TCP/IP and HTTP, are neutral and do not discriminate between types of content.

When we access information online, we typically interact with a user interface provided by a specific company. This layer—social media apps, search engines, and video platforms—is where the rules are set. These platforms are not the internet; they are services that run on it. The frustration users feel is often with the policies, algorithms, and commercial incentives of these specific services.

Consider the difference between the postal service and a specific mailroom. The postal service (the internet) delivers letters based on addresses. The mailroom (a platform) might open, scan, or even reject letters based on its own rules. The problem isn't with the delivery system, but with the intermediary.

Many of the most criticized aspects of the online experience are direct results of the advertising-based revenue model. Platforms that offer free services to users must monetize attention to survive. This creates a powerful incentive to maximize engagement, often through algorithms that promote sensational, divisive, or emotionally charged content.

This economic structure has profound consequences for the digital ecosystem:

• Content is optimized for clicks, not accuracy or depth.
• User data is harvested to build detailed profiles for targeted advertising.
• Design features, like infinite scroll, are engineered to keep users on the platform longer.

The attention economy turns user time and focus into a commodity. When the primary goal is to capture and hold attention, the quality of the interaction often suffers. This is a business decision, not an inherent limitation of the technology.

Despite the internet's decentralized design, a small number of corporations have achieved enormous market concentration. These entities control the primary gateways to information and social interaction for billions of people. This centralization creates single points of failure and control over the digital public square.

The power of these platforms extends beyond their own services. They influence global discourse, set standards for content moderation, and have significant sway over digital infrastructure. This concentration of influence raises important questions about accountability and the health of the broader information ecosystem.

The architecture of the internet is designed to be free from a central point of control, but the services we use are often the opposite.

This dynamic creates a tension between the open nature of the underlying network and the closed ecosystems of the platforms built upon it. Users may feel they have no choice but to participate in these walled gardens to stay connected.

Recognizing that the internet itself is not the problem opens the door to meaningful solutions. The focus can shift from regulating the network to addressing the practices of specific platforms. This could involve supporting alternative business models that do not rely solely on advertising, such as subscriptions, donations, or public funding.

There is also a growing movement toward decentralized technologies and open protocols that aim to recreate the original ethos of the internet. These projects seek to build social networks and services that are owned and governed by their users, not a single corporation. They represent a technical and social effort to build a different kind of online future.

For individuals, understanding this distinction is empowering. It allows for more conscious choices about which platforms to use and how to use them. It encourages a mindset that views the internet as a tool, and platforms as specific tools with their own strengths and weaknesses.

The critique of our online lives is valid, but it is often misdirected. The internet as a technological foundation has largely fulfilled its promise of connecting the world and democratizing information. The problems arise when this powerful tool is channeled through commercial platforms with conflicting incentives.

By separating the infrastructure from the interface, we can have more productive conversations about digital well-being, privacy, and information quality. The path forward involves holding platforms accountable for their design and business choices while preserving the open, neutral core of the network itself.

The future of the internet will be shaped by our collective choices—whether we continue to accept the current model or actively build and support alternatives that align better with human values.