The Case
Why thismatters.
The internet was built without a bill of rights. We are living with the consequences.
Every day, real people lose jobs, relationships, and their sense of safety because of what exists about them online — true or false, old or new, posted with malice or carelessness. The systems that govern digital life were not designed with human dignity in mind. We believe that needs to change.
The harm is real and measurable.
Online harassment, defamation, and reputational attacks are not abstract. They cause documented psychological trauma, job loss, relationship breakdown, and in the most severe cases, suicide. A 2023 Pew Research study found that 41% of Americans have personally experienced online harassment. The harm is not hypothetical — it is happening to millions of people right now.
The law has not kept pace.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, written in 1996, shields platforms from liability for content posted by users. What was designed to protect a nascent internet now protects billion-dollar companies from accountability for the harm their systems enable and amplify. Meanwhile, victims have almost no legal recourse that is affordable, fast, or effective.
Platforms profit from outrage.
Engagement algorithms reward content that provokes strong emotional reactions — including anger, fear, and contempt. This means that harassment campaigns, pile-ons, and viral humiliation are not bugs in the system. They are, in a very real sense, features. The business model of attention-driven platforms is structurally incompatible with human dignity.
Silence is not neutrality.
When platforms, employers, institutions, and communities say nothing in the face of online abuse, they send a message: that the target's dignity is not worth defending. Bystander silence is not neutral — it is a form of permission. We believe that individuals, organizations, and platforms all have a role to play in changing the culture of online harm.
Change is possible.
Other countries have enacted meaningful digital rights protections — the EU's GDPR, the UK's Online Safety Act, and Australia's eSafety Commissioner model all demonstrate that governments can and do hold platforms accountable. Cultural change is also possible: norms around what is acceptable online can shift, just as they have in other domains. We are not powerless.
Freedom of expression should never become permission to destroy another person's life.
Ready to take a stand?
Join the movement and add your voice to the call for a more humane internet.