Nearly thirty years after the internet was declared a space beyond traditional law and authority, the same mindset is quietly influencing how artificial intelligence (AI) is being introduced into society. The consequences of those early decisions are now resurfacing—this time with far greater stakes—raising urgent questions about responsibility, regulation, and accountability in the age of AI.
According to Jovan Kurbalija’s analysis in “Thirty Years of the Original Sin of Digital and AI Governance,” two pivotal decisions made on the same day in February 1996 laid the foundation for today’s regulatory gaps. Together, they shaped how digital technologies were allowed to grow faster than the systems meant to govern them.
The Myth of a Lawless Cyberspace
The first moment occurred in Davos, where internet activist John Perry Barlow published his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. The manifesto framed the internet as a borderless digital realm free from government control and traditional legal systems.
This vision, while idealistic, had long-lasting consequences. It popularized the belief that digital spaces operate separately from the physical world—and therefore outside existing laws. As Kurbalija points out, this narrative encouraged policymakers to treat technology as something that should evolve independently of political and legal oversight.
However, the idea of a stateless cyberspace was always flawed. The internet depends on real-world infrastructure: data centers, cables, servers, and energy systems that all exist within national jurisdictions. Ignoring this reality sidelined established legal and ethical frameworks that were already capable of regulating human behavior, regardless of the tools involved.
Section 230 and Platform Immunity
The second decision took place in Washington, D.C., where the United States passed the Communications Decency Act. Embedded within it was Section 230—a provision that granted online platforms broad immunity from liability for user-generated content.
Originally intended to protect emerging internet companies, Section 230 remains largely intact today, even as tech firms have grown into some of the most powerful corporations in history. Kurbalija argues that this legal protection reinforced the myth of digital exceptionalism, allowing platforms to avoid responsibility for harms enabled or amplified by their systems.
Legal scholars, including U.S. Judge Frank Easterbrook, had warned early on that new technologies did not require entirely new legal systems. Existing laws—focused on human relationships and accountability—were already sufficient. These warnings, however, were largely ignored.
From Internet Platforms to Artificial Intelligence
This unresolved legacy has now extended into AI governance. AI developers and companies increasingly benefit from the same assumptions of limited liability, even as their systems influence elections, labor markets, healthcare decisions, and public discourse.
Unlike earlier digital tools, AI systems can scale harm rapidly and invisibly, often without clear lines of responsibility. Yet, they remain far less regulated than other industries with comparable societal impact, such as finance, pharmaceuticals, or transportation.
Ending Legal Exceptionalism in AI
Kurbalija concludes that meaningful AI governance requires a fundamental shift away from technological exceptionalism. Innovation cannot continue to exist in a legal vacuum. Those who design, deploy, and profit from AI systems must also be accountable for their real-world consequences.
As governments around the world debate AI regulation, the lesson from the early internet era is clear: delaying accountability in the name of innovation only magnifies harm. Reconnecting technology with established legal and ethical responsibility may be the most important step toward ensuring AI serves society rather than undermines it.