Views: 0
Much is written about the lack of content moderation on the internet, but in practice, almost nothing is done. The paradox is clear: if a newspaper publishes slander, defamation, or images of minors, the authorities act quickly, impose sanctions, and can even shut down the publication. In the digital world, however, anything goes.
It's not that laws don't exist. It's that they aren't applied with the same force. Today, there is a legal asymmetry that is very difficult to justify.
Social media and large digital platforms now function as global media outlets, with a dissemination capacity infinitely greater than that of the traditional press. Even so, they operate under a much more lax framework of responsibility.
The result is a dangerous legal asymmetry: what is a crime in print is tolerated, monetized, or ignored online.
Defamation, harassment, media manipulation, deepfakes, exploitation of third-party images… It all circulates at breakneck speed while institutions look the other way.
We live in a society where very few actors control gigantic platforms that allow anyone to publish anything, whether true or false. And this is no coincidence.
These platforms make money from attention, not from the truth. Extreme, false, or scandalous content generates clicks, time spent on the site, and data. True moderation would mean losing revenue and influence.
No one is innocent here. Not the companies that allow these practices, nor the political actors who benefit from the information chaos.
In recent months, there has been much talk about tools capable of digitally undressing real people and disseminating those images on social media. Millions of pieces of content have circulated worldwide, particularly affecting women and minors.
The global reaction has been, with few exceptions, silence. Only one country has explicitly banned these practices. The rest have opted for inaction, as if laws regarding privacy, dignity, or the protection of minors didn't exist.
This isn't a technical failure. It's a political decision.
We've reached a disturbing point: the rights of the majority are worth less than the interests of a few. Citizens surrender privacy, dignity, and security in exchange for "free" services that are actually paid for with data and exposure.
Politicians, for their part, seem afraid to confront the tech giants. Fines, regulations, or shutting down platforms entail economic conflicts, media pressure, and electoral costs.
And so, little by little, the law of the digital jungle is becoming the norm.
Where is the rule of law in the digital realm? It's unreasonable that there aren't clear and effective laws that require:
. the swift removal of illegal content
. the sanctioning of those who promote it
. the closure of repeat offenders
It's also unreasonable that there aren't specialized judges capable of acting in days, not years. The slow pace of the justice system on the internet is tantamount to impunity.
A society that cannot defend itself through information is a society vulnerable to manipulation, hatred, and democratic erosion.
Technology is not the problem. The problem is the lack of will to govern it.
The question is no longer whether we can regulate the internet. The question is whether we want to do so before it's too late.
EN 
ES