When Scott Cleland speaks about the Internet, it is not to admire its scale or celebrate its reach. He speaks to expose its structural blind spots. For over thirty years, Cleland has questioned what few dared to confront: the cost of a freewheeling digital world where power scales unchecked, platforms operate without duty, and systems built for openness have evolved into engines of unaccountable control. As the founder of Precursor LLC and ProvenPrecursor, Cleland has positioned himself not just as a critic, but as a builder of frameworks that help society grapple with the chaos modern technology often invites.
A Vision Built on Foresight, Not Hindsight
Cleland’s contribution to Internet policy is not reactive. It is methodical and predictive. His warnings about the concentration of power, the flaws in Section 230, and the risks of platform impunity were not born out of a crisis. They were delivered long before the general public understood what was unfolding. When the 1996 Telecommunications Act was still on the horizon, Cleland already anticipated how deregulation would unleash forces that traditional oversight mechanisms were ill-equipped to handle. He forecasted industry shifts with remarkable accuracy and was among the first to identify how digital markets favored scale over competition.
His approach is grounded in systems thinking. Rather than focus on headlines, he studies architecture. Rather than respond to scandals, he interrogates the incentives that make them inevitable. This is what has made him a singular figure in the space of Internet accountability.
The Roots of Irresponsibility
To understand Cleland’s work is to understand how structure creates outcomes. He often returns to a fundamental point: the Internet is a man-made system. It was never neutral or natural. Its design was shaped by policy, law, and ideology. Chief among these ideological choices was the decision to treat the Internet as a commons, free from traditional regulation. The 1996 passage of Section 230 codified this idea. Platforms would be granted immunity from liability for third-party content, essentially freeing them from the responsibilities borne by publishers or broadcasters.
Cleland identified early that this legal architecture was not just a loophole. It was a license. It enabled platforms to wield control without accepting the duties that came with it. The result was predictable. A digital ecosystem where outrage was rewarded, privacy was undermined, and monopolies grew without meaningful constraint.
A Framework for Foresight: Macrointernetics
What distinguishes Cleland from many policy commentators is that he did not stop at critique. He developed a discipline. Macrointernetics is his answer to the question of how to study a system as sprawling and unbounded as the Internet. It treats the Internet not as a collection of apps or services, but as a macro-ecosystem with interdependent effects on government, economy, society, and culture.
Macrointernetics recognizes that the Internet behaves differently than other systems. It crosses borders without permission. It influences markets without regulation. It controls speech without recourse. Cleland built this framework to trace how one decision in Internet policy could ripple into antitrust failures, national security breaches, and democratic instability. It is a way of mapping what traditional analysis cannot see.
Holding the Mirror Up to Power
Cleland has never been afraid to challenge the dominant players. His critiques of Google, Facebook, and Amazon are well-documented. But his objection is not rooted in ideology. It is rooted in concern for balance. He argues that no company should control the information flows of billions without oversight. Through his white papers, congressional testimonies, and extensive research archives, Cleland has made the case that modern tech monopolies do not merely emerge. They are enabled by policy choices that favor permissiveness over accountability.
He was among the first to identify how Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick would create a search advertising monopoly. He testified before Congress multiple times, warning that without intervention, the Internet would move toward extreme concentration. He was right. Years later, the U.S. government and European regulators would initiate major antitrust cases against the very same companies he flagged.
The Precursor Philosophy: Empowering the Ethical Actor
At the core of Cleland’s advocacy is a philosophy of empowerment. The Precursor brand, represented by a puzzle piece, reflects his belief that change begins with understanding. Cleland helps others see the big picture by showing them the missing parts. Whether advising Fortune 500 companies, guiding public institutions, or publishing analysis on his Substack, he provides tools to navigate complexity without giving in to cynicism.
His idea of empowerment is not passive. It requires clarity, conviction, and a willingness to name the uncomfortable truths. He often says that being a ProvenPrecursor means helping others succeed by confronting what others avoid. It is not about saying what is popular. It is about saying what is necessary.
Beyond the Bubble: The Public Costs of Private Power
Cleland has been one of the few voices to connect the dots between the rise of unaccountable platforms and the erosion of public trust. He has written extensively on how Section 230 functions as corporate welfare, shielding trillion-dollar companies from responsibility while placing the burden of harm on individuals and institutions. In his work with Restore Us Institute, Cleland argued that digital impunity is not just a legal problem. It is a moral and civic one.
The public cost of an unaccountable Internet is enormous. Misinformation spreads unchecked. Children are exposed to harmful content. Markets are manipulated by unregulated algorithms. And at every turn, the companies that profit from this model are protected by outdated laws written in a different era. Cleland challenges the idea that these outcomes are inevitable. He believes they are engineered, and that they can be redesigned.
The Case for Responsible Innovation
Scott Cleland is not against the Internet. He is against irresponsibility. His work does not call for regression. It calls for maturity. The digital age demands a new kind of thinking, one that embraces both innovation and integrity. Cleland has provided the tools to do that. His frameworks are already influencing how we approach antitrust, content moderation, privacy, and platform accountability.
As governments scramble to rein in digital power and society begins to confront the consequences of decades-old policy decisions, Cleland’s body of work offers more than critique. It offers a path forward. He has given us not just warnings, but a way to understand and act. In an age where accountability often lags behind invention, Scott Cleland remains a critical voice. A builder of ideas. A restorer of responsibility.