The Internet – perhaps the greatest invention in human history – has gone awry. We can all feel it. It’s harder than ever to know if we’re dealing with friends or foes (or bots), we know we’re constantly being watched in the name of better ad conversion, and we live in constant fear of clicking something and getting scammed.

The internet’s failures stem largely from the inability of the big tech monopolies—particularly Google and Facebook—to verify and protect our identities. Why don’t they?

The answer is that they have no incentive to do so. In fact, the status quo works for them, thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed by the United States Congress in 1996.

Related: Contracts will drive out tech giants – from Apple to Google

But things may be about to change. This term, the Supreme Court will hear Gonzalez v. Google, a case that has the potential to reshape or even delete Section 230. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where it wouldn’t kill the social media platforms we use today. That would represent a golden opportunity for blockchain technology to replace it.

How did we get here?

A key facilitator of the early development of the Internet, Section 230 states that web platforms are not legally responsible for the content posted by their users. As a result, social networks like Facebook and Twitter are free to post (and profit from) anything their users post.

The plaintiff in the case now before court believes internet platforms bear responsibility for the death of his daughter, who was killed by Islamic State assailants in a Paris restaurant in 2015. He believes algorithms developed by YouTube and its parent company Google “recommended ISIS videos to users”, leading to terrorist organization recruitment and eventual facilitation of the Paris attack.

Section 230 gives YouTube a lot of coverage. If defamatory content is posted, or in the above case, by a user, the platform can serve that content to several consumers before any action is taken. In the process of determining whether content violates the law or platform terms, a lot of damage can be done. But Section 230 protects the platform.

Related: Crypto breaks the Google-Amazon-Apple monopoly over user data

Imagine YouTube after Section 230 is deleted. Does it have to put 500 hours of content uploading has been done Every minute in the review queue before anyone else is allowed to view it? This will not scale and will remove a lot of the engaging immediacy of the content on the site. Or will they allow the content to be published as it is now but take legal responsibility for every copyright infringement, incitement to violence, or defamation word uttered in one of his billionaire videos?

Once you pull the thread of Section 230, platforms like YouTube quickly start to fall apart.

Global implications for the future of social media

The case focuses on US law, but the issues it raises are global issues. Other countries are also grappling with how best to regulate internet platforms, particularly social media. France recently ordered manufacturers to install easily accessible parental controls in all computers and devices and banned the collection of minors’ data for commercial purposes. In the United Kingdom, it was officially discovered that the Instagram algorithm contributed to the suicide of a teenage girl.

Then there are the authoritarian world systems, which Governments step up censorship and efforts to manipulate by leveraging armies of trolls and bots to sow disinformation and mistrust. The lack of any practical form of identity verification for the vast majority of social media accounts makes this situation not only possible, but inevitable.

And beneficiaries of the economy without section 230 you might not expect. Many individuals will file lawsuits against major technology platforms. In a world where social media can be held legally responsible for the content posted on their platforms, armies of editors and content moderators will have to be assembled to review every image or word posted on their sites. Given the amount of content that has been released on social media in recent decades, the task seems almost impossible and is likely to be a triumph for traditional media organizations.

Looking a little further, the demise of Section 230 would completely upend the business models that drove the growth of social media. Platforms are suddenly responsible for an almost unlimited supply of user-generated content while powerful privacy laws constantly squeeze their ability to collect massive amounts of user data. It would require a complete re-engineering of the concept of social media.

Many platforms misunderstand it like Twitter and Facebook. They believe that the software they use to log into those platforms, post content, and watch content from their network is the product. Not. Moderation is the product. And if the Supreme Court overturns Section 230, that completely changes what products we think of as social media.

This is a huge opportunity.

In 1996, the Internet consisted of a relatively small number of static websites and message boards. It was impossible to foresee that its growth would one day cause people to question the very notions of freedom and safety.

People have just as basic rights in their digital activities as they do in their physical activities – including privacy. At the same time, the public good requires a mechanism to sort facts from misinformation, honest people from fraudsters, in the public domain. Today’s Internet does not meet any of these needs.

Some argue, either overtly or implicitly, that a healthier, more digital future requires difficult trade-offs between privacy and security. But if we are ambitious and deliberate in our efforts, we can achieve both.

Related: Soon Facebook and Twitter will become obsolete thanks to blockchain technology

Blockchain makes it possible to simultaneously protect and prove our identities. Zero knowledge technology It means we can verify information — age, for example, or professional qualifications — without revealing any physical data. Soulbound tokens (SBTs)And the Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and some forms Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) It will soon enable anyone to transfer a single cryptographic identity across any digital platform, current or future.

This is beneficial for all of us, whether in our work, personal or family life. Schools and social media would be safer places, adult content could be reliably restricted by age, and intentional misinformation would be easier to track.

The end of section 230 will be an earthquake. But if we adopt a constructive approach, it could also be a golden opportunity to improve the Internet we know and love. By creating and proving our identities with on-chain cryptography, we can better prove who we are, where we stand, and who we can trust.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended and should not be considered legal or investment advice. The views, ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.