The rising cases of internet shutdowns and the spread of online misinformation have divided online users into numerous often hostile factions. “An intentionally divided internet is a threat to business, innovation, and democracy” emphasized an article recently on MIT Management Sloan School highlighting the ways in which ‘splinternet’ is damaging society. As the battles in...
The rising cases of internet shutdowns and the spread of online misinformation have divided online users into numerous often hostile factions. “An intentionally divided internet is a threat to business, innovation, and democracy” emphasized an article recently on MIT Management Sloan School highlighting the ways in which ‘splinternet’ is damaging society. As the battles in this digital age hinge on data’s manipulative prowess, questions arise: Can countries decide what is acceptable online? When tech giants face scrutiny, why do they acquiesce to government curbs? Was the internet evolution meant to transcend geographic boundaries or was it apprehended to raise the cyber walls higher? As countries erect digital barriers, miscommunication, disinformation, and excessive government control follow, fragmenting the global web and isolating us digitally. This new trend of blocking apps, websites etc., on the justification of content regulation or otherwise is causing ‘over-internetization’ of the global web. Recently, Facebook was handed a record fine for a GDPR breach. The social network’s parent company, Meta, was hit with a bill for more than a billion pounds over its ongoing data transfers from the EU to the US. This prompts a significant question: Is the increasing online authority a step towards achieving genuine online privacy, or is it leading to the emergence of a "splinternet," where international boundaries extend their influence into the online realm, mirroring their impact in the physical world?
What is a Splinternet?
The promotion and display of polarized content shake the very foundation of democracies. This is the concept of splinternet, where the internet is splintered into fragments and each fragment is broken into smaller components, left to be regulated at the whims and fancies of the government, creating a separate digital landscape. This concept was introduced in 2010 by Economist Boon-Hiong Chan who discussed the ‘Balkanisation of the Internet’ and said that splinternet is gaining much more visibility than expected. The splintering can be because of diverse reasons and assumptions, for instance, political, religious, government interests, technological requirements etc.
The concept of the splinternet can be related to George Orwell's novel "1984" in the context of information control and manipulation by authoritarian regimes. In "1984," the government of Oceania maintains an iron grip on its citizens' lives, including their access to information and communication. The novel portrays a dystopian society where the ruling Party controls all forms of media and communication, altering historical records and manipulating language to maintain its authority.
Similarly, in a splinternet scenario, governments could exert control over the internet within their borders, shaping the information landscape to fit their narratives and agendas. They might restrict access to certain websites, social media platforms, or online services that don't align with their ideologies.
The ‘controlled cyberspace’
The splinternet doesn’t allow users to access any webpage that they search through domain names, the content and information accessed by the users is controlled by the government. It creates a wall which separates the internet from other geographic regions, thereby dismantling cross-border dependencies. The most common instances are where nations have blocked sites like Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) on immoral grounds or where they have shut down the internet in the garb of maintaining law and order or for prohibiting hate speech. Governments to filter or block content resort to technical processes like blocking IP Addresses, hunting credit records or scanning data with specific words. Such fluidity in cyberspace causes regulatory hurdles and makes it a challenge to scrutinize cybersecurity measures. Is it easy for a social media giant to take down online content as it interferes with the public policy of India? No, we have a better option, let’s block this media giant. So, who is taking the right stand, the internet giants cribbing about the freedom and rights of the users like Amazon circumventing Indian shopping regulations or the governments justifying their actions on the ground of national interests?
The global scenario
There are certain countries which are strong-headed and build up mechanisms to strengthen the splinternet. For instance, China owns the great firewall, an initiative taken under the ‘Golden Shield Project’ under which some of the social media platforms and search engines are blocked. Additionally, people in China cannot use Google or Yahoo to search for content and they have no US-based social media pages like Facebook. Similarly, Iran is very strict about the content and has a stringent censorship regime under which it has blocked unlimited sites inclusive of YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, Tumblr etc. on the ground of being immoral.
The most restrictive of all places when it comes to the internet is North Korea, where only top officials have easy access to the internet and the general population cannot easily access the internet. Even if at any point, the internet is used by people of that geographic region, they only encounter state-controlled propaganda which displays the goodness of certain political leaders. The forerunner in the case of Splinternet is Russia (Runet), which aims to demolish the US-based cybersecurity designs and build up its own independently runnable system. They have even gone to the extent of legislating a law named ‘Sovereign Internet Law’. Russia also recently accelerated the pace of the splinternet during wartime with Ukraine, where the Russian government-controlled internet accessed by users and floated a lot of disinformation about the war and praises for Russian President Putin. Further, the United States under the Trump administration initiated a ‘clean network program’ which targets to ban all Chinese apps and cloud servers.
India’s position
India has also started building a firewall and is not untouched by the tentacles of the splinternet. Many instances can be quoted from the Indian jurisdiction that hints towards the adaptation of the concept of splinternet, for instance, the internet shut down in Kashmir and areas of conflict, banning the TikTok App along with many other Chinese apps on the pretext of protecting personal data of the citizens. Further, the conflict between Reliance Jio platforms and Facebook in regard to data localization is another point.
Moreover, on June 30, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a Writ petition filed by Twitter stating “lack of merit in the petition”. The court was hearing a Writ petition filed by Twitter against certain “Blocking Orders” issued by the MeiTY, whereby it is directed to bar access of certain information to the public, by effecting suspension of some Twitter accounts. Twitter argued that the “Blocking Orders” lacks substantive & procedural non-compliance with section 69A of the Act in the light of Shreya Singhal vs UOI, in which it was held that the Centre must send a prior notice to the account holder if it finds some tweet objectionable. Furthermore, Twitter contended “how it could be directed to block user accounts and muffle their freedom of speech when news relating to these events were freely circulated by Television and print media”. In sum, Twitter contended a violation of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution and natural justice principles, submitting “no opportunity of hearing before the Review Committee”. The “Blocking Orders” all comprise 1,474 Twitter accounts and 175 Tweets were opposed by Twitter on the ground that “certain so-called objectionable content did not attract the grounds specified in section 69A” (Power to Centre and State to issue directions for blocking public access to any information on certain grounds).
Another concerning issue emerged recently, involving Jack Dorsey, the former CEO of X (formerly Twitter). Dorsey's statement alleging that India applied pressure on the microblogging platform to adopt a lenient stance during the farmers' protests in 2020-2021 has sparked a political controversy. In a TV interview in the US, Dorsey claimed that the Indian government had pressured Twitter, threatening to shut down its operations in India and conduct raids on its employees' homes if their demands were not met. However, the government swiftly dismissed these allegations as an outright falsehood.
Looming concerns
The world is moving swiftly towards the era of ‘digital authoritarianism’ and ‘digital surveillance’. Technologies like the splinternet are creeping dysfunctionality in terms of international cooperation. Furthermore, Splinternet restricts the flow of information, which is the right of every global citizen. It causes impediments to accessibility by businesses that cannot advertise or commercially benefit because of the firewalls created. How will the privacy legislations work, if compliance strategies are distorted because of fortified cyber infrastructures? How will digital assets or digital transactions, using distributed ledger technologies cope with complex regulatory legal regimes? By allowing the prevalence of splinternet we are also giving concession to the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” statement that assures the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas via any media irrespective of the geographic boundaries. The initial rift of seclusion in cyberspace by countries like the US, Russia and China is now moving towards building allies influencing other nations to follow the same path. But who will question the hypocrisy, as it was the United States that promoted the ‘Shadow’ project for expanding the global reach of the internet to protect the freedom of expression of internet users? Further, Google and Apple have continuously been removing apps on receiving requests and legal notices from countries claiming national law violations.
Splinternet manipulates the mind of internet users depriving them of their freedom to shop, travel or research uninhibited. Splinternet restricts and filters the information which may help a person build up a rational opinion, knowledge or reason pertaining to an important decision. The governments can give direction to the thoughts of individuals on a particular agenda. This will not always work in the favour of the government as sometimes shutting down the internet or restricting information can lead to mistrust and disbelief towards the government. Another drawback is that regional internets are more prone to cyber-attacks and the collapse of technology. If the internet keeps multiplying parallelly, a time would come when global technology would lose compatibility with regional technologies resulting in ‘non-upgradation’, ‘non-cooperation’ and ‘non-reliability’ amongst nations. The compliance standards and norms for data protection, localization and management will become a far-flung dream.
What next?
Although the splinternet is in the novice stage and audit or assessment of its impact is a juvenile proposition but the only thing that is certain about the splinternet is the distortion of efforts to make data and information sharing accessible. It is important to clearly understand the causes and impact of the fragmentation of the internet, only then we will be equipped to deal with legal implications and intricacies. A multi-dimensional fragmentation analysis system can help us measure the impact of fragmentation across the globe. The system would depend upon cloud narrative principles, critical cyber infrastructure, and open-source software which will help us compile data sets to interrogate and analyze the global fragmentation trends, per country fragmentation breakdown or comparative charts to audit the situation and make assessment of required initiatives.
In a digital age where boundaries are transcended by technology, it is essential to strike a delicate balance between the preservation of individual freedoms and the safeguarding of national interests. The journey ahead calls for a concerted effort to navigate the uncharted waters of the splinternet and ensure that the internet remains a tool of empowerment, connectivity, and collaboration for all.
Dr Ivneet Kaur Walia is Associate Professor of Law and teaches Cyber Law at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala, Punjab. Kartikey Singh is a fourth-year student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law. Views are personal.