Thank you for joining us again in the 13th edition of NetMission Digest, where we distill recent technological news and policy developments into a bite-size reader for you. In this issue, we explore Internet fragmentation in both the digital landscape and broader geopolitical dynamics through critical incidents that illustrate the ongoing tension between national interests and global digital unity.
“Splinternet” – The Internet is fragmented
In a recent blog post, Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Internet, expressed concern about the future of the Internet becoming increasingly fragmented, and lamented how self-interested corporations have led to a significant concentration of power, diverging from the Internet’s originally decentralized nature and its initial values of collaboration, compassion, and creativity—the 3 C’s.
The concept of “Internet Fragmentation,” as explained by the World Economic Forum, refers to the potential for the Internet to split into distinct segments of cyberspace, jeopardizing its inherent connectivity. This trend, often termed “splinternet,” highlights the division of the Internet into segments that may prevent users from accessing information freely due to varying national regulations that promote notions of a “safe” or “sovereign” Internet.
There are three dimensions of fragmentation: user experience, technical infrastructure, and governance and coordination. This multidimensional approach helps to foster a clearer understanding of the causes, impacts, and particular harm caused by Internet Fragmentation.
Control and Governance
Driven by a variety of factors, including national security, cultural preservation, or political control, governments often use Internet fragmentation to exert strategic control over digital content and services within their borders, particularly in enforcing local laws concerning data protection and censorship. However, this control and governance can lead to significant disadvantages for individuals and communities, impeding information access, reducing service interoperability, and complicating the user experience across jurisdictions. Ultimately hindering the global exchange of ideas and innovation by creating isolated digital ecosystems.
Moreover, a fragmented Internet can pose a risk to governments themselves. Cyberspace’s segmenting can complicate international governance and coordination, leading to difficulties in addressing cross-border issues like cybersecurity, trade, and intellectual property rights. This fragmentation can ultimately disrupt the global connectivity essential for effective governance.
For the private sector, especially global companies, navigating fragmented regulatory landscapes presents both challenges and opportunities. While adapting to diverse local regulations can be costly and complex, it also creates barriers to entry for competitors. It allows companies to tailor their services to specific markets, potentially increasing profitability.
Impact of Internet Fragmentation on Geopolitics
Internet Fragmentation carries profound geopolitical implications, and nations’ political, commercial, and technical developments are intertwining to reshape the Internet. Key issues such as data localization, the proliferation of national regulations, and the centralization of Internet control in a handful of corporations significantly contribute to a fragmented Internet landscape. Such fragmentation poses challenges to the traditional notions of cyber sovereignty and global Internet Governance, potentially reshaping geopolitical dynamics.
The international community must find a balanced and multistakeholder approach that preserves the ideal of an open and decentralized Internet, while simultaneously respecting the sovereignty and national security concerns of individual countries and regions. The balance sought will dictate the future structure of the Internet and its capacity to foster global cooperation versus exacerbating international divides.
Geopolitical Dynamics of Internet Fragmentation
The moratorium on tariffs on electronic transmissions has been in place since 1998, preventing countries from imposing customs duties on digital goods and services. India and South Africa have questioned this moratorium, arguing that its extension could limit developing countries’ ability to raise revenue and safeguard their digital economies. Indonesia has also indicated concerns, suggesting that tariffs could be imposed to protect local industries. This stance reflects broader issues of Internet Fragmentation, where divergent regulations pose a risk to global connectivity, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that respects national sovereignty while maintaining a unified Internet.
Data Sovereignty and Localization
The concept of data sovereignty is gaining momentum, with a noticeable increase in data localization measures globally. By early 2023, 100 data localization measures were in place across 40 countries, with over two-thirds combining local storage requirements with flow prohibition, i.e. the most restrictive form of data localization. By June 2022, 75 percent of all countries had implemented some level of data localization rules.
These macro trends are shaped by major powers like the US, China, and the EU, each enforcing distinct data governance models, impacting global data flows and digital diplomacy. India’s shift in data localization policies in 2022, aiming to align with Western practices while retaining control over domestic data flows, signals a shift toward a more flexible data localization policy. This permits cross-border data flow into “certain notified countries,” indicating a relaxation from previous strict requirements that limited data transfer and storage within Indian borders and allowing for more permissive cross-border data flow while maintaining some level of national control. However, it also leaves open questions about which countries will be deemed safe for data transfer and the criteria used to make such determinations.
Cybersecurity and National Security
As nations tighten their control over Internet infrastructure, cybersecurity is increasingly linked to national security. The convergence of cybersecurity and geopolitical factors has created complex risks for both national security and Internet infrastructure. Countries often use cybersecurity concerns to justify stricter controls, leading to fragmented policies and increased international tensions, while geopolitical considerations are shaping cyber norms and regulations, influencing how nations approach cybersecurity and cross-border data flows. For instance, the US has banned Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE from its networks, citing national security risks.
Similarly, in Asia, India has banned over 300 Chinese apps, including popular ones like SEA’s Free Fire, indicating a move toward stricter cybersecurity controls. Cambodia’s National Internet Gateway, a state-controlled Internet access point, is another example of a country implementing tighter Internet controls, raising concerns about surveillance and censorship. Nepal’s proposed Cybersecurity Act and National Internet Gateway also demonstrate how countries in the region are enacting measures that affect cross-border data flows and could lead to increased Internet Fragmentation. Japan’s potential security conformity assessment system for IoT products could further tighten controls over technology to address national security risks.
Cultural and Informational Control
Nations increasingly assert control over Internet content and information to maintain cultural norms or political agendas. This can involve strict content control laws and censorship practices. For example, China has implemented stringent Internet regulations, with its Great Firewall heavily restricting access to global platforms and websites. Similarly, Vietnam has laws allowing the government to demand content removal or compliance with strict regulations. Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) is another example, giving the government power to order corrections or content takedowns to combat misinformation.
Governments often request that tech companies like Google remove content for various reasons, such as national security or cultural sensitivity. Google’s Transparency Report shows a steady increase in government requests for content removal, indicating a trend toward stricter informational control. This control over content and information can lead to internet fragmentation, as each country develops its own set of rules for what is permissible online.
To maintain an open, secure, and cohesive Internet amidst diverse national interests and global dynamics, it is crucial to foster policies that consider both national and international frameworks. Initiatives like the “G7 Action Plan for the Internet” and the “UN Global Digital Compact” aim to promote a human-centered digital future by enhancing global interoperability and the use of trustworthy AI technologies. These efforts are essential for reducing risks associated with Internet fragmentation and for supporting the development of a unified digital market in regions like ASEAN, where efforts are ongoing to harmonize digital policies.
Towards a Unified Internet in a Multipolar World
In the Asia Pacific region, the impact of Internet fragmentation is particularly pronounced. For instance, China’s Great Firewall has significantly affected both domestic Internet use and international data flows; and North Korea’s isolated Internet network severely restricts information flow within and beyond its borders. Addressing these challenges requires holistic and multilateral approaches. There is a pressing need for advocacy for comprehensive, multilateral instruments that establish globally applicable standards, which help reconcile national interests with global Internet governance norms, thereby mitigating fragmentation.
Amidst a multipolar world where political and economic decoupling between major powers fosters instability and anxiety, countries from the Global South, including those in the BRICS group, are increasingly cooperating and distancing themselves from the power games traditionally dominated by the Global North. Concurrently, big tech and private sectors are accruing more power to dominate and control information infrastructure. This rise in disparate national policies and corporate practices poses a significant threat to a unified global Internet, potentially undermining international cooperation, economic interactions, and the overall governance landscape.
Internet Fragmentation, while broadly recognized, is a concept still in need of deeper research. Further studies are essential to refine our understanding of its causes, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Evolving best practices from this research could significantly enhance future governance, technical standards, and user experience.
As we navigate these complex dynamics, it becomes imperative to bolster international cooperation and establish robust global Internet governance standards. Only through concerted efforts can we hope to foster an Internet that is not only open and secure but also capable of bridging the vast divides shaped by geopolitical interests. The path forward lies in embracing these challenges as opportunities to redefine the digital landscape for a more interconnected and open world.
Make Your Voice Heard
From the inception of NetMission Digest, our vision has been clear: to keep our audience abreast of developments in global and regional digital policies, and to empower and inspire youth leaders, fostering their ability to effect change and amplify their voices on the international policy stage. Now, the opportunity is yours to seize as the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) and the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) are calling for workshop proposals. Visit their website for more information:
- APrIGF 2024 call for proposals (Extended Deadline: April 26, 2024)
- IGF 2024 call for proposals (Deadline: April 30, 2024)
What are we reading?
Digital technology has catalyzed polarization, inequality, loneliness, and fear, especially among our generation. We’ve been reading “Plurality” by Taiwan’s Digital Minister Audrey Tang and her architects of Taiwan’s digital democracy, and explore how they achieved inclusive and technology-fueled growth that harnesses digital tools to strengthen both social unity and diversity.
Written by Yukako Ban (Reviewed by Kenneth Leung and Jenna Manhau Fung)