Welcome to Splinter-Net: the broken and splintered network. Now, as the world is flooded with false information and as Russia, China, and the United States enter a new lukewarm war, we are watching it materialize before our eyes
What if we could take all the trolls, all the idiots, all the people who disagree with our logical and clearly-right opinions, and stick them all on the internet… else? A place where we will never have to hear from them again - unless their opinions are carefully filtered so they don't bother us?
And what if we could do it for an entire country? Or to all the other countries except us?
Welcome to Splinter-Net: the broken and splintered network. Welcome to the apocalyptic vision of the World Wide Web. Concerns about it were first raised more than twenty years ago, but now, when the world is flooded with false information and when Russia-China-the United States enter a new lukewarm war, we are watching it materialize before our eyes.
At the beginning of the XNUMXs, the potential of the global Internet network was already clear: a single platform, where all the scientists, all the engineers, all the inhabitants of the planet could work in coexistence. They will be able to exchange ideas with each other, make connections, meet potential spouses from other countries. And the Internet did allow people to do all that, but even then the problems and difficulties began. The young network also allowed the distribution of pornography, online gambling, money laundering, downloading movies and music files without regard to copyright, and much more.
The most immediate and obvious solution was that of legislation. Indeed, countries have tried to develop laws that would limit civil rights online, which would be parallel to those existing in the physical world. The movement in this direction was not liked by many, to say the least. The Internet is considered the new and free space of existence: a wild west where all those who were not satisfied with the existing situation and the forces that enforced it could find a place. That is, free from the governments and the big companies. It was a very idyllic view of things, but at least at the beginning of the Internet, the position of governments and companies was really shaken in the digital world.
In 2001, Clyde Wayne Cruz proposed a new solution: break the Internet. Cruz was the new technology research director at the Cato Institute - a libertarian think tank. In other words, he was not a big proponent of government control. In an article published by Cruz in Forbes, he brought up a new concept which he called "Splinternet" - from the word "splinter" which means splinter in English. The idea was to 'break' the global internet into shards of networks, each of which would be managed separately by a different commercial company.
"What about more networks, not more regulations?" Cruz asked rhetorically[1].
The idea is not as strange as it may sound to us at first. The global Internet already today consists of a huge number of servers and routers that communicate with each other. The information crosses continents and oceans when it is carried along optical fibers, radio transmissions and sometimes also mail units[2]. When it reaches other countries, it passes again through countless routers that break it up into small packets and reassemble it at the destination. China has already demonstrated well that it is possible to filter information passing through national communication networks. This is not a small effort, but it can certainly be done.
Such restrictions exist in every country, subject to the law. Citizens in certain countries in the Middle East, for example, who try to connect to the websites of enemy countries, may find that they are blocked. But what happens when a country decides to completely cut off its residents from information coming from the outside - unless it has undergone strict censorship? What happens in China when citizens trying to access Google, Facebook, or Twitter find that these services are blocked for them, and therefore they are forced to use domestic services controlled by the government?
In this case, it can be said that the network is 'broken' into two pieces: the piece that still serves the rest of the world, and the Chinese piece.
But what about the internet in North Korea, where the residents are completely cut off from the outside world?
And you have another shard.
The Splinternet, in other words, is already here, and just keeps spreading. It is already well established in China, but in recent months it has become clear that a new branch is also establishing itself in another country that we have heard a lot about in the news.
The Internet allows freedom of thought and speech - and these are things that dictators, such as Vladimir Putin, are not far from loving. Russia has a history of trying to strangle those online, back in 2018 when it decided to eliminate Telegram from its territory. To do this, Putin was willing to stop some of the cloud services enjoyed by Russian citizens, and block many websites just to curb the free social network[3].
In the end, Russia was unable to stop the spread of Telegram on its territory, but it demonstrated how a government - not even a Chinese one - can shut down critical network services with the push of a button. And no less scary: she showed how right she is to do so.
Putin drew lessons from the war over Telegram, and a year later passed legislation known as the "sovereign network". This is supposed to protect the country from outside threats, through the installation of technologies that allow the ruler of Russia - whoever he is - to monitor the information flowing on the Internet in the country and control it completely. In fact, Russia has created a new network - Runet - which is shared only by Russians. And she showed clear signs that she was ready and even wanted to use it.
In the middle of the last year, Russia began to test whether Runt could operate without being connected to the global Internet, and even ran experiments on a national scale. It seems the answer was yes. The Russian companies did not collapse, and the government websites did not crash, and continued to provide barely service to citizens as usual.
Since the outbreak of war, many companies have abandoned Russia for sighs. The big internet companies - Facebook, Instagram and Twitter - wanted to stay, but were forced out of the country. Russia has blocked these three, and on the other hand has also severely limited the ability of other network giants such as Apple, Microsoft, Netflix and Bitdance (which is behind Tiktok) to operate. This means that the citizens of Russia cannot freely communicate with each other, pass on news that does not correspond to Putin's mindset, or collectively decide that it is time to change the administration.
Putin, as you can understand, is very pleased with the situation. In fact, according to a senior US State Department official, the move towards the Splinternet achieves "everything Putin ever wanted...he wanted a new Iron Curtain...he just found an easy way to do it, where everybody helps him."[4]
And that should scare us all a lot.
While the whole world is shocked by the war started by Russia against Ukraine, a large part of Russian citizens choose to support Putin. According to an independent poll conducted in the country in April, about eighty percent of Russians support the military's actions in Ukraine[5]. This at a time when most Westerners are equally convinced of the rightness of their ways.
One of the reasons for the firm belief of the Russians is the fact that Putin has long since taken over the Russian media. Russian television broadcasts what he dictates to it from on high. The Russian press interprets every event in the way it wants. On the radio his name is glorified as a conqueror and winner in the name of the Russian people. Only on Facebook can you still find serious criticism against him.
That is, until Facebook was kicked out of Russia.
remember? Splinternet.
This is the first meaning of the Splinter: tyrants gain even greater power over their people. They don't have to fight their hearts out against the information (and propaganda) coming from outside the border. The state becomes impervious to criticism from the outside - and the citizens are not even aware of it, or they are exposed to it only after it has been softened and presented as ridiculous and illogical.
I wrote a few paragraphs ago that the residents of the West are also convinced of the rightness of their ways. Why do I think they are right and the Russians are wrong? Because we in the West enjoy an open global internet, and therefore we can enjoy information coming from a multitude of conflicting and conflicting sources. Yes, even from within Russia itself. On the global Internet, a real dialogue can take place. In the shard of the Russian Internet? No longer.
For all the ills and ills of the Internet, it still allows people to express their opinions publicly and creates a bustling marketplace of ideas that can cross borders at the speed of light. The division into the Splinternet will stop the global information sharing process that has made us all citizens of the same world in recent decades. With each country enjoying absolute ownership of a sliver of the Splinternet, rulers will be able to ensure that their subjects receive only the 'correct' information. That is, the one they mess with.
Today the world is full of online tools that allow citizens of different countries to buy, sell and exchange goods between them. It is difficult to find a person in Israel who has not made an order from eBay, Amazon, Ali Express, Etsy, Faber, Airbnb, or any other similar online service.
On Splinternet, you may find that all of these are blocked. Except, of course, the services that the government chooses for you to use.
This is not an exaggeration. Chinese citizens cannot easily use some of the services I mentioned. Not because some companies are not ready to send packages to China, but because the government itself does not want citizens to be exposed to even the possibility of such orders. Russia already blocked - by mistake or on purpose - TripAdvisor to its citizens in 2018[6].
The Internet enables the creation of the global, citizen-based economy. One that does not rely only on the power of large companies to cross borders, but also gives power to the small man to trade the fruits of his labor all over the world. The Splinternet could seriously damage this mass economy.
Oh, and in Bitcoin too. A global digital currency is a great thing - but it is still based on information, and countries can choose to block the entry or exit of relevant information into their territories. Even if not, countries like China have already demonstrated advanced capabilities in the identification and targeted thwarting of anonymous online users. Even the most advanced encryption will not help the majority of people who want to use the digital currencies that the state does not want bikram.
In 2017, Nozka began to spread in Ukraine, from where it emerged to many other countries in the world. The name of the victim was Petya, and cyber experts are now convinced that this is one of the biggest cyber attacks in the world, directly on behalf of Russia. It was, in effect, a mini-declaration of war on behalf of Russia on Ukraine, but without the need for planes, tanks or foot soldiers.
The damage mainly affected financial and government systems in Ukraine itself, but it managed to continue spreading through them to other countries as well. This was probably not the original intention of Putin, whose country was also harmed when Petya did a U-turn and also infected the computers in Russia.
It is clear today that we are in the era of cyber-warfare, where superpowers attack each other through the Internet. In fact, they launch autonomous weapons of war - worms, viruses and other shameful stuff - that they cannot easily control once they have emerged into the world. In this situation, only the most irresponsible countries will launch cyber attacks that could significantly harm them as well. As long as the world is connected to one big internet network, the powers understand very well that a weapon they release today, can circulate through the network and hit them tomorrow.
The Splinternet can change this concern.
In a world where some countries have their own piece of the Internet, and especially one that is separated from the global network by means of physical infrastructures that are responsible for information filtering, it is more difficult to introduce malicious and harmful elements into the country. All the more so when it comes to damages that the state is prepared for, since it is the one that released them in the first place. Therefore, the Splinternet increases the chance that countries like Russia, China or North Korea will release a destructive virus into the Internet that will continue to spread on its own and cause damage to the world. They will not have to worry about the same malicious entity coming back to them in a round. After all, they enjoy clear digital boundaries around their private slice of the Internet.
The Arab Spring began when Facebook users banded together to coordinate positions, actions and demonstrations. Egypt did not know how to deal with the new situation and did not know how to suffocate and repress the network in the appropriate places to curb the public discourse. It failed to stop the opinions coming from abroad, or the moral support that the Egyptians received from the citizens of the Arab world who watched from the sidelines and provided advice and support from abroad.
In short, she was not in control of her own internet.
In the world of the Splinternet, such a thing will never happen again. The rulers of the totalitarian countries - we will call them the "splitternet kingdoms" - will have full control over the Internet in their territories. Citizens of those countries will not be able to receive support, assistance or information from outside. In fact, they may not benefit from Internet services at all, and will have to try and band together and coordinate actions through almost prehistoric means. At the same time, the rulers and their entire army will benefit from the most advanced Internet, coordination and surveillance services of the 21st century.
This means that in the world of the Splinternet, citizens in totalitarian countries will have little hope of salvation from within. They will not be able to stage coups or change the government. A civilian Mary will have zero efficiency. Demonstrations will only take place as long as they do not disturb the authorities. I wrote about all of these things already in 2016 in my book "The Rulers of the Future", where you can see many of the analyzes in it - unfortunately - being realized every year.
I hope I have managed to convince you that the Splinternet is one of the biggest threats to the global economy and society that we have been able to establish in the last twenty years.
אז מה עושים?
The enthusiastic futurist in me wants to answer right away that the solution is of course "more technology!!". Encryption technology, or super-mega-blockchain, or Internet networks based on brain-machine interfaces and XNUMXD printers, and other buzzwords.
The sad truth is that the problem lies not in technology, but in humans.
At the end of the day, the decision to split the network is made by humans. Politicians, true, but still human beings. In totalitarian countries, the level of influence of the little man on the 'representatives of the public' is close to zero. Putin will not be moved if there are calls in Russia from the public to withdraw from the global Internet. I mean, he'll be excited, but then he'll throw the protesters in jail, and he won't have to worry about them anymore.
Putin and similar rulers are more concerned about the support of tycoons and big businessmen who support them from the sidelines. These have the ability to greatly influence the decisions made at the government level, and they should be aware of the danger that the Splinternet poses to their global businesses and the economy and world security in general. One can hope that they know how to restrain the rulers in totalitarian countries. Their action is especially critical in these years, because from the moment the government places new network infrastructures that support the Splinternet, these can be fixed for the future which is not-limited-in-time. New businesses will arise around the establishment and maintenance of these internal networks, and it will be very difficult to get rid of them - except in the case of an extreme crisis, such as the occupation of the country.
And what about us, in the democratic countries? We still have more control over our representatives in the corridors of power. We can politely ask them not to degenerate or give in to forceful demands to remove Russia from the internet, like Zelensky's from March 2022[7]. It is possible that the time will come to 'break' the network and keep the Russians away from it, but we must be aware of the serious long-term consequences of such a step.
And last but not least: yes, maybe technology can also help.
In one tweet, Elon Musk changed the world.
Of course, when it comes to Musk you have to be more specific.
At the end of February 2022, the fateful tweet went live: "Starlink services are now active in Ukraine. More terminals are on the way.”
Starlink is the new satellite internet network launched by Elon Musk. It is based on more than two thousand satellites in orbit, which together transmit and receive radio waves and are able to provide wireless internet to large parts of the Earth's surface. The network is still not perfect - thousands more satellites will be needed to make the service available worldwide - but its potential to change the international rules of the game is already clear. The reason is simple: it can provide citizens with internet anywhere, anytime, without having to rely on state-controlled infrastructure.
Musk's terminals are not the kind of giant broadcast towers, or even the tall antennas that can be found everywhere today. These are small satellite dishes, sixty centimeters in diameter, that can be easily moved from place to place. Despite their tiny size, they changed the face of the war in Ukraine. The Russian army went out of its way to destroy all the physical communication networks in the country, but it could not cope with the small successes.
"Starlink is what changed the war in favor of Ukraine." an unnamed Ukrainian soldier told journalist David Patrikarakos. "Russia tried to blow up all our communication systems. Now they can't. Starlink works under Katyusha fire, under artillery fire."[8]
Thanks to Starlink, the Ukrainian forces could continue to control unmanned aerial vehicles, which were responsible for eliminating tanks, jeeps and mobile control units of the Russian army. Thanks to Starlink, the Ukrainian generals could continue to pass orders to their soldiers - who in any other war would have been defined as partisans disconnected from the chain of command. Thanks to Starlink, the Ukrainian government could continue to function in front of more than 590 hospitals and clinics, provide government services to citizens and of course - collect taxes. Because there are only two constant things in the world, and the Ukrainians have already experienced enough death.
The Russians tried to stop the Starlink transmissions, without success. They attacked the network with electronic warfare means, but Starlink underwent a software upgrade within a few hours - and returned to operation. Since then, it provides network services throughout Ukraine.
Starlink is an example of a way in which it will be possible to provide internet without infrastructure from the state. She is not alone in the battle. Two other companies - Amazon and OneWeb - are also trying to produce similar infrastructures for a worldwide satellite internet network. One of the three, or two, or all, will surely succeed. In less than a decade, residents of the entire world will be able to connect to the global Internet at costs that will compete with those of local Internet providers.
The result will be a blow to Splinternet. Countries can try to set up their own shards, but when citizens can choose to use the global internet so easily, the shards lose their power. This is not a death knell for the Splinternet, because in totalitarian countries the authorities can also physically track people who choose to connect to the international network, and prosecute them for their crime. And yet, if the global Internet is available to everyone by default from the sky, the state's ability to impose its own shard of the Internet on its citizens will be impaired.
who knows? Maybe technology really will save us from the Splinternet after all.
Elon Musk stands, as mentioned, behind and before Starlink. It is a global internet network under the control of one person. Musk apparently understands the critical need to avoid tearing the internet apart. He defines himself as a "total supporter of the right to speak", and has publicly refused to disconnect Russia from the network he created. All this is well and good, but in the end it must be remembered that this is still a huge power in the hands of one person or one commercial company. The same person who is also supposed to control Twitter now - one of the most important social networks[9].
What is better? Fragments of a network, each of which is managed independently to cut off citizens from the outside world, or one international network, which is under the thumb of one company? Or maybe the situation is as it is today, with a global internet network, full of chaos and fragments-in-the-making, and in which many countries and companies are constantly striving for control and power? Which of these models will bring us closer to the ultimate goals of international peace, global human rights, and self-fulfillment for every person?
No one knows the exact answer yet. We will find out together, in the future.
And let's just hope we can read about it online, even if the government prefers not to.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20120901184102/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/04/43216
[2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/carrier-pigeon-beats-internet-
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/07/12/beware-the-splinternet-why-three-recent-events-should-have-businesses-worried/?sh=2499d562c00e
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-21/russia-s-invasion-is-accelerating-splinternet-french-envoy-says
[5] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/1093282038/russia-war-public-opinion-polling
[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/07/12/beware-the-splinternet-why-three-recent-events-should-have-businesses-worried/?sh=2499d562c00e
[7] https://www.techspot.com/community/topics/icann-rejects-request-by-ukraine-to-kick-russia-off-the-internet.274136/
[8] https://twitter.com/dpatrikarakos/status/1519303470192410624
[9] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/14/how-free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-would-transform-twitter
