Nation-States and the End of the Global Web?

That the world is undergoing the most profound changes we have since the end of the second World War is a bit of an understatement. Alliances that have stood for decades are rearranging. Trade wars loom and economic uncertainty is increasing.

But what about our digital world? What might happen with the internet? Could we see countries building firewalls like China’s Great Firewall? Restricting access to data, taxing data? Could this hamper cultural transmission and reshape societies in digital spaces?

There are some big questions. As a digital anthropologist, I look at sociocultural shifts, trends, risks and opportunities from the perspective of the implications for humanity and culture. The long arch of human history shows we tend to end up making progress and will likely evolve a new golden age. Getting there however, may be a wee bit rough. Let’s explore a bit.

We know the physical infrastructure of the internet, via undersea cables has been attacked with China and Russia the likely culprits in Europe and now possibly of Canada’s east coast near Newfoundland. Land-based attacks are likely. The purpose of these attacks is to cause economic pain.

As I’ve written before about undersea cables, some countries demand a tariff or some form of internet access and revenue share for cables that pass through their territorial waters. We may see this take on new dimensions.

Russia has built its own infrastructure like a national intranet so it can cut itself off from the global system. China has its Great Firewall. Iran has done similar. It is not too far-fetched to think that countries might put data toll booths where the internet accesses their borders.

This could mean a fee on data volumes and even throttling of data from other nations. Something some countries already do during times of political unrest. All those free WhatsApp calls? Not anymore.

This could even impact how we pay for digital services and how we send money. As we may see the collapse or significant changes of current systems like SWIFT for monetary movement. Perhaps some countries will become neutral hosts of crypto currencies with new exchange mechanisms?

We may develop new forms of data backed currencies, different from cryptocurrencies. Such as tokens whose value is based on particular types of data or information systems. Ones that rather than being backed purely financially are based on algorithmic trust, reputation and trust mechanisms.

The Bahama’s already has their Sand Dollar. China and other countries are exploring digital currencies, experimenting with them.

We may see varieties of exchange mechanisms. They would operate at the intersection of digital borders using attestation-based systems where third parties do verification and facilitation. Or cultural value translation where culturally specific digital assets can be exchanged for value.

For nations that invest heavily in infrastructure such as data centres, hardened cables and wireless systems, processing power and regulatory frameworks they would create a form of Computational Sovereignty.

Build reliability in digital transactions and privacy protections, among other forms of trust building and a country can become a Trust Sovereignty as a form of power.

Companies like Meta with Facebook, Google, even Apple, Signal, Proton and Telegram may face having to break up or completely change their business models and even putting up digital walls based on countries or trading regions.

Imagine that all iPhones and Android devices for America must be built there and if you have family you want to message in Canada or Japan? You’ll pay a toll to do so. It may become increasingly difficult for tech giants to move their profits around to different countries.

Then of course, there’s cybercrime, from romance scams to theft and cyberbullying. We may see something like jurisdictional arbitrage with specialists in moving between these digital borders. How about digital smuggling of high-value data assets?

Corporate espionage becomes an even bigger concern and a nightmare for the heads of security for transnational corporations. They’ll have to adapt to fragmented, convoluted and complex varieties of not just regulations, but different information systems and environments. One might imagine they’d have Digital Diplomat teams on staff.

Then too, we must consider mis/disinformation which would likely become worse in the short term. As countries become hostile and should conflicts go hotter and spread, we may see countries more easily create “others” to villify their perceived enemies. As citizens would struggle to get any insight from the other country, this could fuel tensions resulting in real-world violence. And potentially, wider wars; kinetic, psychological and economic.

Naturally we have to bring Artificial Intelligence into consideration. Weaponisation becomes an issue and nations will develop fractured policies. The EU, Nordic nations and Canada may all agree on ethics and regulations, but no other countries would feel they have to comply. Even with good AI tools such as for use in healthcare, it could become complex to bring that AI system to another country due to data and trade barriers and policies.

What we could see is our digital world become as fractured as a world without an American hegemony. Rules and policies based on new alliances and axes. Over time, different protocols for communications systems may evolve, similar to how some countries change the gauge on their railways so an invading country cannot easily move troops and supplies by rail if they invade.

For those, like me, who are fans of what a decentralised internet might look like, this may be that moment. For DAOs and blockchain-based systems to help with systems of trust. They may be necessary for citizen activists and groups to communicate and organise. And actually become critical infrastructure for national sovereignty. Hopefully, all these decentralise Web3 proponents can get better at marketing their solutions.

While it’s impossible to say exactly how this will all play out, it’s worth considering the implications on our digital worlds as they have become inextricably interwoven with our real-world lives. Governments and multi-national corporations are already struggling to find a path forward in the real-world. They ignore the implications and what may happen in the digital world with perilous risk.

There’s far more that I could dive into. I’ve simply touched the surface, perhaps for some thinking and to see just how our digital and physical worlds are so interdependent. I’ll explore more topics in detail in future articles.

Sadly, it is humanity that loses. All the majority of good people around the world. We lose what’s most valued by us as a species; socialising and communication.

Authors Note: Thanks for reading! I’ve worked on a number of global digital foreign and public policy projects as a consultant for fifteen years. My clients have included UNDP (Un Development Programme), UNOCHA, Medicins Sans Frontiers, UK Trade & Investment, Global Affairs Canada, Freedom House and others. I’ve worked on projects in Haiti, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Zimbabwe, Coté D’Ivoire, Kenya and South Africa as well as Europe and Latin America.