The Splinternet: Geopolitics, Governance, and the Fracturing of the Digital World Order

Part I: The Genesis of Digital Fragmentation

Section 1: From Global Village to Digital Balkanization

The initial promise of the internet was that of a borderless "global village," a decentralized network that would foster unprecedented exchange, communication, and mutual aid across geographical and political divides.1 This utopian vision, however, has increasingly given way to a more fractured and contested reality. The global network, once seen as a force for unifying humanity, is now splintering into distinct, often isolated, digital territories. This phenomenon, driven by a confluence of political, economic, and technological forces, marks the transition from a single, global internet to a "Splinternet".2 This report will argue that this fragmentation is not a mere technical anomaly but the logical extension of enduring geopolitical rivalries into the digital domain, reflecting a world that is itself increasingly multipolar and divided.

The fracturing of the internet is not a monolithic event that will happen overnight; rather, it is a process already in motion, manifesting differently across various regions.3 This process is fundamentally altering how users experience the internet, how businesses operate globally, and how states project power in the 21st century. Cyberspace has transformed into a primary battleground for power struggles between nations, where the control of information, data, and digital infrastructure has become a paramount strategic issue.1

Defining the Core Concepts

To understand the dynamics of digital isolation, it is essential to first define two key terms that characterize this trend: "Splinternet" and "Cyber-Balkanization."

Splinternet: This term describes the splintering and division of the internet due to a variety of factors, including divergent national interests, politics, commerce, technology, and religion.2 Originally coined in 2001 by Clyde Wayne Crews of the Cato Institute, the term was used in a positive sense to describe a future of "parallel Internets that would be run as distinct, private, and autonomous universes".2 However, its contemporary usage has taken on a more negative connotation. It now signifies the "growing distance between the ideals of the Internet and the realities of dysfunctional nationalisms," which contribute to the creation of incompatible standards and walled-off digital ecosystems.2 This fragmentation can be driven by governments erecting national firewalls, corporations building closed application ecosystems, or the development of incompatible technical standards that hinder global interoperability.4 The result is a patchwork of interconnected but increasingly incompatible internets, each with its own rules and limitations, threatening the very idea of a unified global network.3

Cyber-Balkanization: Borrowing its name from the historical fragmentation of the Balkan Peninsula, this term refers to the division of the internet into sub-groups with specific interests, often called "digital tribes".6 In this context, members of a sub-group almost exclusively use the internet to communicate and consume material that is of interest only to them, reinforcing their existing beliefs and isolating them from differing perspectives.2 This phenomenon creates echo chambers and filter bubbles, where confirmation bias is amplified.2 As legal scholar Cass Sunstein argued, this process can be detrimental to democracy by allowing different groups to segregate themselves into communities that avoid exposure to one another, making the discovery of common ground or the recognition of other points of view increasingly unlikely.2 While sometimes used interchangeably with "Splinternet," cyber-balkanization often emphasizes the social and ideological division of users, whereas "Splinternet" more broadly encompasses the technical and political partitioning of the network itself.

The Primary Drivers of Fragmentation

The shift toward a fragmented digital world is not driven by a single cause but by a complex interplay of motivations. These drivers are often mutually reinforcing, creating a powerful momentum toward digital isolation.

Political and Ideological Control: The most significant driver is the desire of states to assert national sovereignty over cyberspace and control the flow of information within their borders.4 Authoritarian regimes, in particular, see the open internet as a threat to their political stability and a tool for foreign interference.1 By erecting digital barriers, these governments aim to suppress dissent, manage public opinion, and prevent their citizens from accessing information deemed detrimental or destabilizing.1 This represents a fundamental ideological clash between the Western model, which has historically advocated for the free flow of information, and an Eastern model that prioritizes state control for the sake of social order and political cohesion.12 China's "Great Firewall" and Russia's "Sovereign Internet Law" are the most prominent examples of this state-driven fragmentation, designed to create national intranets that can be isolated from the global web.2

National Security Concerns: In an era of persistent cyber threats, states increasingly view an open and interconnected internet as a national security vulnerability. Fears of cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure, espionage conducted through digital means, and the weaponization of information are compelling governments to take defensive measures.4 The 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of NSA surveillance programs, for instance, prompted concerns that other governments would erect independent networks to isolate their traffic from foreign spying.2 The digital domain is now understood as a critical theater of operations where data is an invaluable resource and a potential weapon in the global competition for power.15 This has led to policies aimed at securing digital supply chains and controlling cross-border data flows to protect against threats from adversarial countries.16

Economic Protectionism: Digital fragmentation is also fueled by economic motivations. Governments are increasingly using regulations and technical barriers to protect and promote their domestic technology industries against foreign competitors.4 By blocking foreign platforms and services, a country can create a captive market for its own tech companies. China is the foremost example of this strategy; the Great Firewall has effectively blocked major US tech giants like Google and Facebook, allowing domestic alternatives such as Baidu and WeChat to achieve market dominance.4 This strategy combines political control with economic advantage, fostering national champions that can then be exported as part of a broader geopolitical strategy.9

Divergent Legal and Cultural Norms: The world's major powers hold fundamentally different values regarding privacy, freedom of speech, and the role of the state, leading to the development of incompatible legal and regulatory frameworks.6 The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), with its stringent, rights-based approach to data privacy, stands in stark contrast to the United States' First Amendment-centric, market-driven model.20 These differences create compliance challenges for global companies and fragment the legal landscape of the internet. For example, differing approaches to hate speech have led countries like Germany and France to demand that US platforms censor content that is legally protected in the United States.21

Technical Divergence: Finally, fragmentation can occur at the deepest level of the internet's architecture through the creation of incompatible technical standards and protocols.4 While the internet's global interoperability has historically been maintained by a shared set of standards like the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), there are now efforts to develop alternative technologies.23 Such proposals, often advanced by state actors within international standards bodies, could splinter the internet's shared architecture, creating technical islands that cannot seamlessly communicate with one another.23 This form of fragmentation threatens the very foundation of a single, global network.22

The initial, largely unified internet of the 1990s and 2000s was not a neutral, apolitical creation. It was a product of a specific geopolitical moment: a unipolar, post-Cold War era dominated by the United States.12 As such, its architecture and prevailing norms inherently reflected American values of free speech, open markets, and permissionless innovation.12 The governance model that emerged, described as "multistakeholder," distributed power among the private sector, civil society, and governments, but with a disproportionate influence held by US-based companies and institutions.12

However, as the global order has shifted toward a multipolar structure, with the rise of China as a technological power and the resurgence of Russia as a geopolitical actor, this US-centric model was inevitably challenged.1 It was a natural and predictable development that these rising powers would seek to reshape the digital domain to better align with their own national interests, political ideologies, and economic strategies.26 The dream of a perpetually unified internet was contingent on a geopolitical reality that no longer exists.1 The Splinternet, therefore, is not an aberration from the internet's natural course. It is the digital manifestation of the return of great-power competition, a reflection of a world where the consensus on universal norms has fractured and the principle of national sovereignty has proven remarkably resilient.27

Part II: The Great Divide: Competing Models of Internet Governance

The fragmentation of the internet is most clearly understood through an analysis of the competing governance models championed by the world's major geopolitical blocs. These blocs are not defined by rigid geographical boundaries but by distinct philosophical and political approaches to digital control and regulation.28 Broadly, these can be categorized into a Western paradigm, which is itself divided, and an Eastern paradigm, which is characterized by state-centric control. The United States, the European Union, China, and Russia have emerged as the primary standard-setters, each promoting a model that reflects its own political system and strategic interests.25

Section 2: The Western Paradigm - A Bifurcated Approach

While often grouped together, the "West" does not present a monolithic approach to internet governance. Instead, it is characterized by a significant philosophical and regulatory divergence between the United States and the European Union. The US model prioritizes corporate freedom and free expression, while the EU model champions individual rights and comprehensive regulation. Both, however, stand in fundamental opposition to the state-dominated paradigm of the East.

2.1 The American Model: The Primacy of the Firm and Free Speech

The American approach to the internet is fundamentally shaped by its economic and constitutional traditions. It is a firm-centric, market-driven model where the primary role of the government is to foster innovation through light-touch regulation.25 This philosophy views the internet primarily as a commercial space, where online resources are understood as private property to be developed and monetized by private actors.13

The core of this model is rooted in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides broad protections for freedom of speech.30 With limited exceptions for categories like obscenity, this constitutional provision bars the government from directly censoring internet content.30 This legal tradition has fostered an environment where technology platforms are given wide latitude to govern their own content, leading to the global dominance of US-based tech firms such as Google, Meta, and Apple.25

The regulatory framework in the United States is not a single, comprehensive law but a "patchwork quilt" of federal and state laws that address specific issues.32 Key pieces of federal legislation include:

• The Communications Decency Act (CDA), Section 230: This crucial provision, which remains in effect after other parts of the CDA were struck down, grants broad legal immunity to operators of internet services for content created by third parties. It has been instrumental in the growth of social media and user-generated content platforms.31

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act: The FTC serves as the primary federal regulator for online privacy, bringing enforcement actions against companies for deceptive practices or for failing to adhere to their own stated privacy policies.32

• Sector-Specific Laws: Other laws target specific areas, such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for data from minors, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) for electronic communications, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for unauthorized computer access.31

The geopolitical influence of the American model is immense, stemming largely from the global expansion of its technology giants. These companies have exported American values, particularly a broad interpretation of free speech, across the world.25 However, this model has also led to a significant concentration of power within a few large corporations, raising global concerns about their influence, monopolistic behavior, and the marginalization of communities not initially considered in their design.25

2.2 The European Model: The Primacy of the Individual and Human Rights

In contrast to the American model, the European Union has adopted a consumer-centric, rights-based approach to internet governance. This model is founded on the principle that data protection is a fundamental human right, enshrined in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.34 The European vision is for a "bourgeois" internet, where the privacy and dignity of the individual are paramount, and harmful behavior is minimized through robust regulation, even if this comes at the potential cost of slowing innovation.13

The cornerstone of this regulatory framework is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into effect in 2018. The GDPR is not a sector-specific law but a comprehensive and harmonized set of rules for the processing of personal data that applies uniformly across all EU member states.34 Its core tenets are built on seven key principles 36:

1. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency: Processing must be lawful and transparent to the individual.

2. Purpose limitation: Data can only be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes.

3. Data minimization: Only data that is absolutely necessary for the specified purpose should be collected.

4. Accuracy: Personal data must be kept accurate and up-to-date.

5. Storage limitation: Data should be stored only for as long as necessary.

6. Integrity and confidentiality: Processing must ensure the security of the data.

7. Accountability: The data controller is responsible for demonstrating compliance with all principles.

The GDPR also grants individuals a strong set of actionable rights, including the right of access to their data, the right to rectification, and the right to erasure (the "right to be forgotten").36

The EU's geopolitical influence is derived not from technological supremacy, where it lags behind the US and China, but from its regulatory power.25 The GDPR has a significant

extra-territorial scope, meaning it applies to any organization anywhere in the world that processes the personal data of EU residents or offers them goods and services.34 This phenomenon, often called the "Brussels Effect," has effectively turned the GDPR into a de facto global standard, forcing multinational corporations to adopt EU-level privacy protections across their operations. This allows the EU to project its values globally and act as a "regulatory superpower," shaping the digital domain in a way that aligns with its human-rights-focused ideology.25

Section 3: The Eastern Paradigm - The Primacy of the State

The Eastern paradigm, led by China and Russia, presents a starkly different vision for the internet. It is a state-centric model that champions the concept of "digital sovereignty," where the nation-state is the ultimate arbiter of the rules governing its domestic cyberspace.9 This approach prioritizes national security, social stability, and political control over the ideals of openness and free expression. It advocates for a multilateral, top-down administration of the internet, in direct opposition to the distributed, private-sector-led multistakeholder model historically favored by the West.12

3.1 The China Model: The Great Firewall and the Walled Garden Economy

China's model is the world's most advanced and comprehensive system of digital authoritarianism. Its core philosophy is that the internet must be managed and controlled to serve the interests of the state and the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP).1 The primary goal is to ensure social cohesion and national security by preventing the spread of information that could be deemed politically destabilizing, incite resistance, or undermine national unification.11 This is achieved through a pervasive system of censorship and automated surveillance.10

The regulatory and technical apparatus that enforces this control is known as the "Great Firewall" (GFW). The GFW is not a single technology but a combination of legislative actions and sophisticated technical tools.38 Key legislation, such as the 2017 Cybersecurity Law, centralizes internet policy under the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and imposes strict obligations on all network operators. These include requirements for real-name registration of users, the active monitoring and removal of banned content, and mandatory data localization.10

The GFW has effectively created a "national intranet" that is selectively separated from the global internet.18 By blocking access to thousands of foreign websites and platforms—including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and major international news outlets—the Chinese government has fostered a "walled garden" economy.4 This has created a captive market of over a billion internet users, allowing domestic technology giants like Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent (collectively known as the "BATs") to flourish without foreign competition.4 The result is a parallel digital universe with its own dominant platforms for search (Baidu), e-commerce (Taobao, Tmall, JD.com), social media (WeChat, Weibo), and every other facet of digital life.39

3.2 The Russia Model: The Sovereign Internet and Information Warfare

The Russian model of internet governance is driven primarily by national security concerns and a desire to control a restive domestic population. The Kremlin views the open, Western-dominated internet as both a source of political threats, such as the organization of street protests, and a vector for information warfare conducted by its adversaries.47 The ultimate goal is to achieve "digital sovereignty" by creating a domestic internet, or "RuNet," that can operate independently and be disconnected from the global network in the event of a crisis.48

The legal foundation for this model is the "Sovereign Internet Law," a series of amendments passed in 2019 that significantly expanded the state's control over internet infrastructure.49 This law mandates that all internet service providers (ISPs) install special equipment, often referred to as "black boxes," that use Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology to filter traffic.47 Crucially, control over this equipment is given to the state communications watchdog, Roskomnadzor, which gains the power to centrally manage traffic routing and block content directly, effectively creating a national "off switch".47 This builds on previous legislation, such as the Yarovaya Law, which mandated data retention, and data localization laws requiring that the personal data of Russian citizens be stored on servers within Russia.51

However, Russia's strategic goal faces significant practical challenges. Unlike China, Russia has not been able to create a comprehensive ecosystem of domestic services that can fully substitute for popular foreign platforms.47 This has led to a strategy focused more on blocking or throttling access to foreign services like Twitter and Facebook, rather than replacing them entirely.48 Furthermore, Russia's push for technological independence has paradoxically led to a growing and potentially strategic dependence on Chinese technology, from semiconductors to smartphones, to fill the void left by Western companies.19

The stark differences between these governance models are not merely matters of policy preference; they are direct and unavoidable reflections of their underlying political systems. The American model, with its emphasis on corporate liberty, minimal state intervention, and the primacy of the market, is a clear extension of its laissez-faire capitalist ideology. The European model, with its focus on comprehensive regulation, the protection of individual rights, and a bureaucratic, stakeholder-driven process, is a hallmark of its social-democratic political traditions. Similarly, China's top-down, centrally planned, and party-controlled internet is an inseparable feature of its single-party authoritarian state. Russia's hierarchical, security-obsessed approach mirrors its "power vertical" political structure and its perception of being under siege from external threats.

This realization is critical because it demonstrates that the conflict over the future of the internet is not a technical debate that can be resolved in standards bodies. It is a fundamental negotiation between deeply divergent political philosophies. The internet has become a new and critical arena for the age-old global contest between different forms of democracy and authoritarianism.10 Therefore, any attempt to find a global consensus on internet governance must grapple with these irreconcilable political realities.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Internet Governance Models

Feature

United States

European Union

China

Russia

Core Philosophy

Firm-centric, market-driven

Individual-centric, rights-driven

State-centric, party control

State-centric, security-driven

Primary Goal

Innovation, economic growth

Protection of individual rights

Social stability, political control

National sovereignty, information control

Stance on Free Speech

Broadly protected by First Amendment

Protected but balanced against other rights (e.g., hate speech)

Heavily censored and controlled

Increasingly restricted, instrumentalized

Data Privacy Approach

Sector-specific laws, consumer choice

Comprehensive fundamental right (GDPR)

State access prioritized, data as a state resource

Data localization for state access

Role of Private Sector

Primary driver and innovator

Regulated entities with obligations

Instruments of state policy, state-controlled

Obligated to comply with state mandates

Key Legislation

CDA Section 230, CFAA

GDPR, Digital Services Act

Cybersecurity Law, GFW regulations

Sovereign Internet Law, Yarovaya Law

Part III: The Architecture of Isolation

The ideological and political divisions outlined above are not merely abstract concepts; they are made tangible through a sophisticated and evolving set of tools. States construct and enforce their digital borders using a combination of advanced technological mechanisms to inspect and control data flows, and comprehensive legal frameworks that compel compliance and assert sovereignty. These technical and legislative instruments work in tandem, creating a formidable architecture of digital isolation.

Section 4: The Technical Toolkit of Control

At the most fundamental level, digital isolation is achieved by interfering with the flow of data packets across networks. Governments employ a range of techniques, from blunt force blocking to surgical content filtering, to enforce their control.

• Deep Packet Inspection (DPI): This is the most powerful and intrusive method of internet filtering. Unlike simpler methods that only look at the source or destination of data (the "envelope"), DPI allows authorities to examine the actual content of the data packets themselves (the "letter") in real-time.54 By scanning for specific keywords, phrases, or patterns, DPI enables the precise filtering of content, such as blocking a specific news article or social media post, without having to block the entire website.39 Russia's Sovereign Internet Law is built around the mandatory installation of DPI-capable "black boxes" on all ISP networks, giving the state's regulator, Roskomnadzor, direct, centralized control over the nation's internet traffic.47 China's Great Firewall also employs highly sophisticated DPI techniques as a core component of its censorship apparatus.39

• DNS Tampering/Poofing: The Domain Name System (DNS) acts as the internet's phonebook, translating human-readable domain names (e.g., www.example.com) into machine-readable IP addresses. DNS tampering, also known as DNS poisoning, involves manipulating this system. When a user tries to access a banned website, state-controlled DNS servers can be instructed to return an incorrect IP address or no address at all, making the site unreachable.54 Alternatively, the request can be redirected to a government-approved page. This is a highly effective and widely used technique within China's GFW to render foreign websites invisible to domestic users.39

• IP Blocking: This is one of the most straightforward methods of censorship. It involves creating a blacklist of IP addresses associated with undesirable websites and instructing ISPs to block all traffic to and from those addresses.54 While effective, this method is often imprecise. If a targeted website is hosted on a shared server, IP blocking will also block all other, potentially legitimate, websites that share the same IP address, a phenomenon known as "collateral filtering".54 Both China and Russia utilize IP blocking as part of their broader censorship strategies.18

• URL and Keyword Filtering: A less intrusive method than DPI, URL filtering involves scanning the requested URL string for banned keywords.54 If a forbidden term is detected in the address of a webpage, the connection is blocked. This allows for more granular control than IP blocking. For example, before Wikipedia was completely blocked in China, authorities used URL filtering to block access to specific articles, such as the one on "internet censorship in China," while allowing access to the rest of the site.55

• Connection Resetting (TCP Reset Attack): After a filtering system like DPI or a URL filter identifies a request for forbidden content, it can actively terminate the connection. This is often done by injecting a forged TCP "reset" packet into the data stream, which tells both the user's computer and the destination server to immediately close the connection.55 To the user, this often appears as a generic "connection timed out" or "network error" message, masking the fact that censorship has occurred.39

Section 5: The Legislative Walls - Data Localization and Sovereignty

Alongside these technical tools, states have erected powerful legislative walls to assert control over the digital domain. The most significant of these are data localization laws, which mandate where and how data can be stored and processed.

• Data Localization Mandates: These are laws that require companies, both domestic and foreign, to store the personal data of a country's citizens on servers that are physically located within that country's borders. The stated rationale often involves protecting citizen privacy or enhancing national security, but the primary effect is to bring global data flows under the sovereign control of the state.

• Russia: In 2015, Russia enacted its "Data Localization Rule," a key feature of its personal data law. This rule requires that all data operators conduct the initial collection, recording, and storage of Russian citizens' personal data in databases located within the Russian Federation.50 Failure to comply can result in the blocking of the offending service and substantial fines. This law has been used to pressure and block services like LinkedIn.48

• China: China's 2017 Cybersecurity Law contains even more stringent data localization requirements. It mandates that operators of "critical information infrastructure" must store all personal information and "important data" gathered within mainland China on local servers.40 Any cross-border transfer of this data is subject to a rigorous government security assessment. The definitions of "critical information infrastructure" and "important data" are deliberately broad and ambiguous, granting the government extensive authority to intervene in nearly any industry it deems necessary.40

• Implications for Foreign Companies: Data localization laws create immense operational, legal, and financial challenges for multinational corporations. To operate in these markets, companies must make a difficult choice: either invest heavily in building or leasing local data centers, which is costly and exposes their data to potential government access, or cease operations in that country entirely.40 These laws serve a dual strategic purpose for the states that enact them. First, they dramatically enhance the state's surveillance capabilities by ensuring that citizen data is within its legal and physical reach. Second, they act as a form of economic protectionism, creating a protected market for domestic cloud and data center providers, thereby nurturing national champions.40

The technical and legal instruments of control are not separate strategies but are deeply intertwined and mutually reinforcing. They form a symbiotic system where law provides the justification for technical intrusion, and technology provides the means to enforce the law. For example, a data localization law in Russia legally compels a foreign technology company to store its Russian user data on a server in Moscow.52 This act of legal compliance simultaneously places that data within the physical infrastructure of the country, making it subject to inspection by the state's DPI "black boxes" mandated by the Sovereign Internet Law.47

This creates a powerful feedback loop. The existence of advanced technical capabilities for surveillance and filtering encourages governments to pass more ambitious and far-reaching laws asserting digital sovereignty. In turn, these legal frameworks expand the scope of data and traffic that is subject to technical control. A foreign company's attempt to comply with the legal regime thus becomes an act of submission to the technical control regime. In this architecture of isolation, legal compliance and technical vulnerability become one and the same.

Part IV: Consequences of a Fractured Web

The progressive fragmentation of the internet has profound and cascading consequences that extend far beyond the realm of technology policy. The erection of digital borders is reshaping the global economy, creating new and complex cybersecurity challenges, and fundamentally altering the nature of the digital experience for billions of users. The erosion of a single, open, global network threatens the very foundations of the digital age.3

Section 6: The Impact on Global Commerce and Innovation

For decades, the global economy has been built on the premise of a seamless and interconnected internet that facilitates the free flow of data. The Splinternet directly undermines this foundation, imposing significant costs and creating new barriers to international trade and business.

• Increased Costs and Operational Complexity: A fragmented internet forces multinational businesses to navigate a complex and often contradictory patchwork of national regulations.57 Compliance with divergent rules, such as the EU's GDPR, China's Cybersecurity Law, and Russia's data localization mandates, requires significant legal and technical investment.6 Companies may be forced to re-engineer their products, maintain separate IT infrastructures for different regions, and invest in local data centers, all of which drive up operational costs and complexity.6 For businesses with operations in China, for example, the performance degradation caused by the Great Firewall can severely impact user experience and necessitate costly local hosting solutions, which require obtaining a special license and adhering to Chinese regulations.55

• Disruption to Global Operations and Supply Chains: The modern global economy relies on the instantaneous, cross-border flow of data for everything from supply chain management and financial transactions to international research collaboration and the management of a remote workforce.57 Internet fragmentation disrupts these flows, creating friction and inefficiency. The International Monetary Fund has warned that technological decoupling, a key aspect of fragmentation, could reduce global GDP by as much as 7%.5 By turning the internet from a unified global infrastructure into a series of "partly-connected islands," fragmentation threatens the modularity and redundancy that allow even small companies to operate on a global scale.57

• Stifled Competition and Innovation: Digital borders create protected markets or "walled gardens" that shield domestic companies from international competition.5 While this may nurture national champions in the short term, it can stifle long-term innovation by limiting exposure to global competition, diverse ideas, and universal standards. This approach has been compared to the protectionist trade policies of the 1930s, which had disastrous consequences for the global economy.57 Furthermore, fragmentation hinders access to knowledge and limits the ability of innovators to scale their solutions globally, undermining the very engine of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.5

Section 7: The Cybersecurity Dilemma

While often justified on the grounds of enhancing national security, the Splinternet paradoxically creates a more dangerous and complex cybersecurity environment. It undermines the principles of collective defense and global cooperation that are essential for combating sophisticated cyber threats.

• Degraded Threat Intelligence and Collaboration: Effective cybersecurity relies on the rapid, global sharing of threat intelligence, including indicators of compromise, malware samples, and incident reports.6 Fragmentation severely hampers this process. National firewalls can block or filter threat feeds from certain regions, and data localization laws can prevent security teams from accessing compromised infrastructure hosted in isolated networks.6 This creates dangerous "blind spots" where threat actors can operate with reduced scrutiny, plan attacks, and build their capabilities undetected.6 Legal and technical barriers also complicate cross-border collaboration between security organizations, making it harder to correlate incidents and mount a coordinated global response.6

• Emergence of Localized Threats: As national internets become more isolated, they develop unique technological ecosystems. This allows threat actors to tailor their tactics, techniques, and procedures to exploit local vulnerabilities or evade detection by global security tools.6 This can lead to the rise of region-specific malware, phishing campaigns that leverage local languages and cultural references, and a greater reliance on domestic infrastructure for command-and-control, which makes attribution and takedown efforts significantly more difficult for international law enforcement.6

• Increased Technical Complexity and Costs for Defenders: For cybersecurity professionals, a fragmented internet means a fragmented attack surface. Security teams must adapt their tools and processes to comply with a bewildering array of diverse regulations and technical standards across different jurisdictions.6 This may require maintaining separate security infrastructures for different regions and investing in local threat intelligence sources, all of which increases operational complexity and drives up costs.6

• Weakening of Collective Defense: A fragmented network architecture provides adversaries with a technical means to undermine the norms, predictability, and security of cyberspace.23 This creates a strategic asymmetry that weakens democracies. While authoritarian regimes can increasingly seal off their networks from outside influence, the networks of democratic nations remain inherently porous and open. This porosity represents a low-cost opportunity for authoritarian states to conduct interference and influence operations, while their own populations are shielded from reciprocal engagement, potentially weakening democratic institutions over the long term.1

Section 8: The Divergence of Digital Experience

For the end-user, the most tangible consequence of the Splinternet is the profound divergence in the digital experience, which is shaped by the dominant platforms, design philosophies, and content controls of their specific region. This is most evident in the contrast between the Western and Chinese digital ecosystems.

• Platform Ecosystems:

• The West: The Western digital landscape is characterized by a "one thing at a time" philosophy, featuring a constellation of distinct, specialized applications. Users typically switch between separate apps for different functions: Facebook or Instagram for social networking, Amazon for e-commerce, WhatsApp for messaging, and Google for search.61

• China: The Chinese ecosystem is dominated by "super-apps," most notably WeChat. These are all-in-one platforms that integrate a vast array of functions into a single interface. Within WeChat, a user can message friends, post on a social feed, order a taxi, pay utility bills, book a doctor's appointment, access government services, and shop online, often without ever leaving the app.45 This creates a highly convenient and seamless user experience but also a highly centralized and monitored one, where a single company (and by extension, the state) has visibility into nearly every aspect of a user's digital life.

• UI/UX Design Philosophy:

• The West: Western User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX) design generally prioritizes minimalism, simplicity, and the liberal use of white space. The goal is to create a clean, uncluttered interface that guides the user through a task step-by-step and avoids cognitive overload. Navigation is often built around a powerful search function.61

• China: In contrast, Chinese UI/UX design values information density and content richness. Interfaces that may appear "crowded" or "chaotic" to a Western eye are often perceived locally as an efficient use of screen real estate that provides the user with a high degree of contextual information needed to make decisions.62 This design philosophy is partly enabled by the nature of the Chinese writing system, where characters can convey complex meanings in a very small space. As a result, navigation tends to be more browse-oriented, with a heavy use of links and visible menus rather than relying on search input.62

• Impact of Censorship on the Content Landscape:

• The West: Content moderation is largely delegated to the private platforms themselves. Companies like Meta and Google develop and enforce their own "community guidelines," leading to ongoing and often contentious public debates about bias, censorship, and the proper limits of free speech.21

• China: Content control is not a matter of corporate policy but of state mandate. The government enforces a pervasive and strict censorship regime. All platforms operating in China are legally required to monitor and remove content that deviates from the CCP's official line, creating a highly sanitized and politically controlled information environment for users.38

The stark divergence in digital design between the West and China is more than a simple matter of aesthetic preference. It is both a reflection and a reinforcement of the underlying cultural values and political structures of each region. The Western design philosophy, with its focus on discrete, individual tasks and an uncluttered visual space, mirrors the individualistic cultural norms prevalent in North America and Western Europe.61 The user is given a clear path to achieve a single goal without distraction.

Conversely, the Chinese "super-app" model, which seamlessly integrates all facets of a user's life into a single, centralized platform, aligns with a more collectivist cultural mindset.61 More critically, however, this integrated design perfectly serves the strategic objectives of the authoritarian state. The architecture of the Great Firewall created the conditions for these domestic super-apps to thrive in a protected market. In turn, the all-encompassing design of these apps normalizes a high degree of data integration and user tracking, which facilitates the state's desire for comprehensive data collection and social control. In this way, the user experience itself becomes a subtle but powerful instrument of the governance model. The convenience of the super-app comes at the cost of total visibility, creating a feedback loop where technology reinforces state power, and state power shapes the evolution of technology.

Part V: The Future of a Divided Internet

The trend toward digital fragmentation shows no signs of abating. As geopolitical tensions intensify and technology continues to evolve, the divisions in the digital world are likely to deepen, leading to a new era of strategic competition. This concluding section will analyze the trajectory of this trend, critically assess the "Digital Cold War" metaphor, and consider the long-term implications for global order and human connection.

Section 9: The Dawn of the Digital Cold War

The escalating rivalry over the future of the internet has led many analysts to frame the current situation as a "Digital Cold War," primarily between the United States and China. This metaphor is both useful and imperfect, capturing certain aspects of the conflict while obscuring others.

• The "Digital Cold War" Metaphor:

• Arguments for its validity: The metaphor effectively captures the emergence of a bipolar rivalry between two digital superpowers—the US and China—each championing a competing ideological vision for the information society.66 It highlights the division of the world into competing technological blocs or spheres of influence, the weaponization of data and artificial intelligence, and the transformation of international forums, such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), into arenas for geopolitical struggle between democratic and authoritarian states.23 The conflict is no longer just about economic competition but about the fundamental rules and values that will govern the digital future.69

• Limitations and Nuances: The Cold War analogy is not a perfect fit. Unlike the rigid bipolarity of the original Cold War, the current digital blocs are not monolithic. Significant regulatory and philosophical divides persist within the Western camp, particularly between the US and the EU.21 Furthermore, the level of economic and technological interdependence between the US and China is far greater than that which existed between the US and the Soviet Union, making a complete decoupling difficult and costly for both sides.23 Many nations, especially in the "Global South," are actively resisting pressure to choose a side. Instead, they are pursuing a pragmatic approach, combining technologies, infrastructure, and ideas from both the West and the East to build their digital societies.29

• The New Arenas of Competition:
  The rivalry is moving beyond content filtering and platform access to a more fundamental struggle over the core architecture and future technologies of the internet.

• Technical Standards: The battle is increasingly being fought within international standards-setting bodies. China, through companies like Huawei, has proposed new internet protocols (sometimes referred to as "New IP") within the ITU.23 These proposals envision a more centralized, network-centric architecture that would embed greater state control at the foundational layer of the internet. This represents a direct challenge to the existing TCP/IP-based, multistakeholder-governed model that has underpinned the internet since its inception.23

• AI and Data as Weapons: States now unequivocally view large datasets and AI capabilities as critical national resources and instruments of state power.68 This is evident in the United States' use of trade restrictions to limit China's access to advanced semiconductor technology, which is essential for AI development.9 Concurrently, generative AI is being leveraged to create highly sophisticated and scalable disinformation campaigns, turning influence operations into a key component of national security strategy.68 The rivalry is over algorithms, sensors, and data itself.68

• The Future of Digital Isolation: The trajectory is toward greater fragmentation. As technology becomes more immersive, the potential for isolation deepens. The rise of AI companions and the development of metaverses could lead to more profound forms of social and psychological isolation.70 The nature of these future digital spaces—whether they are open and interoperable or closed and controlled—will be determined by the rules of the particular "splinternet" in which they are developed. This could create digital realities that are not only separate but also fundamentally different in their social and psychological effects.72

• Navigating the Fragmented Future:
  The erosion of a single, global internet poses a systemic risk to international stability. It threatens to undermine democratic values by creating information silos, disrupt international trade by raising new barriers, and weaken global security by fracturing collective defense mechanisms.1 Preserving a degree of global interoperability and cooperation will require a concerted effort to reinforce multistakeholder governance models, build trust through open communication, and establish clear norms for responsible state behavior in cyberspace.5 However, the current geopolitical momentum, driven by mutual suspicion and great-power competition, is pushing decisively in the opposite direction.

A central paradox lies at the heart of the state-centric push for "digital sovereignty." The very effort to achieve digital independence may, in fact, lead to a new and more concentrated form of strategic dependence. Russia's ambitious project to build an autonomous "RuNet" and decouple its digital infrastructure from the West provides a stark case study. In its quest to replace Western technology, Russia has not achieved true self-sufficiency. Instead, it has become critically dependent on a single foreign power: China.

This dependence is comprehensive, spanning the entire technology stack. Russia now relies on China and Hong Kong for nearly 90% of its imported microelectronics and semiconductors, the fundamental building blocks of all digital technology.53 In the consumer market, Chinese smartphone brands like Xiaomi have displaced Apple and Samsung to dominate the Russian market.53 This technological reliance extends to software and platforms, with Chinese IT companies rapidly expanding their footprint in Russia to fill the void left by sanctioned Western firms.19

This outcome is the opposite of the Kremlin's stated goal. The policy of "import substitution" was intended to ensure Russia was not overly dependent on any single foreign country, not to simply swap a dependency on the West for one on the East.53 This reveals a fundamental truth of the digital age: in a deeply interconnected global system, true digital autarky is an illusion. The choice for nations is not between independence and dependence, but rather a choice of

which powers and systems they wish to be dependent on. By attempting to isolate itself from the global, multistakeholder internet, Russia has tethered its digital future to the strategic interests and technological capabilities of Beijing. This dynamic, where the pursuit of sovereignty leads to strategic vulnerability, will likely define the alliances, fault lines, and power balances of the emerging Digital Cold War.

Works cited

1. Splinternet: how geopolitics is fracturing cyberspace - Polytechnique Insights, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/geopolitics/splinternet-when-geopolitics-fractures-cyberspace/

2. Splinternet - Wikipedia, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinternet

3. About the Internet Fragmentation Explainer - Internet Society, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/about-the-explainer/

4. Splinternet definition – Glossary - NordVPN, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://nordvpn.com/cybersecurity/glossary/splinternet/

5. Why Internet Fragmentation Matters for Everyone - LARUS, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://larus.net/blog/why-internet-fragmentation-matters-for-everyone/

6. Internet Balkanization And Its Impact on Global Threat Intelligence - Liferaft, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://liferaftlabs.com/blog/internet-balkanization-and-global-threat-intelligence

7. en.wikipedia.org, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinternet#:~:text=Called%20Cyberbalkanization%20(or%20sometimes%20cyber,only%20of%20interest%20to%20the

8. Digital extremism: How algorithms feed the politics polarisation | Ipsos, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.ipsos.com/en/flair-collection/digital-extremism-how-algorithms-feed-politics-polarisation

9. How the Internet is Splitting into Eastern and Western Blocs, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://unlimitedexposure.com/basic-mobile-apps-and-web-design/1440-cyber-borders-the-emerging-east-west-internet-divide.html

10. The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism | Freedom House, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism

11. www.britannica.com, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Firewall#:~:text=The%20Great%20Firewall%20was%20deployed,destabilizing%20to%20the%20country's%20interests.

12. Tech & Policy Initiative - The Rising Geopolitics of Internet Governance: Cyber Sovereignty v. Distributed Governance - Columbia SIPA, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/The%20Rising%20Geopolitics_2016.pdf

13. Four Internets: The Geopolitics of Digital Governance, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/documents/Paper%20no.206web.pdf

14. The Digitization of National Security: Technology, Transparency & Trust - Public Safety Canada, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/nstag-gctsn-dgtztn-ntnl-scrt-2024/index-en.aspx

15. National Security In A Digital World - Institute for National Strategic Studies, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2870027/national-security-in-a-digital-world/

16. Executive Order on Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation's Cybersecurity, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2025/01/16/executive-order-on-strengthening-and-promoting-innovation-in-the-nations-cybersecurity/

17. Cybercrime: A Multifaceted National Security Threat | Google Cloud Blog, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/cybercrime-multifaceted-national-security-threat

18. The Chinese Firewall - Internet Society, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/the-chinese-firewall/

19. How Chinese Tech Companies Are Conquering Russia | Carnegie ..., accessed on October 3, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2020/12/how-chinese-tech-companies-are-conquering-russia?lang=en

20. Online Content Regulation: An International Comparison - Student Briefs, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://studentbriefs.law.gwu.edu/ilpb/2021/12/08/online-content-regulation-an-international-comparison/

21. Findings | Confronting Reality in Cyberspace: Foreign Policy for a ..., accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/task-force-report/confronting-reality-in-cyberspace/findings

22. Types of internet fragmentation - LARUS, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://larus.net/blog/types-of-internet-fragmentation/

23. Standardising the splinternet: how China's technical standards could fragment the internet, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2020.1805482

24. Internet Fragmentation and Cybersecurity | UNIDIR, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://unidir.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/UNIDIR_internet_fragmentation_cybersecurity_primer.pdf

25. The Global Digital Governance Map - New America, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.newamerica.org/planetary-politics/reports/governing-the-digital-future/the-global-digital-governance-map/

26. Full article: Uncertainty, agency, and the future context of internet governance: a foresightful conversation - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19331681.2025.2563531?src=

27. The Power Atlas | ECFR - European Council on Foreign Relations, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://ecfr.eu/special/power-atlas/

28. Western world - Wikipedia, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

29. Three Worlds: the West, East and South and the competition to shape global order | International Affairs | Oxford Academic, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/100/1/121/7506681

30. en.wikipedia.org, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States#:~:text=already%20under%20pressure%22.-,Federal%20laws,not%20given%20First%20Amendment%20protection.

31. Internet censorship in the United States - Wikipedia, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States

32. Internet Laws & Internet Regulation - Kaspersky, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://usa.kaspersky.com/resource-center/preemptive-safety/internet-laws

33. Internet Privacy Laws Revealed - How Your Personal Information is ..., accessed on October 3, 2025, https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/how-your-personal-information-is-protected-online

34. EU General Data Protection Regulation - Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://ovic.vic.gov.au/privacy/resources-for-organisations/eu-general-data-protection-regulation/

35. General Data Protection Regulation - Wikipedia, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation

36. What is GDPR, the EU's new data protection law? - GDPR.eu, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/

37. European Union - Data Privacy and Protection - International Trade Administration, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.trade.gov/european-union-data-privacy-and-protection

38. Great Firewall - Wikipedia, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

39. Great Firewall | History, China, Hong Kong, & Facts | Britannica, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Firewall

40. Chinese Data Localization Law: Comprehensive but Ambiguous, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://jsis.washington.edu/news/chinese-data-localization-law-comprehensive-ambiguous/

41. What is the Great Firewall of China and how does it work? - Proton VPN, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://protonvpn.com/blog/great-firewall-china

42. What we can learn from China's crackdown on its own Big Tech - Hertie School, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.hertie-school.org/en/news/detail/content/what-we-can-learn-from-chinas-crackdown-on-its-own-big-tech

43. Exploring the Top 5 Chinese E-commerce Platforms in 2025, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://wpic.co/blog/top-5-chinese-ecommerce-platforms/

44. A Short Guide to China's Top Digital Platforms - Hunterlodge, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.hunterlodge.co.uk/a-short-guide-to-chinas-top-digital-platforms/

45. China's Digital Dominance: Social Media & E-Commerce Power Growth in 2024 | Comms8, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.comms8.com/blog/2024/chinas-digital-dominance-social-media-amp-e-commerce-power-growth-in-2024

46. Competition Regulation of Digital Platforms in China - ProMarket, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.promarket.org/2025/04/01/competition-regulation-of-digital-platforms-in-china/

47. Russia's Sovereign Internet Law Will Kill Innovation - Carnegie ..., accessed on October 3, 2025, https://carnegie.ru/commentary/78946

48. The Future of Russia's Sovereign Internet - PISM, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://pism.pl/publications/The_Future_of_Russias_Sovereign_Internet

49. Sovereign Internet Law - Wikipedia, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Internet_Law

50. Deciphering Russia's “Sovereign Internet Law” | DGAP, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/deciphering-russias-sovereign-internet-law

51. Russia: Growing Internet Isolation, Control, Censorship | Human Rights Watch, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/18/russia-growing-internet-isolation-control-censorship

52. Data protection laws in Russia - Data Protection Laws of the World, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=about&c=RU

53. Russia's Becoming More Digitally Isolated—and Dependent on China, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/blog/russias-becoming-more-digitally-isolated-and-dependent-china

54. Internet Censorship (Part 2): The Technology of Information Control ..., accessed on October 3, 2025, https://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/blog/internet-censorship-part-2-technology-information-control

55. How the Great Firewall of China Affects Performance of Websites Outside of China, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.dotcom-monitor.com/blog/how-the-great-firewall-of-china-affects-performance-of-websites-outside-of-china/

56. Internet censorship: Diagnosing a global threat - Nym Technologies, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://nym.com/blog/internet-censorship-global-threat

57. A Fragmented Internet Is A Threat To The Future Of Global Business, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2023/07/10/a-fragmented-internet-is-a-threat-to-the-future-of-global-business/

58. Navigating Cybersecurity Amidst a Fragmented Internet - Rilian Technologies, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.riliantech.com/blogs/cybersecurity-in-the-age-of-the-fragmenting-internet

59. How Will the Splinternet Impact Cybersecurity - Cyber Defense ..., accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.cyberdefensemagazine.com/how-will-the-splinternet-impact-cybersecurity/

60. Inheriting the Splinternet and Decoding its Cybersecurity Sector, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://journals.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/blogs/inheritingthesplinternet/

61. Innovating or Imitating? The Interplay of Western and Asian Digital Product Design, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2023/12/innovating-or-imitating-the-interplay-of-western-and-asian-digital-product-design.php

62. Bridging the Cultural UX Divide: Why China's Approach Matters - Digital Creative Asia, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://digitalcreative.cn/blog/how-china-ux-is-different

63. Five main differences between Western and Chinese social media ..., accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.horsten.be/western-and-chinese-social-media/

64. Cross-Cultural UX: The Differences in Eastern and Western Design ..., accessed on October 3, 2025, https://mobile.fhstp.ac.at/allgemein/cross-cultural-ux-the-differences-in-eastern-and-western-design-perspectives/

65. Battle of the UI/UXs — Chinese vs Western style | by Cro | Tech X SoutheastAsia - Medium, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://medium.com/tech-x-southeastasia/battle-of-the-ui-uxs-chinese-vs-western-style-5017e07ca6dd

66. Are we in a Digital Cold War? - Internet Governance Project, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/07/19/are-we-in-a-digital-cold-war/

67. Beyond the Digital Cold War: Western, Eastern and Southern Tales of Digital Failure and Success - Centre for International Governance Innovation, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.cigionline.org/articles/beyond-the-digital-cold-war-western-eastern-and-southern-tales-of-digital-failure-and-success/

68. The Cyber Cold War: How Nations Are Turning AI and Data into Weapons, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/09/22/the-cyber-cold-war-how-nations-are-turning-ai-and-data-into-weapons/

69. Are we in a Digital Cold War? - Internet Governance Project, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/DigitalColdWar31.pdf

70. AI Companions At Work: Can Digital “Friends” Solve The Costly Workplace Loneliness Epidemic? - Allwork.Space, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://allwork.space/2025/10/ai-companions-at-work-can-digital-friends-solve-the-costly-workplace-loneliness-epidemic/

71. Psychological “effects” of digital technology: a meta-analysis - Frontiers, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1560516/full

72. The Future of Social Connection, Loneliness, and Technology - Aspen Institute, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/future-of-loneliness-social-connection-technology/

73. The Impact of Digital Mental Health Services on Loneliness and Mental Health: Results from a Prospective, Observational Study, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11106110/

74. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Digital Technology Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8214187/

75. Internet Governance in the Digital Cold War (Chapter 26) - The Cambridge Handbook of Commons Research Innovations, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-commons-research-innovations/internet-governance-in-the-digital-cold-war/201AA1B6C3CFC59EF100AB713C754CB9

76. Sanctions Create Opportunities for Chinese Tech Companies in Russia, accessed on October 3, 2025, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/01/24/sanctions-create-opportunities-for-chinese-tech-companies-in-russia-a87731