Splinternet and the Rise of Echo Chambers in Public Spaces

Introduction

The public sphere is a domain of social life where opinions can be formed and expressed. It is characterised as being open to all, where no force of intimidation occurs (Habermas 1991). The force of argument is the principal driver of deliberation in these spheres. This Habermasian idea of a public sphere has now become an ever-present part of our modern political democracies. However, in today's age of social media and the new-age internet, these public spheres have shifted from coffeehouses to Instagram posts, Reddit threads, and YouTube videos. The process of deliberation is now child's play. One can use these varieties of forums to express their ideas, allowing people to engage with a wide range of discourse across the Internet on various topics. However, the Internet as a space for discourse is not entirely free. With increasing governance over these virtual spheres, factoring in corporate control and government restraints, the space in itself is becoming fragmented. The force of arguments is not the only force that exists, but the force of algorithms is what drives deliberation. This article examines the split in the Internet (or splinternet) and its effects on global democratic discourse, and suggests ways to rectify it.

What is Splinternet?

The term Splinternet refers to a section of the internet that can become inaccessible to people due to reasons ranging from technological, commercial, or political. The term was first used in 2001 by Clyde Wayne Crews to define an ideal system that will lead to the creation of 'several Internets', which are parallel, privately managed, and autonomous. This defence was grounded in the context of early libertarian ideas of the Internet, rooted in the defence of the consumer's choice, highlighting that to solve the problem of conflicting legislation and governance by multiple countries, one needs to create many Internets. However, this initially positive notion acquired a negative connotation when it was used to describe governmental control over the internet. One form in which it manifested itself is in the form of shutdowns, which led to 'splits' in the net when sections of people couldn’t access the internet, affecting equity in internet access, depriving them of these digital spaces for deliberation, and overall affecting the notion of 'public spaces'. India also acquired the reputation of shutdowns, with the number reaching 109 in 2020. Even in 2024, India dropped to 84 shutdowns. Here again, the force of argument is overpowered by the force of governance. The split is emphasised when we observe over-dependence on a few service providers, such as Amazon and its Amazon Web Services (a cloud computing platform, which provides essential services to businesses and governments to run their platforms), which recently encountered a DNS (Domain Name System) error (Chatterjee, 2025), affecting multiple businesses and countries worldwide. Hence, a technical fragmentation is there which affects how people access the internet, which arises from centralised control of essential services in a few hands. Thus, the control of technological aspects of the Internet accentuates the splits, making it far from the notion of a public space free from control.

Balkanisation of Deliberative Forums

The term cyberbalkanization was first coined by Van Alstyne and Brynjolfsson in 1996 to describe the division of virtual space into special interest groups. Brainard puts this term in a political context in which "people seek out only like-minded others and thereby close themselves off from ideological opposition, alternative understandings, and uncomfortable discussions" (Brainard, 2009). Sunstein (2008a) also describes a similar online phenomenon as a group of bloggers living "in echo chambers of their own design" or "in information cocoons."

This concept is used in the context of social media, the "forums of deliberation" that are in popular usage within the public, where the Internet is 'split' or 'balkanised' along lines which could be political, thus creating a self-enclosed echo chamber, where similar views dominate and a lack of alternative viewpoints is observed. This is a form of a 'walled garden' where information is given and received in a tightly controlled environment, governed by algorithms that work on user behaviour, and recommend content based on their engagement. Habermas, in his recent works, argues that a new mode of 'semi-public, fragmented and self-enclosed communication' is emerging among new social media users that is distorting their conception of the public sphere (Habermas 2023). He also relates the lack of regulation in social media to the emergence of echo chambers. When individuals are exposed to selective content on platforms such as Instagram, this leads to the formation of a homogenous cluster of people with similar opinions. Users of social media may be strongly affected by social norms or by how much it aligns with their beliefs, so much so that the integrity of the information they choose to consume or share is largely overlooked. (Vicario 2016). This negatively affects the quality of the discourse that happens on social media and harms the basic tenet of deliberation, the force of argument.

Way Ahead

The world needs a global consensus on international standards for maintaining equity in access to the internet. There is a need for an international agreement to establish decentralised control over core internet infrastructure, such as cloud servers. Building indigenous capabilities in internet infrastructure is necessary for India. Shutdowns should be regulated under strict laws deriving from global governance standards and should not be arbitrary. India, through its collaboration with international groupings like ASEAN, the EU, and the UN, must strive to build a cyberspace, keeping in mind equitable access, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and human rights. The right to access the forums of deliberation is necessary to retain the values of a deliberative democracy, the key to which is 'public spaces' free from intimidation. It must also be ensured that these forums are not plagued by echo chambers. What we need is an 'architecture of serendipity' (Sunstein 2008b), where users regularly encounter information that is different from the kind they usually engage with, enabling opportunities for discourse that would have a variety of opinions. Equity of internet access is as important as maintaining the quality and integrity of these deliberative forums. The Habermasian idea must be kept alive to maintain our freedom to discourse.

---

By Anantjeet Verma

Anantjeet Verma is a student of Political Science and History from Hindu College, University of Delhi. His academic interests include political theory, international relations, comparative politics, history, and culture. He is an avid enjoyer of movies, and loves reading novels.

---

References

Access Now. "Shattered Dreams and Lost Opportunities: A Year in the Fight to #KeepItOn."

Report, Access Now, 2021. https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/KeepItOn-report-on-the-2020-data_Mar-2021_3.pdf.

Access Now.

"Emboldened offenders, endangered communities: internet shutdowns in 2024" Report, Access Now, 2025. https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/KeepItOn-2024-Internet-Shutdowns-Annual-Report.pdf

Brainard, L.A. (2009). Cyber-communities. In H.K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society. (pp. 587–600) New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media

Chatterjee, Poulomi. "AWS outage: How Amazon cloud outage affected the global internet" The Hindu, October 24, 2025 https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/aws-outage-how-amazon-cloud-outage-affected-the-global-internet/article70198208.ece

Crews, C.W. "One Internet Is Not Enough", CATO Institute, April 11, 2001, available at: www.cato.org.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.

Habermas, Jürgen (2023). A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics. John Wiley & Sons.

M. Del Vicario, A. Bessi, F. Zollo, F. Petroni, A. Scala, G. Caldarelli, H.E. Stanley, & W. Quattrociocchi, The spreading of misinformation online, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 (3) 554-559, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113 (2016).

NOCETTI, Julien. A Splintered Internet? Internet Fragmentation and the Strategies of China, Russia, India, and the European Union, IFRI

Sunstein, C. R. (2008a). Neither Hayek nor Habermas. Public Choice, 134, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9202-9

Sunstein, Cass R. (2008b). The Architecture of Serendipity. The Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/6/4/the-architecture-of-serendipity-this-years/

Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Electronic Communities: Global Villages or Cyberbalkanization? (Best Theme Paper). ICIS 1996 Proceedings, 5.