By skyforbes 
How platform restrictions risk fragmenting the internet into national fiefdoms, undermining the promise of global digital connectivity
For a small artisan in rural India, the global market wasn’t a complex web of shipping lanes and tariffs; it was a 15-second video on TikTok. With a single post, their craft could be discovered by millions, turning a local workshop into a global business overnight. When India banned the platform in 2020, over 200 million users were cut off from this digital commons. While established influencers migrated to other platforms, many small entrepreneurs those with the fewest digital resources, lost everything. This isn’t just a story about a single app; it’s a preview of a splintering world, where the digital highways that connect us are being dismantled by national interests.
The ancient Silk Road connected East and West for over a millennium, facilitating not just trade but the exchange of ideas, cultures, and innovations that shaped civilizations. Today’s digital platforms serve a similar function, creating pathways for global communication and commerce that transcend traditional borders. Yet recent legislative efforts like the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which targets TikTok and similar platforms, threaten to erect digital barriers reminiscent of historical trade blockades.
This emerging trend toward platform restrictions represents more than isolated policy decisions, it signals a fundamental shift in how nations conceptualize algorithmic and digital sovereignty and governance. The implications extend far beyond any single app, raising critical questions about whether the internet will remain a global commons or fragment into nationally controlled digital territories.
The Security Imperative vs. Digital Rights
The case for platform restrictions rests on legitimate security concerns. China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law grants the government authority to compel companies like ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, to share user data with Chinese authorities. This legal framework creates genuine risks around data collection practices and potential foreign surveillance capabilities that policymakers cannot simply ignore.
Beyond data concerns, algorithmic influence operations represent a sophisticated form of information warfare. Foreign actors can leverage recommendation algorithms to conduct computational propaganda, subtly shaping political discourse through content prioritization and amplification mechanisms. These systems can target vulnerable populations and manipulate public perception of politically sensitive topics in ways that traditional media influence operations never could.
From a national security perspective, social media platforms have evolved into critical information infrastructure strategic national assets requiring sovereignty protections similar to energy or transportation systems. Their central role in public communication and information dissemination makes them potential vectors for systematic influence operations that could undermine democratic processes.
However, critics argue that platform-wide restrictions represent a disproportionate response that misunderstands the nature of digital risk. Unlike traditional content regulation, these measures apply to entire platforms, impacting all users regardless of their specific actions or content. This binary approach complete access or total ban fails to address the complexity of modern information environments and ignores more targeted interventions that could address specific harmful practices while preserving digital rights.
The Collateral Damage of Digital Fragmentation
The human cost of platform restrictions extends far beyond abstract policy debates. When India banned TikTok in 2020 over national security concerns, over 200 million users lost access overnight. While established influencers with cross-platform presence could migrate their audiences to Instagram or YouTube, many small business owners from rural areas who relied exclusively on TikTok’s unique discovery algorithm lost their primary marketing channel entirely.
This example illustrates how platform bans disproportionately impact users with fewer digital resources and alternatives, often from marginalized communities. The economic dimensions are particularly stark banning popular platforms removes entire communities from the economic opportunities developed through these digital spaces, creating new forms of digital inequality.
The precedent-setting nature of these restrictions raises additional concerns about the normalization of internet censorship. Each platform ban makes the next one easier to justify, potentially extending well beyond initial targets. As digital rights scholar Giovanni De Gregorio warns, this approach risks creating “troubling precedents for broader internet censorship” that could fundamentally alter the character of online discourse.
The Geopolitical Battle for Digital and Algorithmic Control
TikTok restrictions exemplify a broader trend toward algorithmic and digital sovereignty, where nations assert control over their citizens’ digital experiences as part of larger geopolitical contests. This movement extends far beyond the US-China relationship, with documented rising trends of “technological sovereignty” movements worldwide as different stakeholders seek to reclaim control over digital infrastructure.
The technical features that raise security concerns in Chinese-owned platforms might be viewed differently in applications from allied nations, revealing how regulatory responses are shaped not just by objective technical characteristics but by geopolitical relationships and broader anxieties about technological competition. TikTok’s data collection practices, while extensive, are not fundamentally different from many Western social media platforms that collect device identifiers, location data, usage patterns, and content preferences.
This selective enforcement undermines claims of purely security-based decision-making and raises questions about whether platform restrictions represent disguised protectionism for domestic tech companies. Data localization requirements function as digital trade barriers, often creating competitive advantages for domestic firms while imposing costs on foreign competitors. The result is what scholars describe as weaponized interdependence, where nations leverage control over digital networks to advance strategic interests beyond cybersecurity. This isn’t just about trade barriers; it’s about turning the very networks that connect us into tools of geopolitical leverage and instruments of geopolitical power.
The Inadequacy of National Solutions
The fundamental challenge lies in applying territorial governance models to inherently transnational technologies. As internet governance scholar Milton Mueller argues, digital networks destabilize territorial governance, creating a “jurisdictional paradox” where “attempts by territorial states to militarize cyberspace usually evolve into globalized surveillance and transnational cyber-operations.”
Current regulatory frameworks, developed reactively rather than proactively, fail to accommodate the borderless digital environment. Initial data governance models like OECD guidelines and ICANN were designed for earlier internet architectures and cannot adequately address modern platform ecosystems that function as critical global infrastructure.
The trend toward digital balkanization, where the internet fragments along national boundaries, would represent a significant loss for international exchange, economic opportunity, and human development. When nations treat digital platforms primarily as security threats or competitive advantages rather than shared global infrastructure, the result is a fractured digital landscape that undermines the internet’s fundamental promise of global connectivity.
Toward Transnational Digital Governance
The solution lies not in abandoning security concerns but in developing governance models that recognize digital platforms’ unique characteristics as transnational public commons. Several promising approaches have emerged from academic research and policy innovation:
- Rights-based frameworks for cross-border data flows could prioritize individual autonomy while enabling beneficial data use. These frameworks would replace binary access decisions with more sophisticated approaches that protect user rights while addressing legitimate security concerns.
- Data trusts and fiduciary models offer alternatives to current governance approaches by creating institutions that mediate between personal and collective interests. These structures could provide oversight and accountability without requiring complete platform exclusion.
- Context-sensitive transparency and user control mechanisms recognize that privacy expectations vary across social contexts and could provide users with meaningful control over their data while maintaining platform functionality.
- Infrastructure-based regulation would treat platforms as public utilities with special obligations due to their infrastructure-like qualities, similar to how telecommunications networks are regulated. This approach recognizes platforms’ role as critical infrastructure for public discourse while establishing appropriate governance frameworks.
Rather than proposing separate models in isolation, we can combine them into a coherent, multi-layered governance framework.
At the foundation is the Public Utility Principle, which asserts that digital platforms reaching a certain scale of societal influence should be regulated as essential public utilities, bringing with it obligations for transparency, accountability, and protection of user rights. Building on that, the second layer introduces the Data Fiduciary Mandate, where these digital utilities are bound by a legal fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their users. Independent data trusts would serve as oversight bodies, empowered to audit data practices and algorithmic decisions on behalf of the public. Finally, at the global level, a Multistakeholder Council would function not merely as an advisory group, but as an authoritative entity certifying platform compliance with a proposed “Digital Commons Treaty.” Platforms that meet these standards would earn a “safe harbor” status for international operation, aligning digital governance with both public interest and cross-border coordination.
The Path Forward: Digital Commons, Not Digital Walls
The most promising approach involves reconceptualizing digital platforms as protected commons rather than purely private enterprises or national security threats. This perspective aligns with what legal scholar K. Sabeel Rahman describes as recognizing platforms’ role as “infrastructures for public discourse that require special governance considerations.”
Such an approach would require international cooperation to establish baseline protections and oversight mechanisms that respect both security concerns and digital rights. As Mueller argues, internet governance requires “multistakeholder institutions” that can accommodate national interests while preserving the global nature of digital networks.
The alternative, a fragmented internet divided by national boundaries — would represent a historic retreat from the promise of global digital connectivity. Rather than creating digital versions of the Berlin Wall, policymakers should work toward what Mueller calls “transnational popular sovereignty” governance structures that transcend national boundaries while maintaining democratic accountability. This doesn’t mean ignoring legitimate security concerns or abandoning all forms of platform oversight. Instead, it requires developing more sophisticated approaches that can address specific risks through targeted interventions rather than broad restrictions that undermine the internet’s global character.
Conclusion: Preserving the Digital Silk Road
The choices made today regarding platforms like TikTok will determine the blueprint of our digital future for generations. We stand at a fork in the road. One path leads to a fractured world of digital walls, where national interests fence off the modern Silk Road, turning a vibrant global commons into a series of disconnected, nationally controlled territories. The other path leads toward transnational governance structures that are sophisticated enough to address security risks without sacrificing the promise of global connectivity. We can build digital versions of the Berlin Wall, or we can build the shared, protected infrastructure of a truly global Digital Silk Road. The choice is ours.
References
- Atlantic Council Experts. (2025, January 9). “Your Expert Guide to the Debate over Banning TikTok.” Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/your-expert-guide-to-the-debate-over-banning-tiktok/
- Balkin, J. M. (2018). “Free Speech is a Triangle.” Columbia Law Review, 118(7), 2011–2056. https://columbialawreview.org/content/free-speech-is-a-triangle/
- Britannica. (2021). “Silk Road | Facts, History, & Map.” Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Silk-Road-trade-route
- Chen Siyao, and Sun Chenghao. (2025). “What Does the TikTok Saga Reveal about China-US Relations?” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-the-tiktok-saga-reveal-about-china-us-relations/
- Congressional Research Service. (2024, December 19). “TikTok v. Garland: Constitutional Challenges to the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.” LSB11252. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11252
- Cunningham, Stuart, and David Craig, eds. Creator Culture: An Introduction to Global Social Media Entertainment. NYU Press, 2021.
- De Gregorio, Giovanni. (2020, April). “Democratising Online Content Moderation: A Constitutional Framework.” Computer Law & Security Review 36: 105374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105374
- Delacroix, Sylvie, and Neil D Lawrence. (2019). “Bottom-up data Trusts: disturbing the ‘one size fits all’ approach to data governance.” International Data Privacy Law, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz014
- Dombrowski, Peter. (2014). “‘Cyber Westphalia: Asserting State Prerogatives in Cyberspace.’” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291335219_Cyber_Westphalia_Asserting_State_Prerogatives_in_Cyberspace
- Douek, Evelyn. (2020). “Governing Online Speech: From ‘Posts-As-Trumps’ to Proportionality and Probability.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3679607