The decline of the open and interoperable nature of the Internet is a topic of concern for many technical individuals. The centralization of services by major technology companies, the restrictions imposed on users, and the measures taken by governments to regulate online content all contribute to the decline of a unified worldwide Internet. While it may seem that the open web is dying, it is important to examine the positive changes that are also taking place.

The centralization of services and user data by major technology companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft is a significant factor in the decline of the open web. These companies are implementing measures to keep their users within their respective ecosystems, limiting their access to certain parts of the Internet. Using proprietary web browsers, such as Safari on iOS, further restricts user experience by limiting the availability of modern web app features. Google Chrome and its Blink engine also restrict ad and tracker blocking capabilities, further constraining the open internet experience.

It is not only proprietary browsers that restrict the open web but also the phone operating systems and their accompanying app stores that dictate what users can install and do on their devices. The increasing use of smartphones as the primary means of accessing the Internet exacerbates this issue. The search engines operated by major technology companies, including Google, Bing, Yandex, and Baidu, also play a role in determining which websites are prioritised and surface to the user. These engines often prioritize the services of their parent companies, further limiting the open nature of the Internet.

The algorithms employed by platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter also play a role in shaping the online experience of users by dictating what content is displayed and what is not. This further limits the open nature of the Internet. Using services from a single company, such as Google, results in a restricted view of the Internet that is shaped by the company’s vision and influenced by its advertisers. The reliance on a single application, such as Facebook or WeChat, as the sole portal to the Internet, is also a concerning trend. This exclusive use of a single app as the gateway to all online activities is limiting and potentially harmful to the user’s experience of the Internet.

The lack of interoperability between online services is another challenge to the open web. Inability to communicate with people who use different platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, hinders the free exchange of information and ideas. The lack of compatibility between messaging systems, such as iMessage and SMS or RCS, limits how users can communicate with one another. The inability to transfer data between services, even when exported from the original source, further exacerbates interoperability. Online services today contrast with the earlier days of the Internet, when chat apps, for example, relied on a single protocol and could communicate with each other regardless of the client being used.

The larger a company becomes, the more it restricts the information and content it presents to its users. This centralized control over online experiences limits access to the full scope of the Internet. While we can circumvent these restrictions, they may still influence user behavior by making it easier to access the content that the company wants the user to see. It is possible, however, to choose alternative services and break out of the closed ecosystem imposed by these large tech companies. For example, replacing Google services with other options is a viable solution that does not require significant effort.

Is it worse than censorship imposed by governments? Governmental censorship is often intended to control the flow of information and restrict access to specific material. While some censorship, such as blocking illegal content like child pornography or terrorism-related content, may be acceptable, other censorship, such as blocking websites that reference copyrighted material, is more controversial. It is important to recognize the role of governments in shaping access to information and to continue to advocate for a free and open Internet.

The growing trend of censorship by countries is becoming a major issue for the open and interoperable web. For example, India recently ordered the removal of many Chinese apps from various app stores and asked ISPs to block certain IP addresses, including the website for VLC, which is an official media player application. However, this type of action can cause the removal of safe and legitimate content, such as the official VLC application, and make it more difficult for users to access it. This highlights the need for a balance between protecting citizens and allowing for free and open access to information on the internet.

There is also government surveillance, where countries monitor what people are doing online and collect their data, often without their knowledge or consent. This can also limit people’s freedom of speech and expression online, as they may be afraid to express their opinions if they know they are being monitored. Using encryption and other privacy-enhancing technologies can help mitigate these concerns, but not everyone has access to these tools or knows how to use them effectively.

The control and censorship exercised by governments over the internet is a major threat to the free flow of information and the open web. While there may be justifications for limiting access to certain illegal or harmful material, most times, censorship goes too far, stifling free speech, and limiting access to information. This can be especially problematic in countries where the government is authoritarian or there are limited opportunities for dissent. The mass surveillance networks and data collection practices used by governments also raise significant privacy concerns and can undermine trust in the internet and the technologies used to access it. However, it’s important to remember that despite these challenges, there are also efforts to protect internet freedom and promote an open web, and people can take steps to protect their privacy and access to information online.

Internet censorship and restrictions can have a significant impact on the free flow of information and communication, as well as on businesses and the economy. The internet was designed to be an open and interconnected network, and censorship and restrictions go against its original purpose. Furthermore, government-imposed blackouts can limit access to important information, hinder freedom of expression, and have a negative impact on the economy. However, it’s important to note that censorship and restrictions may also be put in place for legitimate reasons, such as to prevent the spread of illegal or harmful content, but the balance between freedom of expression and protection from harmful content is a delicate one that requires careful consideration.

The Chinese government’s approach towards the internet poses a significant threat to the idea of an open web. Although China is connected to the internet used by the rest of the world, it operates as a one-way street where people can access Chinese websites but the Chinese cannot access much of the rest of the internet. The government limits what the Chinese people can access online and has created their own alternative internet with its own services and websites. This has earned the nickname “the great firewall of China” due to the government’s censorship of any information deemed inappropriate. People in China are unable to access anything the government deems unacceptable, making it a prime example of how censorship can restrict the open web.

China has created its own alternative version of the internet, with its own websites and services, which can be accessed only by people within the country. This is known as the “great firewall of China,” as the government censors information deemed unacceptable. Other countries may be inspired by China’s success in controlling protests and information, but to implement a similar system, they would need to build large companies that can compete with the likes of Google, Apple, and Microsoft. The concept of “digital sovereignty” has been promoted by the French government, but without the same population and economic power as China or India, it may be difficult for other countries to achieve.

In North Korea, the government has built its own Intranet that is separate from the global internet and is only accessible to a small percentage of the population. The country has strict censorship measures in place and online activities are heavily monitored.

However, there are some differences in the ways that China and North Korea manage their citizens’ access to technology. For example, in China, citizens can access some foreign websites and use international social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, although their use is restricted and monitored. In contrast, in North Korea, there is virtually no access to the global internet and citizens can only access a limited version of the country’s intranet.

Another difference is the level of enforcement in the two countries. While both China and North Korea are known for strict enforcement of their tech management policies, North Korea is considered having a higher level of enforcement, with punishments for violating internet usage policies being more severe.

While China and North Korea have similar goals to limit the flow of information, the ways they manage and restrict access to technology, including the internet and social apps, differ in their tools, the level of access granted to citizens, and the level of enforcement.

In Cuba, the government regulates and controls the internet and technology, including chat and social apps. The use of the internet and technology is limited and heavily monitored by the government, with restrictions on what can be accessed and shared online. The government also restricts access to the internet and many popular websites and social media platforms are blocked. Despite this, some people can access the internet through illegal means, but this is often limited and slow because of the lack of infrastructure in the country.

The centralisation of services and the restriction of access to information by both big tech companies and governments are having a negative impact on the open web. To preserve the open and connected nature of the internet, it is important to promote the use of open-source technologies and encourage competition among technology companies, and to fight against government censorship and surveillance by advocating for privacy and data protection laws.

Decentralized services are providing hope for the future of the internet, offering alternatives to centralized and closed networks. One example of such a service is Mastodon, a federated decentralized network that offers a substitute for Twitter and can connect with other platforms like Pixel Fed, WordPress, Spiritube, Caster Pod, and others. Although these services remain relatively small compared to giants like Twitter, Mastodon has proven to be successful both in terms of user experience and financially. However, it requires the choice of a server to create an account, adding to the list of choices users must make regarding their internet access provider, email provider, phone manufacturer, and desktop operating system.

Various laws are being established to force big tech firms to reduce control over their platforms or app stores. For instance, in the EU, Apple is required to make iMessage interoperable and permit third-party app stores on iOS. The result is a decline in the internet’s openness and a lack of control over the information we can access. Although the power of big tech companies is slowly being reduced in some regions, this decline in the open internet continues. However, there are decentralised alternatives to major social networks that may offer a way to break the filter bubble companies’ attempts to impose on users.

Which is worse? Living in an autocratic state where you know the Government is censoring you free access to information? Or living in a free state where you do not know what information is being withheld from you?