A global shift toward tighter internet regulation is accelerating, with nations across the political spectrum implementing new controls on digital platforms, according to analysts. This trend, described by some observers as a “cyber-thermidorian reaction,” sees countries moving from earlier periods of relative openness toward more constrained digital environments.
The term references the historical Thermidorian Reaction, where revolutionary fervor gave way to conservative retrenchment. Applied to the internet, it highlights a worldwide pattern: after initial exuberance about an open web, states are now asserting greater control.
China is frequently cited as an early and comprehensive example. Its “Great Firewall,” a system of censorship and filtering, was launched in the late 1990s and has evolved into a tightly managed national internet ecosystem. More recently, Russia has enacted “sovereign internet” laws enabling state oversight and potential isolation from the global web. Iran has also employed temporary nationwide internet blackouts during periods of civil unrest.
However, this regulatory tightening is not confined to nations often criticized by Western democracies. In recent years, the European Union has advanced the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), imposing stringent accountability and content moderation requirements on major platforms. National actions include France summoning tech executives for hearings and the broader European debate over regulating platforms like X (formerly Twitter). In the United Kingdom, new online safety laws criminalize certain forms of harmful communication.
Analysts link this shift in liberal democracies to several recent catalysts: the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw debates over misinformation and public health messaging; the “Twitter Files” revelations about platform moderation; geopolitical tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; and high-profile scandals that eroded public trust in institutions. These events, they note, created pressure for governments to intervene more directly in digital discourse.
The mechanisms vary. Some states employ direct blocking and filtering. Others use legal pressure, financial penalties, and mandatory transparency reports. The concept of “self-censorship” by platforms, wary of massive fines, is also seen as a significant factor.
The long-term implication is a fragmentation of the internet into distinct regional spheres, often called “splinternets,” each with its own rules, dominant platforms, and information ecosystems. While some regions, like the U.S., retain strong legal protections for speech, the global momentum points toward increased state and regulatory oversight, fundamentally altering the unbordered digital landscape that characterized the early 21st century.
