Who really owns the internet? The short answer: no one. The internet isn’t a single entity or owned by any one government, company or person. Instead, it’s a global web of infrastructure, undersea cables, data centres, servers, network protocols all working together to allow digital communication.

It is governed by collaborative bodies like ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), which help manage things like domain names and web standards.

But these bodies don’t control what people can or cannot see online. That’s where governments step in.

While no one owns the internet, almost every government is trying to control it. This is where censorship, surveillance, and the push for data localisation begin.

The Internet May Be Global, But Rules Are Local

Every country enforces its own laws on what content can be accessed, stored, or shared within its borders. So your experience of the internet differs dramatically depending on where you are.

In China, there is the infamous Great Firewall, blocking access to foreign platforms like Google, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram. All domestic content is closely monitored.

Russia has created a state-run internet system that can isolate itself from the global web. Iran frequently cuts off internet access entirely during protests.

India has issued hundreds of takedown notices to platforms like Twitter and YouTube, and leads the world in the number of internet shutdowns.

Even democracies are leaning heavily into regulation. The European Union has the strictest privacy law in the world the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) that sets the tone for how global companies must treat user data.

The Push for Data Localization

Data localisation refers to storing data generated within a country inside its own borders. Governments say this ensures better control over sensitive citizen data, boosts national security, and allows faster access for law enforcement when needed.

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP)S passed in 2023, mandates that certain types of data must be stored within India. This aligns with a global trend. Russia, China, Brazil, Indonesia and others have already enforced or are considering similar localisation rules.

Technology companies, on the other hand, have pushed back. They argue that localisation makes it harder to operate efficiently, increases compliance costs, and breaks the global structure of the internet. If every country wants its own internet, they say, the idea of a borderless web collapses.

The Rise of the Splinternet

We are already living in a fractured digital world. The internet is no longer uniform. It is splintering becoming the “Splinternet" where countries build and operate their own versions of the internet based on their political values, laws, and technological capacity.

In China, users rely on WeChat, Baidu, and Alibaba. In the US, platforms like Google, Meta, and Amazon dominate.

In Europe, digital access comes with tight regulations on data and AI. India is walking its own path, enforcing takedowns, regulating content, and drafting legislation to promote data sovereignty.

The more these differences grow, the harder it becomes to treat the internet as a single global space. What was once designed as a free, open, decentralised system is increasingly being carved into national zones of control.

Why This Matters to the Average User

For Indian users, the impact is becoming real. Content that is available elsewhere may not be accessible in India. Cross-border purchases may be restricted due to localisation rules.

VPN services might face legal scrutiny. Social media platforms may be forced to take down posts that the government finds objectionable.

The more governments intervene, the more your experience online becomes shaped by domestic policy not global standards. And in some cases, your freedom to speak, post, or access information is also subject to sudden removal.

What’s at Stake

Governments argue that regulation is necessary to ensure safety, national security, and ethical digital practices. But critics warn that too much control risks turning the internet into a tool of surveillance, censorship, and control.

Companies are caught in the middle, trying to operate across borders while complying with dozens of conflicting national laws. Users are the ones who ultimately lose out, as access, innovation, and openness get traded for control, censorship, and restrictions.

There are global conversations underway, such as the UN’s proposed Global Digital Compact to standardise rules around data, AI, and online freedoms. But these are slow processes, and the technology is moving faster than the diplomacy.

The Bigger Picture

At its core, this debate is about power. Who gets to decide what you see, what you say, and where your data goes? What began as a tool of global connection is now a battlefield of digital sovereignty, corporate interest, and political agendas.

As India continues to build its digital economy, from UPI to data centres, the question isn’t just about owning infrastructure. It’s about whether the internet will remain free, fair, and open, or if it will become another tool of control, defined by borders, firewalls, and fine print.