In Protocol:  How Control Exists after Decentraliziation Alexander Galloway discusses the nature of the Internet. Galloway borrows Delueze and Guattari’s discussion of the rhizome to explain the decentralized nature of the Internet.  The Rhizome is a perfect object to use in any discussion of the Internet, so I will continue using that metaphor- but I am going to discuss the Internet in terms for how it functioned as a catalyst of social change in the uprisings in the Middle East.

Galloway explains that the Internet was designed primarily as a military tool and that it was decentralized in order to limit its ability to be damaged.  Galloway points out that “the simplest network diagram is the centralized network” wherein all of the nodes lead to a central hub.  I am reminded of the phrase “all roads lead to Rome” when thinking of the bicycle wheel like image of the centralized network.  A decentralized network is quite the opposite of this.  The decentralized network facilitates ‘work arounds’ (my words) in order to create a multiplicity of ways for one node to connect to another.

During the uprisings in Egypt the government sought to limit the peoples use of the Internet.  But, the Internet does not have an off button.  In order to limit Internet use, the Egyptian government went to the four largest Internet providers in the area and modified the code to take various isp’s off line.  If these things can be quantified then it has been argued that Egypt put approximately 93% of its Internet users off the grid.  Those that remained were the likes of the computers that measure the Egyptian stock market. 

Apparently cutting the Internet off in Egypt was relatively easy because there were only four isp providers.  In the United States many more companies would have to be dealt with in order to cut off the Internet.  While some members of congress have discussed creating an emergency off button for the Internet in case of an Internet emergency, this would be difficult logistically (Slate). 

In the case of the Egyptian government, I expect some crafty souls were able to work around the limitations.  But, ultimately the way that Egypt sought to turn of the Internet was very effective because they limited the kinds of websites that could be searched very drastically.  This case study makes an interesting case for the constructed nature of the Internet.  As long as it is free to run wild there is no beginning or end and it cannot practically be removed in a centralized way.  But, if you limit each individual’s ability to get to any given node they cannot get to another one regardless of the capacity that exists. 

Galloway does a nice way of describing the different technical jargon associated with TCP’s, DNS and IP’s.  A point being though that while the internet is decentralized and capable of creating a multiplicity of pathways to create communication, ultimately it can be turned off.  Spooky huh?