Internet or internets? – The relation between the world wide web and the “local”

When you think about the social impact of the Internet in the world, it is common the interpretation that it has served as a boost to homogeneous globalization, dissolving physical boundaries through a facilitated communication and dissemination of content. But the internet is really producing a global cultural uniformity? It’s not wthat have shown the research of the French sociologist Frédéric Martel. His hypothesis is that in spite of using social networking platforms, software and global infrastructure, most of the produced web content turns out to be regional. In other words, factors such as language, cultural identity and geographic boundaries are also important elements in the use of Internet. There would be the Internet, with an “i” capital, but a “diversity of internets”.

Martel confirms his hypothesis through a qualitative field research carried out by him, which covered about 50 countries spread across 5 continents, published in his book Smart in 2014. The researcher does not deny that there is a widespread use of mainstream culture on the Internet but points out that it would not be the dominant phenomenon in the network. One can take as an example the Netflix streaming service, which, in 2016, announced to be present in about 190 countries. At first, this fact seems to highlight the strength of the American cultural industry, since much of the content provided by the company was produced in the US. However, in certain markets such as India, Netflix has found it difficult to compete with similar streaming services that offer locally produced content. So, in order to settle in diverse markets, the company has sought to implement a regional productions financing policy (think global, act local).

Therefore, this global network of computers would not immediately result in a proccess of cultural and linguistic uniformization. Its connection with territory does not mean a specific country but the idea of a physical or abstract space linked to a community that shares a common language, culture or subculture (Geeks, hip hop, etc) or even a solidary international movement (#jesuischarlie). Such similarities are the guiding force behind conversations and exchanges done through the Internet. A clear example can be found on Facebook: it boasts over 1.5 billion users but most connections are determined by their territorial insertion. Their interactions happen mainly with people they know in real life, in their city or in their job, and their feeds end up directing them towards their own tastes and personal views and so the user is rarely seen interacting with people from different cultures or places around the globe. This would give birth to the so-called ideological bubble. One of Facebook’s founders , Chris Hughes makes the importance of the local evident through his mantra: Keep it Simple, Keep it Local. To Martel, it was such attention to differences that made services such as Twitter, Google and Wikipedia become a global success.

Another example in which “community” presents itself as a determining factor are relationship apps: JDate is a service aimed at jews, Gaydar focuses on homossexual dates; Al Asira seeks to provide the service for muslims and claims to follow sharia principles; bharatrimony.com tries to form indian couples according to caste hierarchies. Therefore, these global tools which were expected to weaken local cultures, either in a physical or abstract manner, ends up strenghtening them.

This phenomenon is also observed in other areas such as e-commerce, marketing and online advertising and is expected to also happen in education and health. Martel’s metaphor of Coca-Cola and the Internet becomes then really explicatory: The brand was known for being  global and uniform product, however since the 1980’s it started diversifying its production and advertisement to focus on adapting to local markets.

Martel concludes that a standardized Internet and borderless digital globalization are not seen in reality, but rather what is seen are many “Internets”, characterized by localization, community and customization of connections between diverse groups and individuals.