No election legitimizes Meta’s content policy team or Uniswap’s front-end developers. While users can exit (leave the platform), exit is costly and often impossible when internapolitan decisions affect access to essential services (e.g., banking, communication, mobility).
Internapolicity, digital governance, platform sovereignty, algorithmic policy, hybrid jurisdiction. 1. Introduction In 2023, a social media platform permanently suspended a political candidate’s account for incitement. No state court ordered the suspension. No treaty governed it. The decision was made by an internal policy team guided by community standards, enforced by code, and reviewed by a quasi-judicial board funded by the corporation itself. This event—repeated thousands of times daily—reveals a profound transformation: the rise of internapolicity . internapolicity
In 2022, a decentralized exchange (Uniswap) front-end interface blacklisted 253 wallet addresses allegedly linked to stolen funds. No court order existed. The policy was embedded in the interface’s code. Users in those wallets could not trade. This is internapolicity: policy as executable logic. 3.2 Contractual Citizenship Traditional citizenship is ascribed by birth or naturalization. Internapolitan membership, by contrast, is contractual and revocable . By clicking “I agree” to a Terms of Service (ToS), a user enters a private polity. The ToS is its constitution; the community guidelines are its statutes; the internal appeals board is its judiciary. Violation leads not to prison but to deplatforming —exile from the internapolitan space. No election legitimizes Meta’s content policy team or
None declared.
Algorithmic norm-setting often lacks explainability. A user whose wallet is frozen may never receive a specific policy citation—only a message: “activity inconsistent with our terms.” No treaty governed it