The blueprint of control – ancient military strategy and digital walled gardens
What does Julius Caesar have to do with tech platforms?
More than two millennia ago, Caesar used a strategy of double circumvallation, surrounding and then choking them with a double defensive barrier, to defeat the Gaul’s at the Battle of Alesia. Tech platforms use a similar strategy of ‘walled gardens’ to entrench their user base, while deterring competitors and regulators.
As an entrepreneur running a small business selling hand block-printed textiles, and a qualitative researcher deeply familiar with how algorithms shape opportunities and livelihoods, I’ve directly experienced and observed how these strategies play out.
Caesar’s strategy provides a blueprint for understanding the deliberate construction and strategic purpose of walled gardens by dominant and emerging tech platforms.
In this article, I explore Caesar’s strategy to draw parallels with how tech companies construct inner walls to trap users, and outer walls to stave off rivals; ultimately revealing the strategic imperative behind digital fortifications.
Ancient blueprint: Caesar’s strategy
Julius Caesar confronted the Gauls, led by Vercingetorix, at the battle of Alesia. By Caesar’s account, the Gauls had superior numbers and occupied higher ground. As they waited for Caesar to launch an attack, Caesar laid siege by constructing a wall around them. Vercingetorix managed to send riders out to bring reinforcements. Caesar’s wall, fortified with ramparts, trenches and booby traps, was designed to prevent movement. The intention was to encircle the Gauls, trap them, cut off supplies, and starve them. Over time, the Gauls would surrender. Vercingetorix’s riders were able to reach other leaders and amassed a large force. According to Julius Caesar's account, the Gauls numbered more than 250,000. This large army was now marching on Caesar's position, and his army was outnumbered.
In a stroke of military genius, Caesar ordered the construction of an outer wall around himself and his army. Although outnumbered, this strategy of building two walls helped Caesar on two fronts. First, it held Vercingetorix captive, restricted his movements, and cut off supplies. Second, it helped Caesar defend his position and forces from an external threat. From his position, Caesar mounted daring attacks and strategically deployed cavalry. Caesar marshalled his resources and identified capable leaders like Mark Anthony to help him.
The outcome? Vercingetorix surrendered after an intense battle and Caesar was victorious. Of course, much of what we know about the battle is from Caesar’s own account. Experts claim that Caesar may have exaggerated the size of the Gaul army, to advance his own political ambitions. Nonetheless, this strategy is employed by tech platforms in their construction of ‘walled gardens’.
What are digital walled gardens?
‘Walled gardens’ are closed digital ecosystems that prevent users moving from one platform to another. These ‘walled gardens’ promise a virtual ‘garden of Eden’ with abundance, prosperity, and convenience, but in fact, trap users within their confines.
The digital analogue: the inner wall
Like Caesar’s inner wall, tech companies lock users into their ecosystems through the platform’s affordances, data lock-in, design, high-switching costs, and default settings.
Affordances refer to the possible actions a user can take within the confines of the platform. A platform may allow you to upload a picture, video, text, or a combination of all three. It may allow you to like, share, or block a piece of content. It may allow you to send and receive messages (text, voice, or video). It may allow you to create or join groups that interest you.
However, the design and architecture of these platforms are not neutral. They shape social behaviour and interaction. The algorithms also tend to reinforce negative thought and behaviour patterns. Algorithmic feeds afford visibility to certain types of content and marginalise others, often in ways that benefit the owners of the platform.
A platform’s affordances are often designed to restrict the agency of its users.
Data lock-in
Let’s say that you have, through skill, planning, and consistent effort, managed to acquire followers or customers on a platform. A user cannot expect to take those followers to another platform. The content created cannot be moved from one platform to another without significant difficulty. Your data is locked in. One more way in which platforms restrict your movement.
The Hotel California problem
Commonly used in the taxonomy of deceptive designs, Hotel California problem describes the challenge when the design of interfaces makes it easy to sign up but difficult to unsubscribe or delete one’s account. Once someone has signed up to a platform, they often find it difficult to leave.
Default settings and pre-installation
Most new phones come with apps preinstalled. Android phones come pre-installed with Google's suite of applications and iPhones come preinstalled with Apple’s. This convenience is a trap. While there is an illusion of choice, the user is locked into a tech platform with the initial purchase. These are some of the mechanisms by which platforms restrict movement.
The outer wall
The outer wall, in the digital realm, is primarily constructed to fend off rivals and deter new entrants who might challenge their established dominance. Just as Caesar needed to defend against external relief forces, tech giants strategically build barriers to maintain their control over the digital landscape.
APIs are gates that allow select users with keys to operate within the garden. The API's are not an ‘all-access’ pass. It allows some people access to specific parts of the garden. Tech platforms are selective about who they partner with and choose allies judiciously. APIs allow tech platforms to control what information flows out of the garden.
Strategic acquisitions prevent fair competition
Dominant tech platforms can make strategic acquisitions that limit or restrict competition. These acquisitions are specifically targeting emerging competitors and potential disruptors that could offer alternatives to their walled garden. For instance, Facebook acquired Instagram and WhatsApp, which allow for ecosystem expansion and prevent healthy competition. This further strengthens the ‘outer wall’ constructed by platforms.
Legal and lobbying efforts
Tech leaders and heads of tech companies have vigorously discouraged government oversight and regulation. Their public argument often centres on the idea that unlimited and unrestricted access to data is essential to create digital utopias, capable of solving global challenges from hunger to climate change. However, a critical examination reveals that this push to prevent oversight and regulation also serves a strategic imperative: it allows them to protect their vast data monopolies, maintain proprietary control over their ecosystems, and ensure unchecked revenue streams from advertising and user data. Their significant lobbying efforts are not just about fostering innovation but about preserving the very 'architecture of control' that defines their walled gardens.
Conclusion
Julius Caesar defeated his enemies by encircling them, preventing movement, and cutting off their supplies. He used the fortifications to keep enemies at bay. Tech overlords do the same, except, in the 21st century, the victims of these tactics are their users. What started as a digital utopia in the early 21st century now bears more similarities to prison wards with 24/7 surveillance. These inner and outer digital walls serve tech companies to maintain their control, securing their user base while holding off competitors. Users who are lured into these gardens with the promise of abundance, prosperity, freedom, and convenience are now held captive.
The Internet was supposed to be a haven of prosperity which offered a level playing field and equal opportunities for its denizens. That has changed with Web 2.0. Early adopters of the technology were able to stake claims to large swaths of real estate. New entrants to the garden must now scramble to carve out niches for themselves. The walled garden is now overcrowded. The inequalities that exist in the real world have found their way into the walled garden. The ability to accumulate social capital, exploit opportunities within networks, and convert social capital into economic capital is key to thriving in the garden. For newcomers, this is a Herculean task. The real question is, does it make sense for those on the other side of the digital divide to be brought into these walled gardens? Can lessons be learned from Web 2.0 to create new havens for those not yet trapped within the walled gardens? Should we think of digital public infrastructure that functions differently from the walled gardens?