Internapolicity: //free\\

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.”

Internapolicity refers to the condition where policy (rules, sanctions, incentives) is generated internally by a non-state polity (an organized community with its own governance structures) but exercises authority over individuals and transactions that cross traditional state boundaries. Unlike international law (agreed between states) or national policy (enacted by a sovereign), internapolicity is endogenous, privatized, and technically executed. 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. Algorithmic norm-setting often lacks explainability

None declared.

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). Users in those wallets could not trade