Friday open thread: activities in incongruous places
Feb. 27th, 2026 01:44 pmSo my prompt for this week's open thread is:
What examples of activities taking place in wildly incongruous spaces have you encountered?
Audiobook narrated by Steven Crossley
The first Oxford Time Travel book is a collection of short stories, the second is Doomsday Book, read and reviewed earlier this month. This is the third which I was persuaded to try because (unlike Doomsday) it’s supposedly light and frothy, and it also won the Hugo and Locus Awards in 1999. And indeed it has elements of Three Men in a Boat meets Dr Who. Ned Henry, one of Oxford’s time-travelling historians, is searching for the Bishop’s Bird Stump, a (fictional) vase lost in the wartime bombing of Coventry Cathedral, in order to please Lady Schrapnell who holds the purse strings of the project to rebuild the cathedral. He’s been sent hither and thither to jumble sales and air-raids that he’s impossibly time-lagged and brain-fogged, so to get him safely out of the way his professor (Dunworthy whom we met in Doomsday Book) sends him back to Oxford 1888 for a relaxing fortnight beside the River Thames. He goes through the veil somewhat precipitously to get away from Lady Schrapnell, ill-prepared and barely taking in his instructions. Thus he makes a mess of his first encounter, fails to do something important and ends up on the river with an Oxford undergrad, Terence St Trewes, and a dotty history professor. Eventually he manages to meet up with his contact (the lovely Verity) and ends up a guest in a country house belonging to a bunch of Lady Schrapnell’s great-great-many-times-great-grands with the beautiful but vapid Tossie who speaks in diddums-diddums baby talk, her goldfish-fancying father and a scarily Schrapnell-like mother, plus the family butler, the Jeeves-like Baine. Thus the romantic comedy is set as Ned and Verity try to put right a variance in the space-time continuum which they accidentally caused in the first place. The Bishop’s Bird Stump is constantly bubbling away in the background as it’s a pivotal object that changes Tossie’s life. The book is light, but not a comedy in the laugh-out-loud sense, more slightly quirky and absurdist. Yes, there’s a dog (Cyril the bulldog) and a goldfish-eating cat (Princess Arjumand). Steven Crossley reads it well in an RP accent, with a good range of voices. You’re never far from hearing Lady Bracknell in a raft of imperious women from the book’s present (2057) to Victorian England. And, of course, all is well in the end with the bird stump found, and the right lovers paired up, more thanks to time itself than the hapless Ned. Connie Willis captures the Three-Men-in-a-Boat vibe very well
Audiobook narrated by Chris Devon.
Adam Catchpole is a science fiction author whose book sales are slipping. He’s in financial difficulties and spiralling into depression. His agent suggests writing in a different genre, and the popular market trends are spicy romances and Christmas stories. Though he hates Christmas, he reluctantly starts a novel. An odd incident involving a dance and drama school, sets him off reconnecting with the world and he find that as soon as he opens himself up to new experiences and new people, he starts to rebuild himself. There’s also a childhood backstory which reveals why Adam hates Christmas. His own story is that of a Christmas novel – slightly schmaltzy and feel-good. A cosy story, if you’re in the mood. Chris Devon reads it very well. I’m not sure if his accent is Manx (which is where the book is set) but it’s definitely an accent, and the book is all the better for it.
Iran is slowly emerging from the most severe communications blackout in its history and one of the longest in the world. Triggered as part of January’s government crackdown against citizen protests nationwide, the regime implemented an internet shutdown that transcends the standard definition of internet censorship. This was not merely blocking social media or foreign websites; it was a total communications shutdown.
Unlike previous Iranian internet shutdowns where Iran’s domestic intranet—the National Information Network (NIN)—remained functional to keep the banking and administrative sectors running, the 2026 blackout disrupted local infrastructure as well. Mobile networks, text messaging services, and landlines were disabled—even Starlink was blocked. And when a few domestic services became available, the state surgically removed social features, such as comment sections on news sites and chat boxes in online marketplaces. The objective seems clear. The Iranian government aimed to atomize the population, preventing not just the flow of information out of the country but the coordination of any activity within it.
This escalation marks a strategic shift from the shutdown observed during the “12-Day War” with Israel in mid-2025. Then, the government primarily blocked particular types of traffic while leaving the underlying internet remaining available. The regime’s actions this year entailed a more brute-force approach to internet censorship, where both the physical and logical layers of connectivity were dismantled.
The ability to disconnect a population is a feature of modern authoritarian network design. When a government treats connectivity as a faucet it can turn off at will, it asserts that the right to speak, assemble, and access information is revocable. The human right to the internet is not just about bandwidth; it is about the right to exist within the modern public square. Iran’s actions deny its citizens this existence, reducing them to subjects who can be silenced—and authoritarian governments elsewhere are taking note.
The current blackout is not an isolated panic reaction but a stress test for a long-term strategy, say advocacy groups—a two-tiered or “class-based” internet known as Internet-e-Tabaqati. Iran’s Supreme Council of Cyberspace, the country’s highest internet policy body, has been laying the legal and technical groundwork for this since 2009.
In July 2025, the council passed a regulation formally institutionalizing a two-tiered hierarchy. Under this system, access to the global internet is no longer a default for citizens, but instead a privilege granted based on loyalty and professional necessity. The implementation includes such things as “white SIM cards“: special mobile lines issued to government officials, security forces, and approved journalists that bypass the state’s filtering apparatus entirely.
While ordinary Iranians are forced to navigate a maze of unstable VPNs and blocked ports, holders of white SIMs enjoy unrestricted access to Instagram, Telegram, and WhatsApp. This tiered access is further enforced through whitelisting at the data center level, creating a digital apartheid where connectivity is a reward for compliance. The regime’s goal is to make the cost of a general shutdown manageable by ensuring that the state and its loyalists remain connected while plunging the public into darkness. (In the latest shutdown, for instance, white SIM holders regained connectivity earlier than the general population.)
The technical architecture of Iran’s shutdown reveals its primary purpose: social control through isolation. Over the years, the regime has learned that simple censorship—blocking specific URLs—is insufficient against a tech-savvy population armed with circumvention tools. The answer instead has been to build a “sovereign” network structure that allows for granular control.
By disabling local communication channels, the state prevents the “swarm” dynamics of modern unrest, where small protests coalesce into large movements through real-time coordination. In this way, the shutdown breaks the psychological momentum of the protests. The blocking of chat functions in nonpolitical apps (like ridesharing or shopping platforms) illustrates the regime’s paranoia: Any channel that allows two people to exchange text is seen as a threat.
The United Nations and various international bodies have increasingly recognized internet access as an enabler of other fundamental human rights. In the context of Iran, the internet is the only independent witness to history. By severing it, the regime creates a zone of impunity where atrocities can be committed without immediate consequence.
Iran’s digital repression model is distinct from, and in some ways more dangerous than, China’s “Great Firewall.” China built its digital ecosystem from the ground up with sovereignty in mind, creating domestic alternatives like WeChat and Weibo that it fully controls. Iran, by contrast, is building its controls on top of the standard global internet infrastructure.
Unlike China’s censorship regime, Iran’s overlay model is highly exportable. It demonstrates to other authoritarian regimes that they can still achieve high levels of control by retrofitting their existing networks. We are already seeing signs of “authoritarian learning,” where techniques tested in Tehran are being studied by regimes in unstable democracies and dictatorships alike. The most recent shutdown in Afghanistan, for example, was more sophisticated than previous ones. If Iran succeeds in normalizing tiered access to the internet, we can expect to see similar white SIM policies and tiered access models proliferate globally.
The international community must move beyond condemnation and treat connectivity as a humanitarian imperative. A coalition of civil society organizations has already launched a campaign calling for “direct-to-cell” (D2C) satellite connectivity. Unlike traditional satellite internet, which requires conspicuous and expensive dishes such as Starlink terminals, D2C technology connects directly to standard smartphones and is much more resilient to infrastructure shutdowns. The technology works; all it requires is implementation.
This is a technological measure, but it has a strong policy component as well. Regulators should require satellite providers to include humanitarian access protocols in their licensing, ensuring that services can be activated for civilians in designated crisis zones. Governments, particularly the United States, should ensure that technology sanctions do not inadvertently block the hardware and software needed to circumvent censorship. General licenses should be expanded to cover satellite connectivity explicitly. And funding should be directed toward technologies that are harder to whitelist or block, such as mesh networks and D2C solutions that bypass the choke points of state-controlled ISPs.
Deliberate internet shutdowns are commonplace throughout the world. The 2026 shutdown in Iran is a glimpse into a fractured internet. If we are to end countries’ ability to limit access to the rest of the world for their populations, we need to build resolute architectures. They don’t solve the problem, but they do give people in repressive countries a fighting chance.
This essay originally appeared in Foreign Policy.