What is a network?
Given how many things we use that term to describe, surprisingly little consensus exists about what it actually means. Connections, sure. But connections to what, and what kind of connections? With no clear-cut answers, interdisciplinary research has often been stunted by conflicts pitting syntax (i.e. neuroscience, archeology, genetics) against semantics (psychology; anthropology; epigenetics), in the battle for ideological supremacy.
Hu enters squarely on the semantic "B-team". For him, networks are central, but hardly the end all be all of modern media. Rather the important thing is how they are mediated, and become intelligible as an abstract but accurate political force.
Drawing on the "cloud" metaphor -- deployed initially by Bell Labs engineers, then given new life by Apple, Google and Amazon -- Hu argues for the existence of a "third space" mediating relationships between the virtual and material worlds. Key here is the cloud's ambiguous composition. Halfway between metaphor and artifact, it is both a material and immaterial place -- the shared home of all connected objects, on all Internets, ever.
If this seems peculiar, it actually has quite a bit of precedent. Think of what physicists call "the Universe": we don't really know what, or even if it is. All we really can say for sure is that it is where everything we know, and possibly ever will, seems to live. Theoretically speaking, this gives us the foundation on which to erect a systems map for global media: networks (core) sit inside of the cloud (periphery), each (re)producing and also (re)produced by the other.
How much this matters depends on your comfortability with essentialized abstractions. Early on, Hu recalls the time, while repairing network cables in early-90s Silicon Valley, he almost blinded himself by glancing into the open end of a live fibre-optic. The lesson is clear: stare too deeply into the network, and you will lose sight altogether ["That I can still see today is a testament to both to my dumb luck and, metaphorically, to the paradox that the cloud represents: that you can never see it by looking directly at it" (xx)].
But the argument here is essentially strategic. Ultimately, the cloud is still a way of interfacing with "the network" -- whose existence and singularity we simply take for granted*. Stepping back from the network, as an analytic, helps us see it as a historically constructed artifact. But it also creates an imperative to define what the network actually is. Are all networks, "the network"? And how can we prove it, without staring into the frayed ends of live cables?
* To his credit, Hu notes this problem and cautions against it -- but also fails to locate a way around it.