It’s time to let go of the global internet dream

Receive free Technology regulation updates

We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest Technology regulation news every morning.

The writer is international policy director at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center and serves as special adviser to Margrethe Vestager

Questions about how to prevent the fragmentation of the internet ignore the fact that the promise of a truly international web is splintering around us. Censorship, attacks on digital infrastructure and geopolitical competition between online governance models are all fracturing this long-held ideal. Hanging on to the dream now is not just unrealistic — it can also lead to harmful inaction. 

The idea of an open internet was electrifying when it first entered public consciousness: this decentralised infrastructure would allow people to connect, access information and share thoughts, free from political control. As such, it would challenge power monopolies, whether by governments, corporations or media conglomerates. 

Advocating for an open internet became a principle adopted by democratic governments around the world. Most recently, the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, released by the White House in 2022, was endorsed by more than 60 governments “who actively support a future for the Internet that is an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure”.

But even such a well-intentioned statement has not been able to prevent schisms created by varying national regulation, dominant corporate gatekeepers such as Meta and Google, and outright censorship.

Authoritarian countries such as Iran, Russia and China have brought the internet back under state control by banning certain websites and monitoring the inflow of information from western sources. At the same time, they flood citizens with propaganda and deploy sophisticated surveillance systems. But while these countries excel at online repression, they are far from the only ones disrupting the flow of the open internet.

India has led the world in internet shutdowns for five straight years. And Tunisia, once the most digitally liberal state in the Arab world, last year passed a broad cyber crime law that allows the state to restrict access to key websites.

Meanwhile in democratic states, government policies are increasingly regulating corporate and individual online behaviour. Several US states and universities have banned the use of TikTok on official devices, due to concerns around espionage and manipulation. The EU has adopted strict data-protection rules and regulations guaranteeing net neutrality. Ad hoc interventions for national security reasons, domestic economic policies or the adoption of laws to safeguard civil liberties that are decided without co-ordination exacerbate the patchwork of rules that create a variety of online experiences.

Support for an open internet without the policies to match is an unhelpful stance, which stands in the way of much needed governance from democratic states. For instance, before evangelising about internet freedom on a global stage, democratic governments must ensure that the regulations they themselves impose are well-founded and appropriately scoped. And they must be clear on when and why they have taken measures that make the internet less open.

An international commitment to ensuring universal human rights are protected in the digital realm would also go a long way. Governments that regulate based on the rule of law do so with democratic legitimacy, which is fundamentally different from state agencies using rules and technologies for repression. That difference should be clarified.

Democratic governments must also agree on some global ground rules. These should include commitments not to block internet access and to invest in public digital infrastructure in order to limit over-dependence on powerful private companies. These pacts must have teeth: violators should face sanctions. 

Finally, there need to be better protections of the internet’s delicate physical infrastructure, such as undersea cables. The internet stack resembles a Jenga tower, and undersea cables lie at the bottom. One successful attack could send the entire stack tumbling down. The University of California, San Diego found that around a quarter of the world’s population relies on internet connections that are vulnerable to attack. Democracies should establish a clear framework for the governance of undersea cables and install more robust defences around them.

Today’s geopolitics have moved us away from the dream of an open, global internet, rather than towards it. Instead of indulging in nostalgia or resigning themselves to this new reality, democratic countries should set out their vision for a safer, better alternative — and take steps to heal the ideological divides that are preventing it.