The architecture of the internet is changing as the political concepts that underpin it also change. While the term “ideology” can have negative connotations, in this case it is neutral, referring to the framework of concepts and beliefs that guides decisionmaking. The ideology undergirding the internet has been changing for some time in the direction of greater sovereign control of networks and network activities. This has not come without tensions, but the real risk from expanding sovereignty is not many separate internets but a fragmentation of governance, where the underlying protocols would still support global connectivity, but connectivity overlaid with many uncoordinated and often dissonant rules for data, privacy, and security.

The internet was commercialized soon after the end of the Cold War, when there seemed to be an emerging global consensus that governance would follow the norms of market democracies—the role of government would shrink in a world where the antiquated “weary giants of flesh and steel” were unnecessary. It is easy to mock these views, but not too long ago, they were very powerful, part of a larger millennial utopianism that possessed many technocrats and some analysts of foreign policy. Increased international tension, a resurgence of nationalism, and failures to deliver security and privacy have undermined this original ideology.

An evolution in internet ideology was inevitable as the number of users and uses expanded and as its importance as an infrastructure increased immensely. The internet was an American creation, and American values of openness and free speech (shared by many, but not all countries) shaped the internet’s technology and governance, often in ways that worked against sovereign control. The issue before us is not how to preserve an illusory commons but how to shape state action intended to serve national interests, recognizing that the interests of all nations do not necessarily coincide, in ways that minimize damage to global connectivity.